Huge glass tower diminishes Canton
As a 20-year resident of an original Canton Square townhouse, I am certainly not opposed to progress. Indeed, my tiny house has increased in value tremendously with all of the rehabs and new construction in the area.
But a 240-foot, sparkly glass tower does not belong here. Not only will it dwarf every other structure nearby, but with its modern design it will look hideous in historic Canton ("Panel OKs high-rise in Canton," Feb. 23).
Modern glass, high-rise office buildings and condos are fine in downtown development areas set back from the waterfront. It's actually pleasant to be in a big city and view its glass towers touching the sky.
But in Canton, please, give us a design to be proud of. Give us a design that's not only aesthetically pleasing but complements the area's beautiful old harbor setting.
One only has to look at the 1st Mariner Bank building, only a few blocks from Lighthouse Point, to see this is possible.
Let's preserve the integrity of Canton.
Karen O'Connor Williams
Icon will undermine area's quality of life
The Sun's article "Panel OKs high-rise in Canton" (Feb. 23) noted that the president of Northshore at Canton Condominium Association spoke in favor of the proposed Icon building on Boston Street at a recent Planning Commission meeting.
The speaker did not reflect the views of the overwhelming majority of the residents of our community who are adamantly opposed to the Icon building.
I share the concern of most other residents of Canton that the Icon building will adversely affect the quality of life in this community. And I cannot understand why the Planning Commission approved it.
The writer is vice president of the Northshore at Canton Condominium Association.
Residents the real bedrock of Canton
With the city Planning Commission's decision to allow construction of the new Icon Tower in Canton, it would seem that decision-makers have, once again, decided to consider only one thing - the almighty dollar ("Panel OKs high-rise in Canton," Feb. 23).
As with other developments across the city, the proposed tower would significantly change the Canton area and detract from its unique quality.
In The Sun's article, Northshore at Canton townhouse community president Leigh Ratiner says, "From Rio de Janeiro to Hong Kong, it's the skyline that makes the city."
This could not be further from the truth. What makes a city are its residents and their contribution to the state and the country as a whole.
Taller buildings and more apartments are not going to define Baltimore as a great city - the residents of Baltimore will.
Building this eyesore will hurt those who care most about Canton - the residents themselves.
Saying we're sorry won't alter history
I can't see the purpose of an apology for slavery ("Slavery," Feb. 25).
Those who should offer the apology are not alive to extend it and those to whom it is owed are not alive to accept it. An apology from people not responsible for slavery to people not directly affected by it has no meaning.
You cannot undo or rewrite history.
And as a youngster, I remember a sign outside one state beach that read, "Gentiles Only."
Should the state also offer an apology to non-Gentiles?
And why not an apology to the American Indians for taking away their land, not obeying the treaties this country signed with their tribes and putting them on reservations?
Atone for wasting our time, money
The Sun's front-page tease "Should Maryland apologize for slavery" leads us to Jill Rosen's piece detailing Sen. Nathaniel Exum's proposed legislation ("Slavery," Feb. 25).
Presumably, only white Marylanders need apologize. And, presumably, since no white Marylanders living today had anything to do with slavery, they would be apologizing for who they are rather than what they did.
The only thing Marylanders really need to apologize for is sending knuckleheaded legislators to Annapolis who waste their time and our money on such nonsense.
Obliged to represent folks from Frederick
After reading "His faith, party put Mooney at crossroads" (Feb. 24), it seemed clear to me that state Sen. Alex X. Mooney doesn't really face much of a moral dilemma.
He was elected to represent his constituents in the Frederick area. His vote on the issue of the death penalty, and all other issues, must mirror the consensus of those he was sent to Annapolis to represent.
Failure to do so is an affront to the idea of a representative government.
If his religious convictions preclude him from voting in this manner, his constituents must respect that.
But he then must do the only honorable thing and immediately resign his position to make way for someone else.
Taking one life won't save another
A letter from a proponent of capital punishment concedes that "the death penalty does not deter crime, that we are the only Western nation that still has the death sentence, that there are racial disparities in death sentences, that some prisoners on death row have been found innocent," and then asks that we consider instead whether the penalty fits the crime of murder ("Consider the value of a victim's life," Feb. 25).
He also asks if "a convicted person's life is more valuable than the murder victim's life."
Well, nobody is claiming that it is - only that every person's life does have value, and that the taking of one life does not justify the taking of another.
How much more discussion does the letter-writer require?
'Rent-a-rabbi' plan will harm Judaism
I was stunned to see the article "New path to Judaism" (Feb. 20) on the front page and to see it continue over an additional half-page inside the paper along with two photos.
This was a priceless advertisement for Joey Malin's "rent-a-rabbi" business - a commercial enterprise that threatens to make the institution of the synagogue irrelevant.
Mr. Malin's claim to be "bringing Judaism to those who have been turned away from somewhere" is an excuse for undermining traditional Jewish practices for personal gain.
Hilda Perl Goodwin
Will the women now play five sets?
So the women winners at Wimbledon will now be paid the same amount as men.
Does this mean the women now will be required also to play the best-of-five-set matches instead of best-of-three - just like the men?