Washington Mutual

* Re “WaMu’s No-Nonsense Style Tames the Great Western,” May 11.

The further one read, the more embarrassing it was for The Times. In the end, the piece proved to me to be unworthy of the newspaper. A more appropriate outlet for the article is Washington Mutual’s in-house newsletter.

How, in good conscience, could The Times refuse to ask [Washington Mutual Chief Executive Kerry] Killinger some hard questions about his operation? For example, how does Washington Mutual justify its continuing effort to develop the Ahmanson Ranch property? Where does the destruction of wildlife habitats and corridors, of open space and the creation of immense traffic problems, not to mention the pollution caused by years of construction, fit into the organization’s desire to be a good citizen of the Valley? How does it happen that in the second largest city in the nation, there is not a single person capable of serving Washington Mutual in community relations, necessitating that someone come down from Seattle to do the job? And in letting Killinger brag on Washington Mutual’s 20% rate of return, how could The Times not ask about the long-range implications of such an intense push for profits? Like how many Valley branches will be boarded up to cut costs to serve the bottom line?

The fawning, non-critical article is beneath The Times.

And the fact remains that until the principal executives of Washington Mutual are housed in Los Angeles, we are just being exploited, generating profits for another concern headquartered somewhere else. There is absolutely no difference between Killinger’s organization and those tennis shoe companies that have their shoes made overseas. Neither should be celebrated, most certainly not by The Times.

ROBERT SANDERS

West Hills