Explore alternatives to open-bay dumping of port's dredge spoil
The Sun's editorial "Bay channels needed for city port to thrive," (March 18) concurred with state Transportation Secretary John Porcari's statement that the decision open-water dumping at Site 104 "should be based on science."
Since when has the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers produced highly regarded information, much less good science?
The corps is an engineering body; it likes immediate, man-made projects. Many of those projects have, to say the least, overlooked long-term impacts.
For instance, almost a billion dollars, much of it taxpayers' money, is being spent to reverse the corps' channelizing of a Florida river, which helped cause damaging water-drainage changes in the Everglades.
Indeed a March 21 Sun headline states: "Corps of Engineers to investigate doctored-data charge."
It is my understanding that reform of the Army Corps of Engineers is underway. This will be extremely welcome.
But in the meantime, be sure to look at who is making these so called good scientific pronouncements about dumping dredged spoil in open water, particularly in a semi-contained bay.
Solidifying solutions are possible; they're expensive, but possible in these economically flush times.
Maryland has been a model for containment of dredged material in the past.
It could show the way with innovative solutions to the disposal of dredged spoil, just as it has with innovative concepts about smart growth.
Ellen H. Kelly, Baltimore
Saving jobs is important to Baltimore, as is having Baltimore become a major port again.
But how does the dredging the C&D; Canal and the Port of Baltimore benefit the bay, the watermen and the ecosystems dependent on our not dumping any more filth in the bay?
It is to the city's advantage -- and really not to anyone else's --that these projects be completed.
As a resident of the ever-provincial Eastern Shore, I feel irritated enough to call for The Sun to offer alternatives that involve Baltimore and its suburbs.
Why not build a factory to make brick from dredge spoil? How about dumping in your backyard?
Why not make it your problem also?
Marc Castelli, Chestertown
GOP did what it could to promote open primary
I take strong exception to The Sun's comment that "the state Republican Party has put a lid on drumming up interest among independents"("Independents can vote!" editorial, March 5).
I believe The Sun should compliment the Republican Party for allowing independents to vote in this year's primary election in an effort to broaden voting interest.
The Democratic Party did not offer the same opportunity to independents.
And, contrary to The Sun's comments, the Republican Party did aggressively promote the fact that Independents could vote in its March primary.
Party chairman Richard E. Bennett was on Maryland Public Television, on radio talk shows and wrote letters to editors, including one to The Sun ("Independent voters can participate in Republican primary," Feb. 26) regarding this matter. Papers throughout the state have publicized this fact.
Mr. Bennett and other party leaders, including myself, not only took the bold step of including independent voters in our elections this year, but promoted this concept within the limited financial resources available to us .
Richard E. Hug, Baltimore
The writer is Finance chairman of the Maryland Republican Party.
Community efforts create a safe place for kids to play
I want to thank The Sun for its fine article on the greatly improved situation at the playground of the Eutaw-Marshburn Elementary School ("Crime at bay, pupils play," March 16).
The police presence there has indeed made a difference. And it is encouraging to see what happens when community groups work together to improve a neighborhood.
In this case, thanks go to the Baltimore police, the Police Athletic League, the school, its parents and the Head Start and Child First programs -- all of which have helped this to be a safe playground.
Lynette Anderson, Baltimore
Editor's note: Ms. Anderson wrote this letter the day before she died on March 22.
Don't blame the courts and prosecutors for crime
The Sun and Mayor Martin O'Malley are wrong to treat the courts and state's attorneys as primarily responsible for crime control in Baltimore City.
According to a special committee of the American Bar Association, 91 percent of serious crimes go without an arrest.
It is irrational to treat prosecutors and judges -- who have influence on about 9 percent of serious crimes -- as the primary problem, as The Sun has done in its months-long, highly public campaign.
The mayor and his police department have a far larger share of the responsibility for crime control than do the courts and prosecutors. People who fail to report crimes also contribute to the problem.
Still, people are right to insist that courts and prosecutors pursue justice diligently and consistently.
However, this does not mean swallowing naive proposals that can create gross injustice, like Mr. O'Malley's plan to dispose of one-half of criminal cases within 24 hours after arrest.
Continuing to fulminate about the wrong issues will not improve the security of Baltimore's people.
Douglas M. Smith, Arnold
In battle of the webzines, Slate remains unvanquished
In her unbelievably credulous puffer on David Talbot, the editor of Salon, Laura Lippmann reports that "Talbot feels he long ago vanquished the Microsoft-funded webzine" Slate, which I edit ("Sultan of Slate," March 13).
What is The Sun's policy about relying on one person's "feelings" as the basis for a factual assertion?
The fact is that Salon loses far more money than Slate does, and the two sites are neck-and-neck in terms of traffic -- they beat us the past couple months, we beat them the previous five, they beat us before that, and so on.
Ms. Lippmann also reports that the New York Times hired A. O. Scott as movie critic based on an article by Mr. Scott in Salon. In fact, that article was in Slate.
Do my feelings count? I feel The Sun owes Slate an apology.
Michael Kinsley, Seattle, Wash.
The writer is editor of Slate (www.slate.com).
Remington isn't 'sagging' and doesn't need nightclub
While The Sun's article "Owner of diner discusses nightclub" (March 14) states that the site of a proposed new nightclub is behind the Papermoon Diner, this land is directly behind our houses.
And while the developer may argue that a $1.5 million restaurant and lounge a needed improvement for a "sagging neighborhood," our block is already improved, thank you very much, with over $1.5 million in residential real estate.
Does that kind of solid neighborhood investment no longer count?
Baltimore doesn't need to marginalize yet another city block, and alienate its residents in the interest of opportunism masquerading as "economic development."
Joan Floyd, Baltimore
This letter was also signed by two other Howard Street homeowners.