Fans eager to pay for soccer stadium
The Baltimore Sun has weighed in against a proposed soccer stadium in Prince George's County ("Another stadium?" editorial, Feb. 25). I must disagree with this conclusion.
Major League Soccer is healthy and growing even in these very tough times. This soccer league is here to stay. And D.C. United is a flagship team for the league.
A study funded by the Maryland Stadium Authority clearly finds this project would be a net benefit for the county and state. The idea that Maryland cannot afford this "risk" is simply absurd.
One thing must be understood: D.C. United's fans will pay for this stadium.
My fellow team supporters and I will pay taxes on our tickets, parking and concessions that will service the debt required to pay for the stadium.
If you don't want to pay for this stadium, don't go to a game. It will be your loss. I will happily pay for the stadium, along with 24,000 of my friends every other Saturday.
A stadium also makes sense for Prince George's County. It would provide an entertainment destination within the county. And this stadium would be a better attraction than FedEx Field, one that would offer many more events and wouldn't be surrounded by acres of parking.
I have spent many hundreds of dollars in Washington through the years to see soccer games at RFK Stadium. I would otherwise have gone to movies and dinner in Maryland.
As a Maryland resident, I want to spend these dollars in my state. All that stands in the way is timid legislators.
Mark McGinnis, Columbia
Multiple births merit anger from public
Susan Reimer's attempt to soften the widespread anger at Nadya Suleman, the woman who recently gave birth to octuplets, falls short on several counts ("We can afford to attack, but not help," Feb. 23).
First, no reasonable person questions the need to do everything possible to support the growth and development of Ms. Suleman's newborns. Help is being provided to her family, and will continue to be.
But Ms. Suleman's decision to bear these children, given her life circumstances (six previous children and inadequate financial resources) is an example of the kind narcissistic excess that deserves the anger triggered by her multiple births. And the fact that other families have produced similarly large broods without public scorn, as Ms. Reimer notes, is no cause for celebration.
In an age when exploding populations threaten societal viability everywhere, all such childbearing must be questioned, whether the parents are financially capable of supporting their children or not.
Too many of us have lost sight of the fact that every personal decision also affects society at large. Ms. Suleman's decision, along with that of the fertility specialist who assisted her (no doubt for a very handsome fee), are but the latest examples of this collective blind spot in our society.
Howard Bluth, Baltimore