Council should have considered objections

Published 12:48 am Friday, October 3, 2008

I have been following the cell-phone ban issue through the Valley Record. Mr. Ed Carlson’s article [April 18] has really irritated me on a number of fronts. First, at the end of his article he apologizes for being condescending toward his opponents in the past.

I really feel that this apology cannot be sincere when he continues to be condescending in the very article he is apologizing in. For example: He states that two downtown businesses were expressing a fear of business loss due to the proposed cell-phone ban at the last council meeting. Ed’s response: “If there is any evidence of this having occurred in other cities, New York state, or nations which have implemented this regulation, please share it with us so we may take your concerns into consideration.”

In other words, your fears are not justified to him until they have been documented with percentages and numbers by another city or state. Maybe when you get that statistical data, he will take you into consideration. This is very interesting. In this very same article, his response to the opposition’s concern that there is no indication of cell phones playing any role in North Bend traffic accidents is this: “A lack of statistical data about the problem is not the same thing as a lack of evidence. We don’t have statistics because we don’t collect them.” Really … so let me just get this straight here. He has no local statistical data that backs up his theory that a cell-phone ban in North Bend will equal less accidents. But at the very same time in the very same article, he is requiring statistical data from his constituents in order to be heard. Ironic, don’t you think? The very thing he requires of others he himself does not possess.

Second, national statistics can be used to justify just about any point you want to make. Here’s an example: The CDC concludes that dogs bite 4.7 million members of the U.S. population each year. The State Farm Times states that dog-attack victims in the United States suffer over $1 billion in monetary losses each year. According to the “Incidence of dog-bite injuries treated in emergency departments,” dog bites are on the rise. The number of dog-bite victims between 1986 and 1996 rose by 37 percent, even though the number of dogs in the United States only increased by two percent.

So, since apparently some people are not responsible with their dogs, I would like to propose a “dog ban” within the city limits of North Bend. Yes, I know there may be no reports of dogs causing injury to people within city limits, but look at all my statistics about what’s happening around the country. These facts must make my ban right. Yes, people aren’t going to like it, but they just don’t know what’s good for them. I have read the research, studied this issue and made what I believe to be a logical decision – no more dogs. It is my sincere hope that my dog ban will lead to a statewide dog ban.

In conclusion, this is a small town with small-town folks. If they take the time out of their busy lives to thoughtfully approach the council at a meeting, they should always have the courtesy of consideration. The council is there to represent the community, not to push through pet projects. If you will not consider our concerns, maybe you will pay attention to all the signatures on the local initiative and referendum petition. I think I’ll walk downtown with my dog and sign up.

Lisa Ronan

North Bend