City residents are responsible for own trash
I am dismayed that The Sun's editorial "City must clear way for cleaner streets" (Oct. 15) placed the burden of responsibility for clean streets entirely on the city.
While I very much applaud the students who took their time, effort and money to assist a neighborhood clearly at risk, I think that the perception you leave, that city government is doing nothing to address grime, is disingenuous and ignores all that really is going on.
More attention needs to be placed on the personal responsibility of every citizen of the city to be a good neighbor. That means that everybody needs to be held accountable for keeping clean the area around his or her property. The city did not dump trash in the alley. The city does, frequently, clean up the trash in areas where irresponsible people dump trash. I prefer investing more of our resources in preventing the type of behavior that led to this situation in the first place.
As part of a coordinated effort to make the city cleaner and safer and to promote personal responsibility, the city recently established new positions called sanitation enforcement officers. The new Environmental Review Board is ready to begin hearing civil citation cases, and the number of criminal citations for housing and sanitation code violations prosecuted in District Court has increased more than 300 percent in the last year.
The only way to fix the problem in our neighborhoods is to encourage all people to take pride in the appearance of the community. That must be a comprehensive approach. It would be encouraging if our city's main newspaper would help by acknowledging more cleanup efforts by citizens and the city, instead of picking arguments it can't lose.
As a final thought, I must note that our Office of Homeless Services has been in touch with the students' advisers at Coppin State to explore possible avenues of involvement for those energetic and civic-minded students.
Daniel P. Henson III
Baltimore
The writer is the city's housing commissioner.
Your editorial struck a nerve and draws from me a mixed reaction. On one hand, I am sympathetic with the city bureaus that run the trash pickup, recycling and street cleaning efforts. In neighborhood, all but the recycling seems to run like clockwork. Even recycling is responsive to my phone calls when a pickup is missed. Complaints about trash-filled back yards are acted upon on a timely basis.
On the other hand, I have become painfully aware that the main problem is the people who live in the area, and I suspect it is a problem all over the city. The people cause all the vast amounts of litter we wallow in. Beer bottles do not get on the sidewalk unless someone puts them there. Potato chip bags arrive on the street only when thrown down by someone. Rats tear open the garbage bags when someone puts the bags in alleys when garbage collection is not scheduled. Trash cans get overturned by vandals.
Mattresses don't walk into our alleys; people put them there. For the city bureaus to achieve a litter-free city would cost more than we could ever raise in taxes, given our collective attitude.
Maybe we can blame the city for not campaigning hard enough to persuade the population that littering is selfish, filthy and anti-social.
I moved here from Illinois this year after retiring. I chose Baltimore for its location and because the rowhouse I acquired and renovated affords great living space at low cost. Now every time I go outside, I am picking up litter. Every time I go to Patterson Park with my dog, I find myself not only scooping up after her, but also retrieving cans, bottles, clothing, Styrofoam cups, plastic bags and stuff too unseemly to mention.
I have never lived anywhere where the problem is as widespread and unrelenting as here. I can sweep the sidewalk in front of my home and it will require sweeping again a half hour. I'm beginning to believe I made a poor choice.
It is gratifying that you care enough about the issue to give it prominent space among your editorials. You are very right that it is one of our more important challenges. For the moment, when (( people ask me how I like living in Baltimore, my response is not very flattering. It's a nice place to visit, but living here . . .?
Charles L. Russell
Baltimore
Slugging, slinging in governor's race
I can barely understand Gov. Parris N. Glendening's unsportsmanlike mudslinging at opponent Ellen R. Sauerbrey.
I cannot understand his unfounded insults aimed at the many law-abiding, God-fearing, tax-paying, voting, Maryland citizens who happen to be National Rifle Association members.
The NRA is an association that represents members who legally collect, study, invent and use firearms for sporting, law enforcement and defensive purposes. The NRA was established learn, share and disseminate firearms safety, technology and history, and to encourage firearms proficiency. This proficiency helped provide America's armed forces with generations of the world's best riflemen.
Are NRA political donations any worse than those of a more liberal organization? Are they worse than donations from large businesses or from politically ambitious families.
I think that the governor should tell TV viewers what he would do for them and Maryland rather than the ball clubs in the next four years.
Elliot Deutsch
Bel Air
Such straight thinking troubles environment
It appears that Peter A. Jay's only defense of Ellen Sauerbrey's environmental record is that she is a former biology teacher and that she "thinks straight."
The Maryland League of Conservation Voters has a record of her 16 years of straight thinking: We documented her legislative votes on key environmental issues going back to 1979.
As the volunteer webmaster for the League, I invite readers to examine her record. Browsers at http: //www.mdlcv.org/sauerbrey.htm will see a list of bill numbers detailing Ms. Sauerbrey's votes against clean air, recycling, pesticide right-to-know and clean water.
The Maryland League of Conservation Voters is a nonpartisan organization. That is, we endorse based on environmental policy and not party affiliation. Gov. Parris N. Glendening has served Maryland's environment well, while Ellen Sauerbrey's record is straight, indeed. Straight in the wrong direction.
Marjorie Roswell
Baltimore
Anti-Sauerbrey bias in Sun's coverage
It is quite obvious that many of us have been reading a different edition of The Sun than Eric Johnson, who views your paper as biased toward Ellen Sauerbrey ("Sun's anti-Glendening bias shows in stories, editorials," Oct. 15, letters).
By and large, articles on The Sun's opinion pages as well as these by columnist Michael Olesker have been critical of Ms. Sauerbrey; cartoons have shown a lack of good taste.
It is not uncommon for objective news articles to contain phrases unfavorable to Ms. Sauerbrey. Many newsworthy events that were part of her campaigns were ignored or received scant press.
Frankly, it was a refreshing surprise to read: "Ms. Sauerbrey has a clear, crisp vision" in your editorial "Disloyal Democrats turn to Sauerbrey" (Sept. 30). I would have titled it: "Discerning Democrats . . ." because they recognize her as a candidate of integrity.
This is the characteristic that gives credence to the practical solutions she has proposed for a better Maryland.
Eve Lallas
Kingsville
Glendening has not improved education
Your endorsement of Gov. Parris N. Glendening came as no surprise. Your philosophy of social spending for the general welfare of the people of this state is firmly established. You list the items you think Mr. Glendening has accomplished in four years. Given enough money, any politician would have done the same -- and he has had an abundance of money during his term because of prosperity all over America.
Have you forgotten the mess he left in Prince George's County?
You compare this with Ellen R. Sauerbrey's record in her 16 years in the House of Delegates, where she "obstructed initiatives" that liberal Democrats sponsored when funds were scarce. She has established herself as a fiscally responsible leader, which you ignore.
Second, you rave about Mr. Glendening's efforts to promote accountability in education. There was effort and more money, but little result. You have been providing this for the past 10 months in your good Reading by 9 series.
When Mr. Glendening took office four years ago, this condition existed and has worsened, as you documented. The governor has had four years to make a difference, and still our children are very poor readers. I am astounded at this because you say he has 25 years of teaching experience.
And finally, I opened your paper on Oct. 14 to see your front-page centerpiece was a picture in a school. I translated the picture to indicate three politicos of the same cloth to be agreeing on their game plan: Sen. Edward Kennedy, President Clinton and the governor, who switches his beliefs for an election victory.
Fred Mott
Towson
Don't use perjorative term for equal protection for gays
As a straight person working for equality for gays, I was offended by Gregory Kane's references to the "gay agenda" ("Hate-crime laws won't protect homosexuals," Oct. 21).
In most juridictions in Maryland, gay people can be denied housing, can be fired from jobs and can be kicked out of restaurants simply because they are gay.
Would Mr. Kane advocate deleting the disabled, religious and racial minorities or others among those protected under Maryland law from those discriminatory acts?
Other groups who historically have been discriminated against have sought equal rights under the law, and their struggles have not been labeled with pejorative terms such as the "gay agenda."
Gays in Maryland and elsewhere are seeking equal protection under the law, nothing more and nothing less than the basic civil rights that are enjoyed by others.
Linda Linton
Columbia
The writer is co-chair of the Columbia/Howard County Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.
I'm disappointed with Gregory Kane's column defending the politicians and clergy who publicly condemn homosexuality.
No tradition has defended religious freedom more vigorously than Unitarians and Universalists. But listen before assuming that these are authentic religious voices.
Only a century and a half ago, religious leaders used the Bible to justify slavery.
Even today, some still use it to keep women subservient. All these views may reflect the culture of biblical times, but hardly the Bible's moral teaching.
Take the story of Sodom. It is about the behavior of all the people of the city, "to the very last man" -- we're talking heterosexuals. And it's about rape -- we're not talking consensual sex.
Or Leviticus: We find, side by side, prohibitions on sex between males, sex during menstruation, wearing a garment made of two different materials, trimming one's beard and tattoos. We're talking Jewish ritual purity. For moral rules, see the Ten Commandments or the teachings of Jesus (no mention of homosexuality at all).
Today's voices that condemn homosexuality are not so much voices of religion as voices of culture, masquerading as religion. It's because they make gays and lesbians outcasts, that we need hate-crimes laws.
The Rev. John Parker Manwell
Baltimore
The writer is co-minister of the First Unitarian Church of Baltimore.
I am inclined to agree with Gregory Kane that hate-crime laws won't protect anyone. However, I must object to several issues and assumptions in Mr. Kane's column.
"Trent Lott and company," as Mr. Kane refers to them, are no more responsible for the death of Matthew Shepard than white liberals are for the plight of the poor in the world.
However, I do wish that they would shut up or at least be consistent and logical.
For example, Mr. Lott once compared homosexuality to kleptomania as well as being a sin. I suspect many religious leaders would say kleptomania, being beyond the control of the afflicted, is not a sin.
Some Christians don't believe gambling and drug addiction are sins. Sin seems to be behavior, and homosexuality is not just behavior. Just as heterosexuals know they are heterosexual before any sexual activity, so it goes with homosexuals.
I find it interesting that Mr. Kane refers to "the gay agenda," as if every homosexual is an automaton. From reading several of Mr. Kane's previous articles, I surmise that if the word black were substituted for gay, he'd object and rightly so.
Although I often disagree with Mr. Kane, I have agreed with him that to paint an entire group of people with a broad brush is wrong.
Jerry Falo
Baltimore
Piper downtown bid did not measure up to BCCC's goals
In recent weeks, several articles have appeared about Piper & Marbury's decision to move to Mount Washington, with various sources holding Baltimore City Community College (BCCC) at least partially responsible for downtown's loss of this law firm. BCCC's decision has been misrepresented by these articles.
The BCCC board of trustees is required by statute to "develop the commercial potential of the Inner Harbor site to maximize revenue to the college." This revenue is essential to a college that has an ambitious educational mission and limited resources.
In April, the trustees, nearly all of whom live in Baltimore, issued a real estate offering, inviting the public to submit proposals for development of the site.
While developing the real estate offering, the college invited the comments and suggestions of several state and city agencies, including the Baltimore Development Corp.
The board clearly established a minimum annual income from the site, based on projections of what the college could expect to receive if the entire site were dedicated to surface parking. The proposal that included Piper & Marbury as a major tenant did not meet this minimum.
In addition, the board concluded that a mixed-use proposal with retail, office, hotel and parking to be the best land use.
In fact, the college had been encouraged by the BDC to give favorable consideration to such a mixed-use of the site.
The firm selected as the preferred developer also proposed constructing the project in one phase and emphasized educational linkages, both of which are important factors to the college.
As a state institution serving the city of Baltimore, the college is, and always has been, concerned about the city's economic development interests.
These interests, however, must be complementary to the trustees' fiduciary responsibility to maximize the revenue received from the development of its Inner Harbor site in pursuit of our important educational mission.
Roger I. Lyons
Baltimore
The writer is chairman of the Baltimore City Community College's board of trustees.
Discussions between India and Pakistan give rise to optimism
;
I draw your attention to two recent news reports about bilateral discussions between India and Pakistan ("Indian, Pakistani officials conduct 'cordial' peace talks," Oct. 17 and "India, Pakistan fail to agree on nuclear arms, Kashmir," Oct. 19).
Contrary to what some people might say, I think these talks still provide hope for the subcontinent.
It has been more than four months since India and Pakistan tested nuclear devices. Tensions between the two nations have risen. Since the nuclear tests, the world has been on the edge. Economic sanctions imposed on the two nations have made lives miserable for millions of people in India and Pakistan and have hurt the pocketbooks of U.S. exporters.
However, on Oct. 16, 17 and 18, foreign ministry officials of the two nations conducted three days of high-level discussions in Islamabad on these and other important issues. This came after a Sept. 23 meeting between the prime ministers of India and Pakistan in New York, where they announced that the two countries will undertake major cooperative efforts ("India, Pakistan agree to discuss differences," Sept. 24).
Among other things, they discussed nuclear arms restraint, an end to border disputes and economic cooperation. Agreements on nuclear arms and Kashmir are important issues for the long run -- both for India and Pakistan, and for lasting peace on the subcontinent. These, however, are sticky issues. But failure to reach agreement should be no reason to lead us into despair.
There is much in common between the peoples of India and Pakistan, including a shared colonial past, family ties and economic linkages.
There are many potential areas of cooperation. Let India and Pakistan address these issues: building road, bus and rail links; easing travel for business, family reunions and pilgrimage; allowing freer movement of goods across borders, leading ultimately to the removal of most trade barriers; relaxing water and fishing rights; ending border conflicts, with a goal toward shared border patrols; and ending the propaganda war.
A new era in Indian-Pakistani cooperation could begin. People of both nations would benefit.
Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, stated India's redefined position on the nuclear issue: "We are prepared to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion so that the entry into the force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is not delayed beyond September 1999."
A comprehensive test ban treaty is the next step toward the ultimate goal -- the demolition of all nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. This will help bring lasting peace in the world.
The United States, for its part, can look forward to easing economic sanctions. Based on these developments, Congress may be able to give President Clinton discretionary authority to TTC ease some of the sanctions in the interim. The economic hardships for people of those nations would ease, and U.S. firms that export goods and services to India and Pakistan would benefit. Mr. Vajpayee should be commended for this bold step and new vision.
Some popular rhetoric in both nations, especially from narrowly focused religious groups, will be opposed to these policies. America and the rest of the world must hope that such distractions will not derail productive discussions between elected leaders of India and Pakistan.
Mr. Vajpayee and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif must continue to pursue prosperity with peace. Because much is to gain from stronger ties between these nations and from peace in the Indian subcontinent.
Pradeep Ganguly
Rockville
Pub Date: 10/24/98