Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: ruston


POINT RUSTON: Why have any regulations?

Re: “‘Attitude of yes’ needed for Point Ruston progress” (editorial, 5-15).

The editorial assumes that an attitude of “yes” is needed with the Point Ruston project as it “cannot be allowed to fail.”

A bit ironic, as this project sits on one of Pierce County’s several Superfund sites. Was the smelter negotiated from a similar position of weakness? Viewed with this attitude, there is no need for regulation at all, because “the project can’t fail.”

Second, the developer was described as “assertive.” Assertive? Even the most naive person would assume the developer is out for his self-interest, and not the

Read more »


POINT RUSTON: Should arrogant developers win?

Re: “Culture clash at Point Ruston” (TNT, 5-10).

Point Ruston developers’ arrogance continually amazes me.

Not only is the City of Ruston concerned about the development, but so is the Environmental Protection Agency. The amount of money involved is no reason to allow the developer carte blanche.

Is it appropriate to accommodate in the face of potentially dangerous issues, such as inadequate rebar and propane installation? Do we want another catastrophe like the one in which the concrete fell on and killed three people?

According to the article:

• The Cohens “deviated from (the) master plan” in at least 90

Read more »


OIL: There are too many unanswered questions

The concern about safer oil tanker trains and inspection costs are a few of many concerns which must be addressed before we have more oil tankers rolling through our neighborhoods and cities.

Who will inspect the bridges for safety? Railroads don’t have to permit any inspections on bridges or tracks. What protection will people have if there is an accident and spill or explosion?

In the 2013 Quebec explosion, which killed 47 people, damages ran to almost $2 billion. The railroad company had $25 million in insurance and declared bankruptcy.

In the recent West Virginia explosion and fire, people living

Read more »


POINT RUSTON: Shame on Tacoma City Council

I attended the Tacoma City Council meeting Tuesday (TNT, 2-25) and was extremely disappointed in the majority of our elected officials.

Why are they not addressing the fact that the Point Ruston developer has continually broken rules and is not abiding by the permit requirements? The Environmental Protection Agency has expressed concerns regarding these matters. Why is the City of Tacoma not concerned?

I understand the city’s self-serving mentality; it wants this project completed as soon as possible to recoup the $31 million that was loaned out (in bonds) to this developer. But this smacks of bullying, politics and all of the other

Read more »


POINT RUSTON: Straight talk about town and developer

Re: “Developers require supervision” (letter, 2-18).

This is a lot of claptrap. In four years on Ruston’s half of Point Ruston there is not a stick showing above ground. Tacoma’s half is built out, and Point Ruston is a big taxpayer to Tacoma.

Tacoma and Ruston operate under the same set of ground rules. The difference is that Tacoma hires architects and engineers. Ruston has a penchant for lawyers. Lots of lawyers. It hired five law firms stretching from Spokane to Seattle to force its biggest taxpayer out of business. Just recently it hired two more law firms to advocate

Read more »


POINT RUSTON: Developers require supervision

I am a Ruston City Councilman, and despite what you read in this newspaper please don’t hold that against me.

I’ve read the online comments about how my little neighborhood village upon Puget Sound has everything to gain and nothing to lose from the Point Ruston development to occur unmolested. In the context of Ruston’s survival and the almighty buck, that’s true.

Tacoma has $31 million of the taxpayers’ money wrapped up in the Point Ruston development. Now the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission is investigating uninspected gas lines installed in Tacoma.

Point Ruston attempted to install a 30,000-gallon propane tank,

Read more »


POINT RUSTON: Why is Legislature intervening?

After reading the first comprehensive article about the City of Ruston v. Point Ruston developers, I wrote a letter pointing out some of the facts of the matter which ought to concern all our citizens (TNT, 2-5)

The Feb. 11 article (“Lawmakers add pressure in Ruston”) startled and upset me. Why should the state Legislature be brought in to settle what is essentially a local government dispute about issuing permits to a big money developer which is pushing the process?

The most obvious answer (to me) is that someone with a lot of clout (read, Point Ruston

Read more »


POINT RUSTON: Where’s concern for public safety?

Re: “Ruston vs. Point Ruston: Break up this fight” (editorial, 1-25).

The editorial was an egregious misrepresentation of the facts. Not only does The News Tribune editorial board not understand the matters at hand, it does not understand basic land use rules.

The ongoing public safety issues; the flouting of local, state and federal law; and the lack of concern by the City of Tacoma should be at the forefront of this discussion.

I have been able to obtain violation notices and probable violation letters to the developer from Ruston, the Environmental Protection Agency and the state Utilities and Transportation Commission. All

Read more »