Subverting Intent of Question B
The Sun's editorial for Howard County Feb. 8 was placed above another editorial entitled, "Ethics Now!" Was this a subtle message?
The writer of the "Council Correct on Question B" editorial was incorrect about:
* The meaning of the recent ballot Question B language.
* The meaning and intent of Council Bill 107.
* What the proponents of Question B wanted to achieve. The writer's primary source is feeding him misinformation, or the writer does not understand what he has been told or read.
If he had been present when the council members voted on their version of what they wanted, he would have heard Councilman and Zoning Board Chairman Darrel Drown testify that: "During our most recent comprehensive review, for the purpose of updating the master zoning map, we reviewed 157 individual parcels of land."
All the requests for the rezoning, from owners or their lawyers with a cumulative acreage of some 11,000 acres, were not held in a public hearing for the record where the public could participate by responding to the consequences or impact of an approval. In some respects, perhaps it would not have made a difference anyway. The general practice of the zoning board has been to give the petitioner unlimited time, and to restrict the general public to three minutes each, and frequently run the meeting into the late hours to discourage all but the strongest opponents.
These are some of the reasons why Question B was placed on the ballot, and why it received more than 36,000 affirmative votes in spite of a furious barrage of media and vested interest hype. We have never seen a vested interest pour so many thousands of dollars into the political scene in Howard County to fight giving citizens a voice and a right to influence the direction of growth in their county. . . .
One wonders if there is any correlation between the successful applicants and the list of contributions in the recent election. Perhaps the editorial writer will check this out.
James M. Holway
Ellicott City
The Idiot Box
Last night, I chanced to be watching the box, half-mindedly as I did something domestic. A half-mind is excessive when it comes to watching most popular TV, yet, I achieved catharsis. The show made me mad. In just 15 minutes, it reduced every recent social movement to caricature via stupid stereotyping of a black man, a corporate woman, I guess a grown-up nerd (maybe ex-hippie) and I think someone who was being represented as gay. Then there were some Jeffrey Dahmer jokes. And a sprinkling of blasphemy. This followed a previous offering filled with 1.5 entendres about bedroom behavior. This is not an attack on the First Amendment. Any topic handled tastefully, with insight, is fair fodder for seekers of knowledge, purveyors of ponderance. But there are limits.
Consider this. Suppose your regular preacher is called away and sends in his stead a drunken sex offender to officiate at the
wedding of your only daughter. Must you accept the substitute, lest you offend the partisanship of free expression? I don't think so.
Americans must have more substance than to limit their proscriptions to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. So what to do? Ordinarily, we are told that we can fight back by not buying the advertised products. This is circuitous, and the same products seem to be advertised on all the stations anyway.
Here is another approach. The conscientious, future-looking, child-rearing public is free to contest Federal Communications Commission licenses. Pure and simple, if we document egregious transgressions of commonly accepted standards, we empower ourselves to present against the renewal of any station's right to use the public's airways.
Each station must annually go through a process of re-approval. They must advertise the dates during which their records are open to the public. Though little discussed, it was through objections offered in this venue that the first blacks appeared as telecasters in Baltimore. It is time again to fight back against media hubris with respect to common decency.
Fred Nastvogel
Columbia
Zoning Power
The County Council is our legislative body in Howard County. They used to be the Board of Health but they gave that up. However, they are still the Zoning Board. How come?
The County Council certainly has enough to do with our local budget problems to keep it plenty busy. Why shouldn't it divest itself from being the zoning board, like it did the Board of Health, and concentrate on becoming a good legislative body?
I know why. The largest source of local campaign contributions are from those who have ardent zoning interests. It just makes sense (cents) that these politicians want to remain as the zoning board. It's good politics for them.
However, what's good politics for the politicians isn't always what's good for citizens. Why not let the County Council be the county legislative body and let an appointed citizen board be the zoning board like our Board of Health? Let's make zoning issues a public policy consideration and not a political payback opportunity.
Our delegation in Annapolis recently debated whether to submit legislation to require council members to divulge contributions from those involved in zoning decisions. Do we really need a bill to legislate honesty from our local politicians? If we just let our citizens be an impartial zoning board and take politics out of zoning decisions, we wouldn't have to legislate political honesty.
Having an independent citizen zoning board may not be good politics, but it certainly is good public policy.
Jim Mundy
Ellicott City
Hearing Unheard
The Columbia Council's open hearing Jan. 31 was surely one of my most frustrating experiences. The acoustics and poor amplification of Kahler Hall made it impossible to hear or comprehend those who spoke. After straining for 1 1/2 hours and learning little of value, I left.
From the expressions on the faces of the members of the council, I would say that they, too, either could not understand the speakers or had little interest in what was being said. I presume the council will be furnished with written copies of the speakers' remarks and, I hope, will give deserved consideration to the views expressed. This, however, will offer little solace to those of us who came to hear community input. I came away with the distinct impression that the council is not really interested in the opinions of the community-at-large and that the "open hearing" was just a pretense.
If the council is seriously concerned about what we in Columbia think, future hearings should be held in spaces more conducive to discussion -- not in bare, nonacoustical gymnasiums.
Robert Chesler
Columbia
Deer Dangers
Traffic hazards on Trotter Road have been the subject of previous letters to the editor. There is an additional potential problem that should be given immediate consideration before it results in some devastating accidents.
The deer population in River Hill has made very noticeable
expansion this year. Much of the deers' grazing land has been converted into "Pheasant Ridge" and "Pointers Run." At the same time, all hunting has been eliminated in this area. . . . On Christmas Day, we saw a herd of 12 in the middle of the day. I have since heard of a herd of 17 that was seen after dark, about half a mile from here. Both herds must have crossed the road a short time before they were sighted.
Anyone who has known of a meeting of deer and auto knows that the results can be devastating. The deer usually are killed or badly damaged.
Many mornings, as I am collecting my newspaper at 5:30 or 6 a.m., I see cars that are apparently accelerating after they leave the circle at the entrance to Pheasant Ridge. They have gained too much speed before they cross the top of the hill south of that circle. That is where one of the deer herds crossed Trotter Road and if one of the speeding cars met the herd on the roadway, it would have made quite a mess. Someday, one of the careless drivers will have the misfortune. As the deer population grows, the probability of a disaster increases.
orman E. Tyson
Clarksville
Sexual Assaults
The Howard County Sexual Assault Center would like to offer support for:
* Senate Bill 79, "Child Sexual Offenders -- Notification Registration."
* Senate Bill 93, "Probation Prior to Judgment, Sexual Offenses Against a Child."
* Senate Bill 610, "First Degree Rape/Sexual Offense, Mandatory Minimum Penalty."
* Senate Bill 418, "Sexual Offenders -- Crimes Involving Minors -- Registration and Community Notification."
We would also like to see an amendment to applicable bills or new legislation sponsored to apply to sexual violence against adults as well as children. Unfortunately, sexual violence continues to be a national problem. It is estimated that:
* 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by their current or former male partner one or more times per year.
* According to the Department of Justice, one in six reported rapes were girls under age 12.
* 20 percent of these girls were raped by their fathers, 26 percent by relatives and 50 percent were sexually assaulted by friends and acquaintances.
* According to the FBI, 61 percent of all reported rape cases occur before the victim reached the age 18.
* The "1992 in America" study found that only 10 percent of rape victims under age 11 reported the crime.
* In a survey of teen-agers, the Guttmacher Institute found tha75 percent of the females who had intercourse prior to age 14 said that they had been forced to have sex at some point.
* The Harvard Mental Health Letter estimates that 30 percent of adult women and 10 percent of adult men have been the victim of sexual violence. . . .
Sexual violence, whether it is against adults or children, is not a sexual act. It is a crime. We need to send this message to all sexual offenders.
Let's not let the criminals hide behind verdicts of "probation before jail." We need a central registry of sex offenders and in Maryland, we need to be notified that the sexual offender is out of jail.
avid S. Murphy
Columbia
The writer is president of the board of directors of the Howard County Sexual Assault Center Inc. This is a copy of a letter sent to Sen. Walter Baker, who chairs the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.