Thumbs down to editorial disrespect of democracy | Letter

Published 2:00 pm Thursday, July 28, 2016

I was shocked and dismayed by the tone and substance of the negative judgments made in the July 20 Mercer Island Reporter editorial. Especially disheartening was the “thumbs down” logo superimposed on the stars and stripes, symbols ofour democracy. In a democracy, citizens have certain inalienable rights, among them freedom of speech and the right tovote. It is our privilege, and our responsibility, to exercise these rights. And it is disgraceful that a reputable paper wouldcome out objecting to citizens who are simply exercising their rights.

In fact, all of the “thumbs down” judgments reveal unsubstantiated bias based on deplorable lack of information,inexcusable for a paper that ought to pride itself on reporting with integrity based on research.

The editorial praises the School District for updating policy regarding public access to district records. Yet it lambastscitizens who are using a similar policy to obtain public records from the city. With no data to substantiate the “thumbsdown” judgment, the editorial calls these requests “abuse.” Yet public records requests made by myself and others haveyielded valuable data that have helped us analyze and understand economic, political, legal, environmental, parking andother issues underlying the proposed leasing of public parkland by a private entity.

As a member of the Protect Our Parks group, I submit that our group actually deserves a “thumbs up” for working to “limitusage of our parks” for free public parks purposes, rather than leasing public land to a private group that will chargecitizens for attendance and usage. Hundreds of citizens signed the first petition, in spite of strong opposition that wasfunded, in part, by a City Council member’s donation. In addition, the new petition is not the same as the first one — it issimpler, but has the same protections as the successful Seattle Protect Our Parks initiative. Mercer Island’s Protect OurParks group represents these concerned citizens, and others, who simply seek an Island-wide vote to determine the use ofour valuable town center parkland.

I expect either an apology from the Editorial Board for insulting citizens, or solid reporting of information that justifies thenegative judgments expressed in this poorly conceived, short-sighted editorial. I expected that the newly appointed Reporter Editorial Board would have better judgment than that expressed in this editorial, and I am disappointed that thecommunity paper, rather than promoting understanding and spreading knowledge in our community, instead promotedunsubstantiated negativity, disrespect and divisiveness based on ignorance.

Meg Lippert

Mercer Island