Readers write: Letters to the editor, October 25, 2017

People Mover changes help

Mr. Wohlforth's recent column (Oct. 22) on the bus system purports to describe a problem, but fails to suggest a real solution.

Like some of those interviewed by Mr. Wohlforth, I have no car, and will be significantly inconvenienced by the loss of a route that I ride regularly. At first I was skeptical of the need for change, and the process being used by the municipality. But over time — and we are talking about maybe a year of surveys and meetings — I became convinced of the need for these changes. There is a report of almost 200 pages available for the asking. Mr. Wohlforth criticizes the changes, but nowhere in the column does he say that he read the report, or describe any weaknesses in its analysis. Nor does he appear to have sought out any of the people who will benefit from the changes (and there are many).

But Mr. Wohlforth does drop clues (perhaps inadvertently) about the real problem. He says that his bus ride was a good experience, but also that he has not taken the bus in a long time. And why is that? Presumably because he, like most residents, is in love with his car. The current fares are ridiculously low, if one factors in gas, parking, and hassle. If the people of Anchorage had wanted a better system, over the past 20 years, all they had to do was use the current one. If they had, then the system would have been expanded and improved. Now we have a reorganization (not even a real contraction) and people want to take pot shots at these changes, rather than confronting the real problem, and solving that.
Try the People Mover, people! By doing so, you might be able to save it.

— Doug Miller
Anchorage

Senators, devil is in the details

As an attorney, I've learned the devil is often in the details. That's why I comb through the fine print of any contract I sign, like the membership agreement for my credit union, looking for things like forced arbitration clauses that some large banks and payday lenders bury in their contracts. These clauses limit legal options for a customer when you are harmed by a bank or lender.

Fortunately, credit unions rarely use forced arbitration clauses. In fact, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau surveyed credit unions and found that 97 percent don't use forced arbitration in their credit card agreements. This makes recent statements by credit union representatives supporting the use of forced arbitration "rip-off" clauses rather curious.

The Senate is about to vote to repeal a key rule from the CFPB that restores consumers' constitutional right to choose how they resolve disputes. Some credit unions are providing support for a legal maneuver they don't even employ.

Wall Street banks and financial giants are using credit unions as political cover as they lobby our senators to repeal the CFPB rule to protect consumers. Our senators must reject their pleas and put their voters first by upholding the CFPB rule on forced arbitration.

— Goriune Dudukgian
Anchorage

The views expressed here are the writers' own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a letter under 200 words for consideration, email letters@alaskadispatch.com, or click here to submit via any web browser. Submitting a letter to the editor constitutes granting permission for it to be edited for clarity, accuracy and brevity. Send longer works of opinion to commentary@alaskadispatch.com.