Sound Food

Why should liquor license hinge on hours?

I found a portion of the article about Sound Food (“Sound Food revamps to make ends meet,” Feb. 17) very disturbing. Why does the state regulate liquor licenses relative to the number of meals that can be eaten with a knife and fork? This is a ridiculous interference of the government bureaucracy into a person’s business.

Obviously this does not create a very friendly business climate for a local Vashon business. I wonder how many other state regulations exist that hinder people’s ability to grow or start a business.

— Robert Kajca

The Beachcomber often covers “news” without being overly gossipy. Like the recent allegations against Dr. Sjardo Steneker.  

Initially, I was disappointed that the paper covered allegations without waiting for the ruling.  However, I figure our newspaper probably “has to” cover an issue like this. I do understand the “reasons” for the law and the concern. 

Then it hit me, “Hey, that’s my family’s doctor.” As in, “How will it feel for my family to have to find another doctor if he loses his license for five years?” Our kids love Dr. Steneker, and he respects our medical decisions on behalf of our kids. Shots and blood tests and stitches have gone off without a hitch. My husband and I have a healthy respect for his strengths and the limits of allopathic medicine. For us, he’s a great family doctor.  

I’m sorry that four women are feeling hurt. When deciding to take legal action, I hope these women considered all of the ramifications. And I honestly can’t judge whether they should have made these complaints or not. I will withhold judgment on them and Dr. Steneker until the court hearing.  

However, the number-one complaint of our single Islanders is, “There are no single men/women.” Trying to grow an off-Island relationship is time-consuming and expensive — sometimes impossible. These are all adults we’re talking about. If the technical aspect of the allegations are true, I’m guessing they all knew what they were doing.  

How to know right and wrong in this situation? Would Dr. Steneker losing his license be in balance with the “wrongs” he allegedly committed? There is the law, and there is the “intent” of the law. The dice are rolled. Now our family waits to see what will happen.

— March Twisdale

Rep. Sharon Nelson

She deserves accolades

I was in the House of Representatives gallery in Olympia recently when Republican lawmakers insisted upon an immediate vote for a Constitutional amendment to remove some of the rights that all defendants enjoy in our state to be released on reasonable bail while awaiting their court dates.

This currently applies in all but capital murder cases. Last year, four Lakewood police officers were murdered by a man who was released on bail.

Gov. Chris Gregoire, along with the Republicans who I heard speak that afternoon, wanted this right revoked in cases where a judge believed the defendant posed a threat to public safety. As I understand it, under this reasoning, almost anyone could be held for 60 days without a conviction.

While some Democrats, such as Rep. Roger Goodman (D-Redmond), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, gave a nuanced analysis as to why just a few additional restrictions were needed to protect defendants, our representative, Sharon Nelson, gave an impassioned plea to further protect the rights of defendants, especially poor ones who have a history of receiving less practical judicial protection than other citizens. 

Ultimately, a bill to place on the ballot a proposed change to our state Constitution passed and with only the amendment that was modestly more protective of defendants’ rights. There were 13 dissenters, including Rep. Reuven Carlyle (D-Seattle) and, of course, our own Rep. Nelson. I don’t know if Goodman was right or Nelson was right, but, by the time the House recessed that day, I knew we were represented by a woman who deeply cares about the job she was doing for us and every citizen of this state.

Thank you, Sharon Nelson!

— Gene Lipitz