Limited Program
Staff Writer Steve McKerrow, in "Classical music hits high note in Arbitron ratings" (Feb. 18) would seem to be the bearer of good news to the Baltimore area -- until one stops to examine what the so-called programming at WBJC and WJHU really consists of.
As a listener of these stations for more years that I care to mention, let me inform you that one of the stations has a policy of playing almost exclusively from a list of basic repertory items, especially overtures.
The other station does much better, although it still works within narrow guidelines, but at least gives us music of greater variety and substance on a more continuous basis.
But there, too, the programming is lop-sided because it represents the eternal biases of the disc jockeys: Two of them in particular should be bashful about the narrowness of their views.
If I had not taught myself years ago that I must seek out the masterpieces on my own, and purchase them even without ever having heard them, I would not today have learned to love the "Art of the Fugue" or the "Missa Solemnis," or Delius' "A Mass of Life" or the Walter Piston Viola Concerto -- just to name four works which WBJC would not be caught dead playing for the classical listening public.
The sad fact, of course, is that the stations in question receive promotional copies of numerous lesser-known masterpieces, along with the latest "1812 Overture," but the listeners will never hear them.
One of the stations used to have access to a fine collection of American musical comedies or show music, and we in radioland used to hear it on a regular basis.
Alas, it has disappeared from the airwaves (along with nearly all organ music and choral music), to make more radio time available for yet another Rossini or Mozart overture.
My advice to anyone in the metro area who is interested in learning about fine music is this: Visit your local CD shops; attend live concerts, especially at the college campuses; and read about the classics, and buy what is truly significant.
Otherwise, you'll probably never hear it on WBJC or WJHU, though the latter is certainly to be thanked for its excellent jazz programming, especially as given us by the inimitable Andy Beanstock.
Edward A. Riggio
Towson
Erin Go Bragh!
The title of this letter is the toast many of us here in Baltimore will propose March 17 in bars, restaurants and parties at home. Like St. Patrick, those who volunteer to be the designated drivers on that day should be honored, for they help in doing what even the luck of the Irish cannot: stop drunk driving.
Designated drivers are in fact part of a growing national awareness that has led to a 32 percent drop in drunk driving deaths from 1982 to 1992.
This St. Patrick's Day, the Winner Distributing Co., along with many popular St. Patrick's Day gathering places in Baltimore, will be working to keep that trend improving by encouraging customers to use a designated driver and to drink responsibly.
We want customers to have fun on St. Patty's Day, but we also want them to heed a very strong warning -- Don't drink and drive!
George J. Acton
Baltimore
The writer is vice president and director of marketing for the Winner Distributing Co.
Bleak Future
Transportation Secretary O. James Lighthizer, the BWI Business Partnership, the governor and apparently your architectural critic Edward Gunts at one time or another have praised Baltimore-Washington Airport as a "user-friendly airport."
Perhaps it is, but it is certainly not a neighbor-friendly airport.
Mr. Lighthizer and others promote BWI as the economic engine of Maryland, emphasizing that BWI "brings in $2.5 billion a year to the state." That is most certainly an impressive sum; however, if BWI is such a powerful economic engine, why doesn't the state use some of this economic benefit to alleviate the deleterious effects of BWI on its neighbors?
Mr. Lighthizer closes his Feb. 26 letter by noting that "BWI enjoyed a 33 percent increase in passengers served in the last quarter of 1993, and the future looks even brighter."
BWI may have enjoyed it, but its neighbors most assuredly did not, and the future looks even bleaker.
Edmund A. Klebe
Severn
Include It All
As one born and raised in the area of Mount Washington west of Falls Road and east of the Jones Falls Expressway, I wish to question why this area was omitted in the article about the neighborhood written by Joan Jacobson on Feb. 13. Also, she failed to mention the Shrine of the Sacred Heart and St. John's Church, which are in the heart of Mount Washington and have contributed much to the community.
Hereafter, when writing about a community, please include it all.
Charlotte Hensley
Baltimore
Playing a Game of Political Football
Two editorials in The Sun, on Feb. 12 and Feb. 20, attacking the proposal to use football stadium funds for school construction, have been designed more to inflame regional divisions than inform its readers.
As authors of the proposal, we feel compelled to set the record straight.
The Sun assailed the proposal for the following four reasons -- each of which is just plain wrong:
(1) The Sun stated that our proposal violates the legislature's self-imposed spending cap. Wrong. Capital projects funded with cash payments (known as PAYGO projects) are not subject to the spending cap.
(2) The Sun contended that our proposal would threaten revenue bonds already issued to pay for Oriole Park.
Wrong again. Those bonds are secured by the lease between the state and the Maryland Stadium Authority. Our proposal to use excess lottery funds will have no impact on those revenue bonds.
(3) The Sun asserted that dedicating lottery revenues for school construction flies in the face of legislative efforts to avoid entitlement programs.
It is a mistake to suggest that the legislature does not dedicate revenues for high priority projects and programs. That is exactly what the legislature did for the football stadium. Aren't schools for Maryland's children an even greater priority?
Furthermore, Maryland has a funding formula for education (APEX) which mandates certain levels of education funding. The Sun has always supported that educational entitlement. Why not set aside funds for building schools?
(4) Finally, The Sun asserts that its biggest problem with our proposal is that it doesn't generate enough revenue to completely "solve" Maryland's school construction crunch.
This is a classic example of making "the perfect" the enemy of "the good." Our proposal will result in a significant increase in funding for Maryland schools on an ongoing basis.
It will increase the governor's proposed FY 1995 school construction program by 25 percent.
Most important, it meets the spending target of the governor's Task Force on School Construction, which last year recommended that Maryland spend at least $100 million annually for school construction.
The bill achieves this level by earmarking at least $81 million per year in general obligation bonds and other money for school construction (the amount budgeted by the governor for FY 1995) and supplementing that amount with the $19 million per year in lottery revenues that is currently dedicated to the football stadium.
If Maryland does not meet this $100 million a year target, class sizes will rise and the quality of education will fall.
The Sun's assertion that our proposal is simply an attempt by Washington area legislators to punish Baltimore is pure demagoguery.
Support for the bill comes from a bi-partisan coalition of legislators from across Maryland. Dels. Donald Fry (D-Harford County) and Ellen Sauerbrey (R-Baltimore County) were among the original architects of the bill, and among the 50 sponsors are delegates from Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Harford County, southern Maryland, the Eastern Shore and Western Maryland . . .
Second, our proposal is not an attempt to deny Baltimore a football team. It was the National Football League, not any legislators, that denied Baltimore an expansion franchise.
We propose that should the governor fail to land an NFL football team for Baltimore within a reasonable time, the state use the funds that were dedicated for the football stadium to build schools at the $100 million a year level recommended by the governor's task force.
If Maryland could afford to spend this money on a football stadium, surely we can afford to use it to build schools to improve the quality of education for our children. In fact, we can't afford not to.
Chris Van Hollen Jr.
Stephen Braun
The writers are, respectively, Democratic delegates from Montgomery County and Charles County.