Why Are Builders So Cavalier About Trees?
I live in a formerly wooded area of Severn.
My house was sheltered by large, established spruce trees that I valued greatly, although they were on my neighbor's side of our border.
One day, I came home to find that, in the name of development, the trees bordering my backyard had been torn down.
I cried for an hour and called the new development's Realtor to learn the extent of the damage.
I was reassured that the trees that I valued the most, those lTC bordering my driveway and the side of my house, would not be taken down.
I came home days later to see that the trees were gone.
Now, my house borders on a future sediment pond with no trees at all to shelter it.
I cried again.
I feel like I now live in a stranger's home.
Yesterday, I came home to see further loss.
Today, another established tree and part of my driveway disappeared.
I began to feel resigned.
I forced myself to not get upset at the ruin.
Instead, I want to know why.
Why is it that builders, when faced with the option of tearing down a rotting, uninhabited house or a valued tree do not opt for the house?
I can drive through Anne Arundel County and see several houses that could and probably should be torn down.
Is this not a viable option?
Is there more incentive from the county or the state to kill trees?
Isn't land with an uninhabited, rotting home just asking for trouble that could be prevented by turning that land into habitable space?
I believe that doing so has much more value than tearing down trees that clean the air that we breathe.
Vicky Passion Graff
William Lanning Ray III of Deale appropriately named his gondola the Magic Moment. ("A Bit of Venice in Galesville," by Andrea F. Siegel, The Sun, June 20).
There were a lot of very magic moments in the gondolas in Venice before the city fathers made the gondoliers remove the cabins from their gondolas.
The gondolas with cabins served the same purpose as the back seats of cars:
Lovers loved them.
The cabins did not have glass windows, only curtains, and the curtains did not screen out the sighs and moans of young couples inside.
Even the singing of the gondoliers couldn't drown out the cries of ecstasy.
The cabins had to go.
I'm glad Mr. Ray put a cabin on his gondola.
?3 There will be a lot of magic moments, I'm sure.
Ocean City Shots
First of all I would like to say that I don't consider myself a prude.
I am a 52-year-old who has been going to Ocean City for at least the past 47 years.
Each year the double standard that Ocean City sets for the youth seems to get more pronounced.
Several weeks ago, I went to Ocean City at the same time the famous rite of passage known as Senior Week occurred.
In every souvenir shop, the t-shirts proclaimed that the only way to have fun and be part of the in-crowd was to drink, and not only to drink but to get drunk to the point of oblivion.
One shirt brightly stated, "WHAT I REALLY LEARNED IN SCHOOL (BIG SHOTS ON CAMPUS)," with row after row of shot glasses lined up . . .
Then there were the beer bongs that announced "SENIOR WEEK '95."
As my daughter and I walked past one of the largest liquor carry-out stores, she was approached by some young people who wanted her to buy some liquid beverage for them.
All the young people were hanging around outside the store, just waiting for people to come out with their purchases.
The thing that amazed me was the fact that the buyers could not have been 21. It was obvious they had to have false IDs.
But it didn't seem to stop any of the sales.
On the other side, Ocean City has an armed police officer on every corner, the boardwalk is heavily patrolled and the police cars run up and down Coastal Highway at all hours of the day and night.
It seems to me that Ocean City is making the best of both worlds.
First, the city reaps the benefits of the large sales of the souvenirs that each person must have to have proof that they had had this great senior week.
Then the local government gets its share of the profits after the young person has been arrested. Whether the arrest is for driving under the influence or for disorderly conduct the young person is heavily fined and punished as the judge sees fit.
This just doesn't seem right to me. If the sale of alcohol to a minor is illegal, why does Ocean City glorify it and then penalize the teen-agers for doing exactly what the vendors seem to be pushing at them?
All of our tax dollars, no matter what side of the Bay Bridge you are on, go to help Ocean City maintain itself as a wonderful vacation retreat for singles as well as families.
I would like to see the business owners of Ocean City take a more responsible attitude toward the double message they are giving our young people.
Janet C. Robertson