Council sought editorial sway on film industry
There are two versions of the fate that befell the City Council resolution seeking to promote more positive stories about Baltimore and its people ("Who has the corner on Baltimore's image?" Nov. 20).
In the first version, defeat comes when some bigfoot Hollywood producer decides something as benign as an improved civic image is a personal affront. The second version is more subtle. It also happens to be true.
As early as the subcommittee hearing on the resolution, those of us in the film industry made it clear we had no problem with any campaign to improve Baltimore's image. However, the council wanted not only to promote those images of which it approved, but also to "counteract" those displeasing to city government.
That brought out the fight, because the film industry nurtured here over the last two decades is not likely to endure such a climate. Those jobs will go to a jurisdiction that is more secure and more understanding of the industry's resistance to editorial oversight.
At the same time, we made it clear in our testimony that while we objected to city government declaring which stories pass muster, every individual in Baltimore should feel free to express displeasure about what is produced here.
Only when the subcommittee seemed intent on passing the resolution unamended did I say, frankly, that I saw no reason to keep a production in a city that didn't want it and where, for telling quality stories rooted in reality, we had been deemed a civic liability.
I live in Baltimore and have deep affection for the city. But I would not ask HBO to assume the risks of filming in a jurisdiction resolved against a production, and I would not ask a cast and crew to work every day in a city so opposed.
The council resolution, as written, would have left us in that very position.
Baltimore
The writer created the Baltimore-based television series Homicide, The Wire and The Corner.
Rail plan does little for city residents
While it is commendable that state officials have unveiled a plan that will cut congestion and pollution, I am disappointed that the state has not made any simultaneous promise to do more for public transportation in the city ("State betting rail expansion will get commuters on track," Nov. 19).
Most people in the city do not live near a light rail or subway stop. Instead, they rely primarily on the bus system, which is less than ideal. Buses routinely break down, and commuting by bus can take hours.
If the state is proposing an improved subway system, shouldn't it also include lines that connect city neighborhoods to other city neighborhoods rather than create six lines "extending from downtown to the suburbs"?
The state's proposed rail system reveals a lack of concern for the needs of inner-city residents, especially low-income residents.
We don't need more plans to move people in and out of the city -- we need plans that will make them stay.
Margaret Walsh
Pasadena
Vouchers won't cure what ails our schools
School vouchers are not the answer to an ailing education system that too often leaves minorities at the losing end of the field ("Vouchers draw blacks to GOP," Nov. 17).
And in fact the Republican voucher plan would have unintended negative consequences that would outweigh its possible benefits. The plan includes vouchers for $2,500; the average cost of a private, secular high school is about $10,000.
The voucher plan is based on market economics. But for competition to function beneficially, all parents must have the time and resources to find the right school and the time and resources to transport their children to that school.
Few families who live in poor school districts have these resources. People who have them would be able to transfer their children. But what would happen to the majority?
The answer to our country's education woes lies in the equalization of funding.
Currently, education is funded by property taxes. Rich people own more expensive property than poor people do; rich people have access to better education than poor people do; and thus the dichotomy between rich and poor is magnified and sustained.
Equalization would pool the monies raised by property taxes and provide schools with equal funds for their students.
If more students attend schools that get the resources they need, they will get a better education. And if students get a better education, they will become better citizens, parents and employees.
Adam Godet
Timonium
Offer public housing to former offenders
Housing Commissioner Paul T. Graziano advises us that the Housing Authority of Baltimore City (HABC) believes in second chances ("Housing Authority supports new starts," letters Nov. 16), but he regrets that HABC cannot offer housing to ex-offenders because it is directed not to do this by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), not because it is uncaring.
We believe HABC cares; we also believe it is misinterpreting HUD rules and unduly burdening the poor and homeless of Baltimore.
The relevant part of the U.S. Code (42 USC 13661) clearly gives HABC the ability to house most ex-offenders.
Life on the streets is likely to lead to an arrest record -- for loitering, urinating in public or begging. If our neighbors with criminal records are denied affordable housing, they will continue to sleep on our sidewalks, face arrest and never be able to return to the mainstream.
HABC controls a key resource to solve homelessness: affordable housing. If the tens of thousands of Baltimoreans with criminal records can't access this resource, we will all continue to suffer the degradation of homelessness.
Jeff Singer
Baltimore
The writer is president and CEO of Health Care for the Homeless Inc.
Time to get tough in fight against crime
Detective Thomas G. Newman has been brutally executed on the crime-ridden streets of Baltimore City ("City officer, 37, shot to death during ambush," Nov. 24). While liberals bemoan the death penalty and urge gun control it seems the criminals have launched a full-scale assault on the Baltimore police.
We learned that the rules changed on terrorism when the twin towers fell. In the same way, the rules need to change in fighting crime in Baltimore. Here are a few suggestions:
Any suspect who ignores an officer's command to halt should be shot. If you choose to flee, you do so at your own peril.
In cases where the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, murderers should be put on the fast track for execution. Swift justice sends a clear message to the criminal element.
Set up small satellite police stations throughout the city.
Deploy the National Guard throughout the city.
Assign every crime a dollar value and don't let the criminal be released until he or she makes full restitution. What better way to value life than to give it an actual value?
And if criminals realize that a killing is worth $1 million in restitution, they may think a bit more before pulling the trigger. And if they cannot work that debt off in prison, we will finally get murderers paying with lifetime incarceration.
We will continue to live in fear, and see officers die, until we stop the liberal posturing and come down on crime like a ton of bricks.
Kenneth E. Iman
Baltimore
Security bill favors special interests
It seems like such a short time ago that President Bush was berating the Democrats for attaching "special interest" concerns to the bill to create a Department of Homeland Security.
But if we take a look at the version that passed, we see pro-business provisions in the law that no constituent would ever let his or her congressperson get away with were they to stand alone -- for instance, a provision allowing the federal government to do business with U.S. corporations who move their operations offshore to avoid paying taxes. .
But where is the outrage? Do voters have collective amnesia?
Are the Democrats too timid to make any but the weakest objection to such hypocrisy? Or is the conglomerate-controlled media more than happy to let such pro-business manipulations ride?
We must remember that the president isn't America, only part of the government -- a government that only works to protect our rights when debate is free and open.
Daniel Hart
Owings Mills
Truth, not turnout, caused Taylor's loss
The Sun's editorial "The shrinking voter" (Nov. 20) suggests a low turnout and special interest groups caused the defeat of House Speaker Casper R. Taylor Jr.
But while the turnout in Mr. Taylor's Allegany County was slightly lower than the turnout in 1998, it is hardly fair to imply it was low or that turnout was a factor in his defeat. The Allegany County turnout of 56.31 percent exceeded that of Baltimore City or of Frederick, Prince George's, Somerset or Wicomico counties.
Essentially, as many voters went to the polls in District 1C as in the previous election, and the incumbent speaker lost.
Considering how hard it is for an incumbent speaker to lose to a political newcomer -- the message sent by Mr. Taylor's defeat is huge: Politicians who want to continue sticking it to law-abiding gun owners as usual had better think again.
Freedom is important enough to overthrow a sugar daddy.
The editorial's reference to "well-financed" single-issue advocates is amusing. Our power is greater than you imagine, because we had less than 1 percent of Mr. Taylor's money to spend on our message.
But our power is truth -- and we just told the truth.
Philip F. Lee
Silver Spring