Keep ordinanceA topic critical to Mount Pleasant residents was voted on at the April 18 Planning Commission meeting. The Mount Pleasant Planning Department wants to remove an ordinance that says no building with a footprint larger than 70,000 square feet is allowed on a tract of land 50 acres or less.

After hearing 12 residents speak to why we need to keep the ordinance, the Planning Commission voted overwhelmingly (6-2) in favor of keeping it on the books.

We need to protect our town against overdevelopment of big box stores on small properties.

I hope that Town Council members will heed the counsel of the Planning Commission and keep this ordinance in the zoning code.

The next opportunity for discussion and voting on whether to keep this ordinance on the books will be at the Planning Committee meeting today at 1 p.m. in council chambers, Building C, 100 Ann Edwards Lane. It will be considered again at the Mount Pleasant Town Council meeting, at 6 p.m. on May 8. Please attend these meetings and let your voice be heard.

If you can’t attend, write your opinion to your Town Council members at 100 Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, S.C. 29464.

Pat SullivanPlantation Court

Mount PleasantA reminderThank you, Post and Courier, for the insert, “Tomorrow never came.” Thank you, sponsors of this insert, for making this possible.

To the writers, contributors and the Jewish Federation, thank you for reminding us what prejudice, blind hate and apathy can cause.

Readers, I ask you to place yourself in the various positions discussed in the supplement. Do you “fit” into any of the groups? Do you attempt to bully society or your community because you are certain your belief system is the only correct one?

Do you demand respect for these beliefs? Are you unwilling to consider that others deserve the same respect and consideration from you?

I hope everyone took the time to read this special section and will share it with others. The topic deserves as much attention today as it should have gotten 70-80 years ago.

Mary GradyBeechcraft Street

CharlestonFacts, not faithThe “environmentalism as religion” commentary by Robert Nelson, published April 20, misses one monumental reality. Religion is based on faith. Environmental science is based on facts.

While some environmentalists may become zealous in defense of the Earth, they are still basing their concerns on observable data and testable hypotheses. Science is not a belief system.

As another commentator, Peter Goldmark, recently observed, until we put aside willful ignorance and poisonous politics, we will be unable to mitigate this, the sixth major mass extinction event on this planet, which we have initiated.

JEAN EVERETT, Ph.DMurphy’s Court

CharlestonWorking momsAs expected, the poorly worded comments of Hilary Rosen have created a firestorm. And in true American political dog-and-pony-show fashion, the discussion isn’t about what the comments actually meant.

In Teresa Taylor’s April 14 article, stay-at-home moms talked about their hard work.

From birth until they leave the nest, children require a great amount of care, attention, discipline and education from their parents.

Coupled with tasks of homemaking and meal preparation, I would guess that stay-at-home moms are at the top of the list of under-compensated workers, surpassing even teachers, firefighters and law enforcement.

The article, “We do work hard,” quotes three regional women who don’t appreciate the perceived denigration of stay-at-home moms. But I wonder if their experiences compare at all to the experience of Ann Romney?

Did she not have a household staff who did the cleaning and cooking? Were there no nannies, gardeners and chauffeurs? I wonder how often she sat at the kitchen table carefully planning meals and clipping coupons to try to stay within a budget while providing nutritious food for her family.

The article didn’t include single working moms, who raise their children and are the breadwinners. Or moms who have no choice but to work to supplement their husband’s income.

While Rosen’s remarks were ill worded and diminished her worth as a political strategist, what she was trying to get across resonated with more women I have talked to. Admittedly, she was speaking as a partisan political operator. That it came from someone on the left didn’t make it any less true of most politicians on the national level, regardless of party affiliation.

Stuart JohnsonErckmann Drive

Mount PleasantThe hedge edgeIn an op-ed, hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson came out in favor of taxing millionaires at a high rate regardless of the source of their income or deductions, along the lines of a tax proposal by Warren Buffett.

Tilson, an Obama donor and founder of Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, stated that he was OK with paying higher taxes, even though he would have had to pay at least 40 percent more for 2011 had the Buffett rule been in place.

On the surface, this seems altruistic. As a professional investor (now retired), I dealt with several hedge fund managers. While they were highly intelligent and extremely competent, I would not describe them as “altruistic.” Why then is this group calling for higher taxes on their income? There are a couple of possible reasons.

First, like Warren Buffett and Obama’s Hollywood supporters, most successful hedge fund managers are so wealthy that they simply don’t care about their income tax rate. Their wealth has already been taxed and sheltered and is more than their grandchildren could spend in 10 lifetimes. They can afford to be cavalier about tax rates that would crush most successful working professionals or business owners.

Second, they, as their occupation suggests, are hedging. They are in effect offering “protection money” to Obama to avoid waking up some day to discover an all-powerful “czar” has been appointed to regulate their activity. It’s also fairly safe to clamor for higher tax rates, as the Buffett Rule is unlikely to clear Congress. Those hedge fund guys are pretty smart after all.

John R. WilsonGlossy Ibis Lane

Kiawah IslandNo cause to resign

Amy Fabri, an animal rescue worker who wrote an email that offended a family surrendering their dog, has been asked to resign her position on the Charleston County Planning Commission.

Elliott Summey, vice chairman of County Council, sent a letter April 6 to members of council and the commission calling for Fabri to step down from her appointed post because of “inflammatory comments” she made about the Charleston Animal Society.

I was just as offended as Summey with Fabri’s unfortunate choice of words. Her comments assailed the Animal Society and the family.

However, Summey is wrong to call for Fabri’s ouster. Fabri was not acting in her capacity as a commission member when she wrote the email. She was writing as a lab rescue worker, and apparently prompted by her zeal for that valuable endeavor.

Fabri was exercising her constitutional right to free speech.

Fabri might do well to reflect on her communication skills with people and match them with her commendable empathy with animals. But her email is not cause for removal from the commission.

Robert P. StocktonMontagu Court

Charleston Strange contrastIt seems I am supposed to hate the way Romney went about making, saving, and distributing his money. And, I am supposed to love the way Obama confiscates, redistributes, and wastes mine?

ED ORICKBarfield StreetDaniel Island