Sacred Shrine

Between 1868 and 1917, more than 700,000 immigrants took their first excited, wide-eyed steps onto their new homeland at Locust Point's piers 8 and 9.

My mother was one of them. Recently, my brother and I had the unique and awesome experience of walking on the very ground where that special young woman had bravely walked into her destiny 73 years earlier.

For millions of Americans today, that spot is an inestimably sacred shrine -- from which their family history emanates.

Yet, how very few of us are actually aware of the tremendous significance of that site? And how still fewer are aware that what precious little remains of that incredibly historic and deeply-emotional place is about to be completely swallowed up and destroyed forever by the callous, expansive designs of the surrounding industrial complexes?

I believe that both the state and federal governments have a high, moral obligation to protect and preserve a shrine of such profound scope and magnitude.

Thomas E. Maxon

Baltimore

Obscene Maiming

As a member of Amnesty International, I join all decent people in condemning Singapore's use of torture -- not only on Michael Fay but on countless others.

While crime must be punished, deliberate, obscene maiming of prisoners is wrong.

Singapore maintains law and order though authoritarian tactics that subordinate individuals' rights to the state's. Will we ever know how many innocent citizens have been falsely accused or coerced into signing confessions under duress, which in America would violate our Fifth Amendment?

Despite Singapore's shameful conduct, the greater shame is on those Americans who supported caning. Though frustrated with crime, they should have behaved better than a medieval lynch mob.

Regrettably, their influence prevailed. What happened to reason, restraint and compassion?

To a large extent, arch-conservatives like Rush Limbaugh are to blame. They exaggerate the very real problem of crime to justify their agenda.

I see through their paranoid obsession. Their desire is not so much to protect citizenry as to promote an authoritarian mentality.

Margaret L. Kempf

Greenbelt

Mourning Nixon

I do not think it was appropriate to give the government the day off to mourn the death of former President Nixon.

Two things about this bother me.

I am not alone in feeling that government employees get too many days off in the first place. On any holiday I can think of, I hear, "The government has the day off today. . ."

It does not seem to take much snow to keep them home. If my office had as many days off, and as many reasons for getting days off, I do not think my company would remain in business for long. Remember that we the taxpayers paid for this day of bereavement.

My second irritation is that I honestly do not feel that the average government worker spent the day in mourning of our fallen leader. Instead, I am sure they spent the day the same as any of us does when not at work, enjoying themselves.

I was as affected as anyone would be by the loss of one of our nation's leaders. However, taking the day off does not constitute "grieving" by any means. I fear that instead of remembering President Nixon, they may be looking forward to their next day of "mourning."

Dennis Pederson

Columbia

Evaluations

In response to the editorial "Teachers and Accountability" (May 2), the public must have a clear understanding of the teacher evaluation process. In a given year, a veteran teacher may be observed for one 45-minute class period.

A 45-minute snippet does not create an accurate picture of what goes on in a teacher's classroom for the 180 days of the school year.

The problem lies in the assumption that "the evaluation system provides a reasonably accurate assessment of a teacher's work."

Would an editor want to be evaluated on one editorial chosen randomly to evaluate a year's worth of work? Would it be fair to rate mechanics on how well a car ran after they had worked on it for only 45 minutes, without considering the work they had done before or the work they would do later?

The evaluation process involves too many variables to make this cut-and-dried issue.

Beverly Thomas

Manchester

Neighbors' Rights

On May 7 you published a letter from Margaret Ann Reigle, chairman of the Fairness to Land Owners Committee, a national private property rights group.

In her letter she attacked the last 20 years of the environmental movement, saying it has pushed its agenda and its version of environmentalism on to every inch of private land and into every facet of business and community living.

It would certainly be a less complicated world if activities on private property had little or no effect on its neighbors. Unfortunately, the rights of others are often infringed upon by activities on private property.

If a property owner degrades the air, water or land, the effects are seldom confined to the owner's property and soon find their way to the community. For example, if a private property owner drains a wetland, the effects are felt beyond his domain.

Thus, lowering the ground water table on one property lowers the water table on adjacent wetland as well. Water run-off from the increased drainage may cause flooding and silting of properties down stream.

If a property is developed, drainage will increase the run-off of pollutants. The altered hydrology may alter the larger ecosystem, degrading the habitat, including endangered or threatened native plants, fish and wildlife.

Property rights abused by a few can reduce the value of the community at large.

Contrary to what property rights extremists would have us believe, property rights are seldom actually taken by the federal government.

For example, under the Endangered Species Act provisions, the Fish and Wildlife Service must consult with all parties in activities that may affect a listed species or its critical habitat.

According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, 118,098 consultations were conducted from 1979 to 1991; only 33 development projects were halted.

In most cases there is little need for taking property rights because most property owners are excellent stewards of their land and are willing to agree to management practices that protect our precious natural heritage.

Gerald E. Einem

Columbia

A Sculptor's Life

I was delighted to see Neil Grauer's suggestion that the State of Maryland would do well to reproduce Reuben Kramer's sculpture of Thurgood Marshall at the State House in Annapolis (Opinion * Commentary, April 15).

I was surprised that he did not mention in support of his proposal Mr. Kramer's own long history of civil rights work.

In 1944, Mr. Kramer founded the state's first integrated art school for the Baltimore Inter-racial Fellowship; he picketed theaters against segregation; he worked on Marian Anderson's Baltimore appearance in 1954.

His remarkable wire armature, a work of art in its own right and an intermediate stage in the casting of the bronze statue of Marshall for the Garmatz Federal Courthouse, along with historical materials on Mr. Kramer's activism, will be among the items displayed in the upcoming exhibition at the Jewish Historical Society of Maryland.

Reuben Kramer: A Sculptor's Life will open on Sept. 11. I hope that many of our citizens will come to see this exhibition, to remind us of Mr. Kramer's good art and good works.

Barry Kessler

Baltimore

The writer is assistant director and curator of the Jewish Historical Society of Maryland.

Removing the Cylburn Buffer

A sad song reached my ears one morning as I drove out the driveway of Cylburn Arboretum on Greenspring Avenue.

It was the song of a Kentucky warbler coming from the hedgerow on the south. Normally my heart would leap to this quick rhythm of spring.

That day, the day when the City Council voted for amending the city's urban renewal plan, paving the way to remove the 75-foot buffer from Cylburn Arboretum to build houses within 10 feet of Cylburn's southern boundary, my heart was leaden.

unabashed bird watcher, I know that Kentucky warblers will not stay around when the hedgerow is removed and tidied, when backyard activities quicken in the 100 new houses to be built there.

Kentucky Warblers "nest on the ground in most deciduous woods with ample ground vegetation," according to "A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North America" by Chandler Robbins, himself a lover of Cylburn.

Cylburn has been the center for Maryland's bird watchers since 1960. The birds of its 175 acres have taught countless people of all ages about the birds of Maryland.

Many noted ornithologists can trace their vocation to what they learned at Cylburn, its forested hills, wide lawns and fields.

Many of Maryland's strong advocates for the environment have come by way of watching Cylburn's birds.

In 1972, when the construction of Coldspring New Town threatened Cylburn's habitats, a 75-foot buffer to last for a period of 40 years was sought by Cylburn's defenders and granted. It is this buffer that we again seek.

The City Council is short-changing its original citizens, creatures that have been depending on Cylburn's green space since long before the arrival of Jesse and Edythe Tyson, Cylburn's original human residents.

The City Council is short-changing existing neighborhoods where established homes, with rehabilitation and care, would provide needed housing without disrupting our rapidly dwindling green space.

On its surface the idea of 100 new dwellings appears to be a project of great promise.

Why is it that the promise I receive is the forever silence of that Kentucky warbler that can no longer find a home among Cylburn's hills?

Joy Wheeler

Towson