Students should be patient with biodegradable plastic forks

We are writing in response to concerns voiced in The Daily regarding biodegradable utensils. We first would like to clarify two things: The new biodegradable utensils are not made from toxic plastic material but rather from a harmless potato compound. Secondly, HFS is aware of the problem and is actively developing a solution.

In the meantime, we would like to pose a question about the perceived impracticality of environmentally sustainable practices: Should we only better the environment and society if the means are convenient?

For instance, it's not exactly convenient to brush your teeth. Yet twice a day, you take the time for the "greater good" — your health. The composting program asks you to be adaptable for the environment's greater good.

We have to remember that Seattle is not a microcosm of the United States: We recycle 44 percent of our waste, while the national average is just 30 percent.

As students in such a progressive city, it's easy for us to take our recycling and composting programs for granted, but we need to set an example for others.

Non-organic compounds still linger in the soil from the ancient Roman Empire's landfills. Composting not only diverts waste from rotting landfills that adversely affect our water and air quality but also creates much-needed topsoil for farmers.

When you add up the pros and cons, is it really worth scrapping such a progressive product just to save the shape of your fork?

S.E.E.D.

(Students Expressing Environmental Dedication)

Sex offender issue brings light to landlord abuse of student housing

[In response to Celeste Flint's column "Kicking out sex offenders doesn't guarantee safety"]

I have no problem with Carol Clarke or her worthy intentions. The problem and the underlying issue have more to do with the legality of her houses from a land-use aspect.

According to the articles I read, she has 55 residents in her five homes, which is an average of 11 residents per home.

The question then becomes, what are the legal intended usages of these homes? If they are single-family residences, they are limited to a generous amount of eight unrelated people allowed to live there. If they are duplexes, they can have a ridiculously generous amount of eight unrelated people living in each separate unit.

It's highly unlikely that these properties are legal "rooming" or "boarding" houses. As if someone could actually find those terms in the City's Housing and Building Maintenance Code.

My best guess is that when she inherited these properties they had already been illegally converted, probably for less noble reasons than she now has. All the same, their use likely remains illegal, regardless of who owns them or lives there.

Other "rooming house" or "group home" rentals further add to neighborhood instability and cause "safety" issues in the area.

Someone in the neighborhood referred to this latest UW move as "grandstanding." I couldn't agree more. What about all of the other illegal properties that use University auspices to prey on unsuspecting young student renters and profit from their illegal rental practices in the University District? Most of these are hoping to attract student renters, but the reality is, they don't care whom they rent to.

Willie Williams

Seattle, Wash.