In the last six months we have been contacted multiple times by people looking for an auto body repairman who represented himself as one of our employees, even producing a business card. He offered to repair some damage to their car either in their driveway or at the shop where they supposedly worked.
The repairs were done badly, and the car owners were upset.
But when they go looking for the repairman, nobody has heard of him. I have recently heard from four other repair shops that have had similar experiences.
The last one to call me had a $375 bumper repair that the repairman was going to do for $200, and now she needs a $750 bumper replacement.
In the years that I have been in this business, the saving of deductibles or cheap repairs almost always comes back to bite somebody.
I urge car owners to check with the supposed employer and verify the identity of the repairer and ask who is going to guarantee the repair.
J & L Auto Body Inc.
Old Trolley Road
A state’s right
A March 26 letter writer said that because of the “full faith and credit” clause in Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution, a marriage between persons of the same sex must be recognized in all states.
However, a state can disregard a provision in the Constitution if it has a compelling state interest to do so.
If a state deems such a marriage as against its public policy, it can disregard that provision.
Irving S. Rosenfeld
CARTA’s new Veolia Bus Tracker system is a huge step forward for transit riders in the Charleston area.
A March 18 article may have left the non-riding public with inaccurate impressions that local transit riders might be unfortunate, unsophisticated and economically challenged.
I, and the other members of the Hungryneck Straphangers, (www.busec.org) recognize many residents of the Charleston area will continue to be auto dependent well into the future.
Fortunately, those of us who are transit enabled enjoy a wider set of options that allow us to save money, reduce car congestion, strengthen our nation and reduce the impact of our movement on our community.
Last year CARTA ridership grew 9.07 percent. More than five million rides were taken on public transit on CARTA and TriCounty Link combined.
Contrary to what some people believe, most people riding CARTA have smart phones now. We checked the riders at the Mary Street Transit Center on March 18 while distributing transit voter information for the congressional election.
Sixty percent of the riders had smart phones. Android devices were favored by a wide margin. Android provides reliable access to Google Transit and Veolia Bus Tracker, making paper transit maps obsolete.
Apple’s decision to drop transit from its mapping service last year, only to add it back later, made its more expensive phone less attractive to transit riders.
Thanks to two years of transit rider organization and the support of forward thinking political representatives of both parties, far fewer transit riders will be waiting in the rain next year as $400,000 in bus stop improvements are installed.
Transit riders are not poor. Sixty five percent of the trips made on CARTA are to and from work. Transit riders locally include people who are well paid to perform life-saving procedures at our hospitals’ intensive care units. Six candidates for U.S. Congress were on the bus this election.
Those people leading their fellow riders are prosperous enough, smart enough and powerful enough to use a smart phone and get out of the rain. They also vote.
William Hamilton III
Attorney at Law
William J. Bennett, in his book the “Death of Outrage,” explains why “character matters; why allegations of sexual misconduct need to be taken seriously; why reasoned judgment is the mark of a healthy democracy; and why ends do not justify the means.”
He asks, “Do Americans still acknowledge, implicitly or explicitly, that core ethical values like honesty, respect, distinguishing right from wrong — good character — are important and often even decisive? Of course they do.”
Apparently, to 37 percent of the Republican primary voters in the First Congressional District, character does not matter.
Early ed works
I was appalled by Heritage Foundation fellow Lindsey M. Burke for her misleading article, “Early-ed benefits are vastly overrated.”
As a nurse and an educator I have read the massive research on benefits of early education particularly for poor children. Ms. Burke’s statement that a presidential proposal is based on one small study was insulting.
I simply did a Google search for “benefits of early childhood education” and found vast studies, some by universities, and some by the National Institute of Health.
The NIH followed 1,000 low income families and 550 alternative families in Early Childhood Development (ECD) programs for comparison since 1967 and reported various benefits.
Another 1970 study reported on 111 at-risk infants enrolled in either a control group or early intervention (Abecedarian Project).
The experimental group was four times more likely to earn a college degree, more consistently employed and less likely to be on public assistance.
Syracuse Preschool Program, the High/Scope study, found that ECD was the best investment for the most benefit.
I challenge anyone to check out Ms. Burke’s hypothesis; do your own research.
Dorothy Lemmey Ph.D. Palmetto Boulevard
Married vs. united
For a thousand years, apples were called apples and oranges were called oranges.
In 2013, the government decided that everyone must agree that apples and oranges are both called apples.
If you refuse to call the orange thing an apple, you must be a bigot.
The media insists that a majority of Americans are for gay marriage.
This is ironic, given the fact that California, one of the country’s most liberal states, voted for Proposition 8.
In this case 13 million people voted and reiterated that only “marriage between a man and a woman are recognized as marriage in California.” Did media polls include any actual voters in their sample?
You may get a majority of Americans today to agree that homosexuals should be allowed to enter into a contract together, sanctioned by the government, and with it the benefits the government bestows on heterosexual couples in a traditional marriage.
However, that same majority would agree that these are two different relationships, and, thus, the contract deserves a different name.
I strongly agree with banning texting while driving. My question is how would this law literally be enforced.
First, if driving while talking on a cell phone remains legal, how would the police officer who stops me prove that I am texting rather than talking on my phone?
Second, if the laws on the books now are not enforced why would a ban on texting prevent folks from such activity?
Just sit at any large intersection in Charleston and watch how many folks run red lights. By the way, many have phones stuck to their ears.
Unfortunately, there must be real consequences for behavior to change.