After reading Brian Hicks' column about the destruction and redevelopment of the Sergeant Jasper apartment building and surrounding properties, we came up with a great idea for the planning department and developer.
Obviously, the loss of Sergeant Jasper will leave a void in residential and some commercial property in the area.
The perfect replacement would be a "gathering place." It would include several hundred apartments with commercial businesses below and a large multi-story parking garage right next to Colonial Lake.
There are no trees to butcher. The traffic on Broad Street and Lockwood Boulevard is minimal compared to the traffic on Maybank Highway where another gathering place is being developed by the city.
Just think of the message it would send to those radical James Islanders if the Charleston Planning Commission approves a gathering place right on the peninsula of Charleston.
Bill and Brook Lyon
Time after time
Here we go again. The TV news people and meteorologists stating that we should all enjoy the extra hour of daylight now that daylight saving time (a misnomer) has arrived.
Since I am an early riser, I waited with great anticipation for the sun to rise at about 6:38 a.m. That time came and went. About an hour later the sun rose. So I seem to have lost an hour of daylight. Maybe the extra hour will come this evening. The sun set around 7:23 p.m. Well, there was my extra hour.
But something doesn't seem right with this. I lose an hour and gain a hour. Therefore I don't seem to have that extra hour the TV people are talking about.
I checked the most reliable source in the universe, The Post And Courier. There were 11 hours and 44 minutes of daylight on March 8 and 11 hours and 46 minutes of daylight on March 9.
According to the arithmetic, I lost about one hour in the morning and gained about one hour in the evening which equals a total of two minutes of extra daylight. So, I guess that means that the sun doesn't really care what man does to his clocks. The sun rises and sets according to its own schedule and I am very thankful that it probably always has and always will.
Recently, while driving on Bees Ferry Road toward Highway 17, I was astonished to see that someone had planted trees in the median dividing the soon to be four-lane highway connecting Highways 61 and 17.
Granted, they are now harmless little saplings but in 15 or 20 years they will grow up to be crazed killers, just like their cousins on I-26.
So I have to ask: People, what were you thinking?
Harry B. Gray Jr.
Unused bike lane
I travel St. Andrews Boulevard and Highway 61 almost daily. Since the addition of the bike lanes (on both sides of the highway) I have seen maybe seven bikers use it. I do see bicycles and their operators pedaling in the center lane and along the sidewalks.
Now I hope to see law enforcement ticket those operators. Why did we waste all of that money and time to make bike lanes if people don't use them?
Now they want to take a lane away from the Ashley River bridge motorists just for bicyclists.
Well, after reading the letter to the editor from the cyclist in Mount Pleasant who feels he should not be on the bike path because he goes 20 plus miles an hour, I am livid.
Bikes can pass each other right? The writer is correct. We should share the road, but when you have your very own lane, use it.
I sure hope the Department of Transportation wakes up and realizes that the gridlock we see daily going either way on the Ashley River bridges is only going to be made worse by an empty bike/pedestrian lane.
Now back to that gridlock on the Ashley River bridges - any plan to alleviate that?
Now that South Carolina has again made the national news, this time about state-sponsored censorship, perhaps it will be useful to observe that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the enactment of any law "... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. ..." These provisions contain no restrictions or limitations.
The S.C. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, contains this exact same prohibition using the exact same language.
Nevertheless, the S.C. General Assembly now seeks to ignore the First Amendment by abridging these rights through enactment of legislation blocking the College of Charleston and the University of South Carolina from using a certain book in their curriculum.
Notably, this proposed law is being advanced primarily by the same cadre of legislators who claim that the Second Amendment, like the First, is not subject to any restrictions, that all limitations freighting the Second Amendment right to bear arms should be abolished, and that every person should be allowed to carry a firearm everywhere.
By all means, let's be sure to ban books, not bullets. The moralistic hypocrisy and political pandering are palpable.
The national laughing continues.
A. Elliott Barrow Jr.
Barrow Law Firm
Chuck Dawley Boulevard
Notice about comments: