'Impeach' more planning commissioners
I am amazed at the editorial support your paper appears to be giving the critics of the removal of Carroll County Planning and Zoning Commission member Robert H. Lennon.
I have attended planning sessions and watched as Mr. Lennon left his seat to talk with developers and their representatives, and then return to deliberate. Whether they were discussing the weather or how next to proceed is anyone's guess, but it certainly casts doubt on objectivity by a planning commission member.
Please don't forget that it was this planning commission that recently voted not to allow several hundreds of lots, only to change its mind when the public who had voiced opposition had left thinking the issue was completed.
But the larger question is why those with ties to real estate are permitted to sit on a commission that is concerned with building in the first place.
Mr. Lennon is an attorney who specializes in real estate matters. Vice Chairman Robin M. Frazier, his only outspoken supporter on the planning commission, is a bank loan officer. How objective can either be when both are or were involved in businesses that deal regularly with developers who also appear before them?
In my opinion, neither should have been appointed nor allowed now to sit on this important commission that determines the fate and well-being of communities. Certainly, neither has demonstrated sympathy to overcrowded schools, clogged roads nor strained emergency and police services. Both apparently are loath to disapprove any development, regardless of the adverse effect it may have.
Commissioners W. Benjamin Brown and Richard T. Yates were correct in taking the action they did, though it is unfortunate they couldn't have impeached two members. If Commissioner Donald Dell would spend a little more time in South Carroll or Hampstead, it is likely he would have agreed with them.
Sen. Larry Haines and the rest of his delegation should concern themselves with the matters of the next legislative session. Hopefully, they will not be the embarrassment they were to us this year -- and stay out of local politics.
No room for abortion 'tolerance'
Citizen Bob Dole has solicited both my money and my opinion. Having none of the former to spare, and certain that he really wants to know the latter, I offer the following:
Stand on principle.
Yes, your political strength and longevity has been based in finding the compromise, in making the deal and that has its usefulness. But your greatness will be found in articulating and standing firm on principle. The Whig Party, forerunner to the GOP, sought accommodation ("tolerance" has been your term) with a terrible evil -- slavery. Thus, with the "Compromise of 1850," followed by the pragmatic, but morally unprincipled "tolerance" of slavery, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, did the Whig Party set the stage for the birth of a new political party founded not in pragmatic deal-making and "tolerance" of evil, but in dedication to principle: That slavery was wrong, and it was not to be "tolerated."
When was the last Whig elected?
Mr. Dole, you have over the years been consistent in your support of pro-life principles. Now in the political calculus of your presidential campaign, you have given the pro-life community the back of your hand with this craven call to "tolerance." This will fail on both the political and principle levels.
Pragmatic political facts: Pro-life is not a losing standard to carry. Look to the 1994 elections. Not one pro-life incumbent senator, congressman or governor lost to a "pro-choice" challenger. Furthermore, pro-life challengers defeated nearly 30 hard-core pro-abortion incumbents.
On the principle level, abortion is wrong. The abortion question is not some moral abstract. It is not a question of, "Will I be truthful?" or "Will I be faithful to my spouse?" The question of abortion is without subtleties: "To kill or not to kill a baby?" That is the reality of each and every abortion.
Look to the AP photo of your selection for keynote speaker, Rep. Susan Molinari, as she tenderly holds her infant daughter, Susan Ruby. Face the truth of abortion. If Rep. Molinari had chosen her "right" to an abortion at any time from concept to during the birth process (as Clinton's partial-birth veto affirmed) for any reason, or no reason, that child would have been killed.
The Republican Party, forged in the caldron of moral debate over slavery, did not seek "tolerance" of an intolerable evil for the expedience of political gain. Stand boldly on principle, Mr. Dole, lest you leave the Republican Party with the same fate as the Whigs.
Pub Date: 8/04/96