Letters to the editor: Interfaith Sanctuary, Idaho legislators, recess, climate change

Interfaith Sanctuary

Interfaith Sanctuary’s proposed move to State Street has prompted various reactions and understandable questions, such as those set forth by Deborah Frank (Statesman Letters, March 15). I know that the sanctuary has good answers for those questions; as for the broader challenge of earning public trust, I can personally testify that they have already earned my trust, along with hundreds of others who have been in contact with their work for the past 10 years and more.

I urge my fellow Boiseans not to think of “the homeless” as an amorphous mass. People who don’t have houses are individuals, just like people who do have houses. They don’t swarm.

I occasionally walk down 16th Street past the Interfaith Sanctuary and Corpus Christi House. I do pass people on the sidewalk; some may be homeless, though they aren’t labeled. I have never had an unpleasant encounter with anyone there. I suppose I would meet fewer people on the sidewalk if Interfaith and Corpus Christi had bigger facilities.

Please don’t pray, “God, Bless the homeless on River Street and keep them there.”

Darcy James, Boise

Not representative

The Idaho Legislature is threatening free speech by either pulling funds from Boise State University for their diversity policies or almost defunding Public Television because they feel that their conservative agenda is not being supported. One of our “representatives” said that she did not allow her kids to watch PBS because she did not believe that her kids should be “exposed” to that kind of programming! What does she let her kids watch? I am tired of some “representatives” who tout that the conservative view is the only position that all Idahoans support. These “representatives” do not represent me! I cannot understand a position that is not open to all viewpoints and allow dialogue to better serve the people of Idaho. Currently, I fear that many of the “people” who show up to Boise during the first quarter of the calendar year are politicians and not statesmen (stateswomen). The difference is that they put forward unconstitutional bills that will get them reelected, versus doing the work for all of the people of Idaho — not just the people that they feel deserve their patronage. I have been very disappointed in what the legislature has undertaken this session.

John A. Hultman, Boise

Legislative decisions

Members of the Idaho Legislature were displeased when Gov. Little declared a state of emergency in 2020. They demanded to be included in the decision making for school closures, economic shutdowns, or necessary preventive measures (masks, social distancing, etc).

Ironically, we see proposed legislation that impedes citizens’ constitutional rights, such as nullifying the ballot initiative process, claiming it isn’t fair to rural counties. How many of the nearly 850,000 voters from the 2020 election have an issue with ballot initiatives? It’s simply the legislature taking issue with Idahoans asserting their rights.

Idaho politicians preach that the nation’s school shootings are due to mental health issues and not gun violence. Instead of increasing the funding for de-escalation training, grief counselors, and community partnerships to address the “mental health” issues, let’s put guns in the schools. It’s not guns we need! We need compassionate and trained staff and school resource officers who can be one-on-one with students experiencing psychiatric distress!

Legislators want to redirect tax revenues intended for public schools to a voucher program and prohibit medicinal marijuana to protect us. These politicians who demand a role in our governance certainly are not demonstrating that they’re capable of such an important responsibility.

Deborah Hennessy, Boise

Climate change

The Growing Climate Solutions Act is a bipartisan and market-based legislation that would make it easier for agricultural producers, here in Idaho and across the country, to voluntarily participate in carbon credit markets. These credits would allow growers, large and small, to earn income for sequestering carbon by using sustainable agricultural practices. These climate-friendly techniques give us healthier soil, better and more nutritious crops, as well as cleaner air.

Many producers, both conservationists and conservatives at heart, understand the important role they play in caring for their land and already utilize sustainable agriculture practices. Why not empower them to continue doing so and accelerate that positive trend?

Should this bill be reintroduced this Congress, I encourage Sen. Mike Crapo to join a bipartisan contingent of his colleagues as a cosponsor. The act is a carrot not a stick, which will bring more people into the fold and working together on meaningful climate solutions. Agriculture and land use management decisions are one of the most effective methods of sequestering carbon, a vital goal of combating climate change and protecting our natural environment in the short and long term.

Brook Allen, Meridian

Federal relief funds

Twenty-two governors, including Idaho Gov. Brad Little, are against the new federal stimulus proposal that allocates funding based on a state’s unemployed population rather than its actual population. However, these same people have no qualms accepting more than their fair share of federal funds every single year. Idaho receives net federal funding of $3,428 per resident per year. Compare that to California’s $12 per resident per year. The argument comes down to equity versus equality. The states that take in more federal dollars than they contribute to do so due to the concept of equity. They are given what they need to be as successful as other states. This is what the new stimulus proposal seeks to do. It wants to send money where it is needed to bring unemployment down to an acceptable level. The money is going to fellow Americans who need help because their jobs have not yet rebounded from the pandemic.

Lori Poublon Ramirez, Meridian

Legislative recess

The Idaho Legislature has outdone itself. It’s either a pandemic or it’s not. If it is, use masks, social distancing and public health tools. If it’s not a pandemic, why close down? Facts matter and still exist.

Gail Eberharter Rankin, McCall