Hospital Idea Suits Route 24
Michael Treherne's letter ("Short Memories") published Dec. 5 is inaccurate and misleading in several key respects.
First, each use for the property at issue will continue to be individually approved by the Bel Air Town Board. Those restrictions, however, have been broadened to include a hospital and medical complex.
Second, the landowners' financial condition was not a determining factor in the board's decision for broadening restrictions incorporated into the property's annexation resolution.
Third, the town board will continue to hold the developer responsible for providing a landscaped visual screen, buffering any proposed development from the adjoining residential development. This position of the annexation agreement as well as the remainder of the document takes into consideration the hard work put in by all parties in 1988.
Fourth, the board's primary consideration is, and always has been, what is best for the citizens of Bel Air. I would suggest that enhancing the quality of our county's medical facilities and adding hundreds of high-paying skilled and professional jobs to the greater Bel Air area is in the interests of all of our county's citizens. It is noteworthy to add that Mr. Treherne chose of his own free will to reside adjacent to one of the most heavily zoned and developed corridors in Harford County. Whatever the ultimate use of the property, Mr. Treherne is not being realistic to expect that this large tract would not be subject to considerable future commercial development.
The development of this site as a hospital is in keeping with the board's intention to encourage the development of this site in a manner which will positively impact the quality of life for our entire Northeastern region. Should Mr. Treherne present the taxpayers with all the facts, I would happily abide their collective judgment of my record on Election Day.
Mark S. Decker
The writer is a Bel Air town commissioner.
Council Bill 93-75, introduced by Councilwoman Theresa Pierno (the New Jersey transplant) is the worst piece of legislation ever introduced in Harford County, apart from her tree bill and the Banardo Bill, which almost crippled residential land development.
It is a perfect illustration of Ms. Pierno's socialistic proclivities, and her obsession with intruding government control into situations which should be the domain of the individual.
Ms. Pierno needs to consider the possibility that the source of her frustration is her lack of experience in the real world and the political arena. Perhaps if she objectively reread The Aegis editorial and viewed it as a learning experience, she would understand that the zoning process which is already in place provides property owners an opportunity to have community input in the early stages of development. The zoning process takes into account all of the issues that Ms. Pierno cites, such as connecting roads, buffers, signage and lighting. It is not necessary to add layer upon layer of unnecessary bureaucracy; unless, of course, her true agenda is geared toward her own political advancement.
Theresa Pierno is a queen bee in search of a hive. She is anxious to be the originator of a flurry of activity beneath her, and a flock of low-level bureaucrats shuffling mountains of paper apparently satisfies that need. Not only is Ms. Pierno pitting neighbor against neighbor, she is insulting our intelligence.
rank W. Soltis
Hunters, Poachers Or Both?
If you give a man a hunting license, then he is a hunter. Whether he breaks the law by using a "poachers" method or not, he is still legally a hunter.
In response to D. V. Buchheister's letter to the editor "Poachers," (Nov. 28), it is my feeling that he is indicting the wrong people on the issue of the "9 Hunters Arrested in Harford Co." from an Oct. 26 article in The Sun. His indictment would be better aimed toward the officials who issued these nine men their hunting licenses.
In today's world, hunting and gun control are two very big issues. Hunters such as these are one of those reasons why. Hunting licenses are too easily obtained by those who would abuse them. . . . As Mr. Buchheister said, these men were "poachers" who did not play by the rules. And it is a blemish to the hunters who do play by the rules. But they were legally hunters as well. . . . In the future, Mr. Buchheister and those who feel as he does would be better off in making it harder for those who would abuse hunting and gun licenses to obtain them through contacting their license-regulating agencies, so that this blemish will not overshadow the good hunters who play by the rules.
Recently, I read the letter to the editor entitled "Poachers," which appeared in the Nov. 28 issue of The Sun in response to an article "9 Hunters Arrested in Harford Co." I strongly agree with the writer of this letter.
There is a great distinction between poaching and hunting, which I feel much of the press does not realize. This misconception, I feel, is directly related to the large number of activist groups against hunting in today's society. The reporters, who are aware of these groups, probably feel there must be something wrong with hunting; otherwise, they wouldn't be opposed so strongly. Therefore, they can equate poaching and hunting and justify the reason for the great opposition to hunting.
The truth is that hunting is a legal activity that for the large majority provides food. For example, in parts of Pennsylvania and Western Maryland, hunting is so vital that children are given days off of school in order to take part in it. Poaching, on the other hand, is an illegal activity often done for sport and with little regard for the wildlife. There is an extremely large difference between hunting and poaching that must be realized by everyone.
By referring to those arrested in Harford County as "hunters," you are furthering a negative image of an activity that many consider negative to begin with. I would appreciate your news reports calling "a spade a spade."
Craig D. Story