Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 3 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
To the Editor:
A story in the Sept. 6 News discusses a Congressional proposal that would take away from localities the right to accept, reject or control the location of cellular telephone towers. This legislation is the work of a Republican-led Congress that, while claiming to turn government back to the people, really wants to turn affairs over to business interests that will cut citizens out of decisions that affect their lives every day.
For so long we have been protected from some of the rapacity of business by rules, regulations and laws giving citizens some say in what happens in their communities that we have forgotten where these laws came from and why they were called for.
Ask Jay Katzen what he thinks about H.R. 1555 and S. 652 and what he would try to do about he harmful effects of some of its provisions. Ask Sue Scheer. You know what her answer would be — “Empower citizens, not big business.”
You may want to write to Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-7th Dist.) House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, and send a copy to Rep. Frank Wolf at the same address, urging Bliley to work to eliminate the Federal Communications Commission’s preemptive power over local zoning authority with respect to the placement, construction, operation or modification of cellular towers.
Democrats are far more pro-business than they are pro-government. They look for balance — for a civil society that helps people help themselves, and when that isn’t possible, to empower governmental agencies — at all levels of government — to restrain individuals and groups from taking advantage of the majority. One way Republicans try to misrepresent Democrats is to make generalized, undocumented claims for outrageous beliefs they say Democrats hold.
Is it “environmental extremists and elitists” who are concerned about water contamination at the site of the former Aileen plant? Or is it reasonable environmentalists who know that the damage to the earth there — both “horizontally and vertically” — can make water unsafe and that something has to be done about it? I would like to know how one tells an environmental extremist from a reasonable environmentalist. Some concrete examples would be helpful.
We need to respect one another’s differences of opinion and learn to discuss the pertinent facts that may be at the bottom of what makes political discussion necessary and enlightening. No one has the truth for long. If political dialogue isn’t friendly, it tends to be poisonous, like the beautiful amanita mushrooms pictured about the letters to the editor in the Sept. 6 issue. We must not let poison contaminate the wells of our political lives. We teach our children not to call each other names. Adults should leam not to do that too.
Who would be surprised to leam that there may be another solution to the sheriffs office dispatch problems available now or tomorrow that doesn’t involve a 250 foot tower?
DIANA BIRD
Washington
94.6%