Congratulations to the Coastal Carolina Aquatic Association for organizing a highly successful 2014 City Swim Meet.
The Goose Creek Community Pool at Crowfield Golf Club and Stratford High School volunteers also deserve credit for hosting the event and creating a competitive and comfortable atmosphere supported by well-orchestrated transportation to and from the facility.
Spectators were offered tiered seating from bleachers that proved to be ample for each event and commanded great viewing of the pool from all angles.
As an added benefit, WCBD Channel 2 provided live-stream video to spectators on the web, allowing family and friends from near and far to watch swimmers from the Charleston area.
We witnessed a mother shedding tears of joy because her husband, a deployed serviceman, was able to watch via the Internet as their child swam.
In addition to the change of venue, the change to age-specific meets was a welcome format this year.
Most importantly, because of the efforts and contributions of all involved, many talented and hard-working CCAA swimmers from ages 6-18 offered coaches, families and friends a great showcase of swimming for which we can all be proud.
Ashley Hall Plantation Road
Various news sources keep reiterating that the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision denies women access to contraception.
This is not correct.
Hobby Lobby covers 16 kinds of birth control for its employees. It objects to paying for abortifacients which terminate pregnancies.
Quite a difference.
The Supreme Court made the right decision. Private companies should not be required to pay for things that are against their beliefs.
As the July 17 article "Democrats hoping birth control setback will motivate women" states, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has jumped on the bandwagon about this. He has turned it into a political issue, hoping to get women's votes.
This decision does not deny women access to contraception. Period.
There has been much print devoted to the recent Board of Architectural Review's decision to grant Clemson's proposed Spaulding Paolozzi Center in Charleston preliminary approval.
Those in opposition specifically state three issues:
First, the apparent new rule that the initial height, scale and mass conceptual approval now includes approval of the building's "architectural style" and that this rule needs to be revisited.
Second, that the public input, overwhelmingly in opposition as expressed at the recent BAR meeting was ignored by members of the board in their deliberations.
Third, the decision of the BAR to grant preliminary approval was obviously not in keeping with the city's preservation ordinance.
I would like to offer the following comments:
1) The apparent new rule needs to be revisited so that the fleshed-out architecture of the building is presented and decided upon at preliminary approval, not at conceptual approval.
However, in the case of the CAC I would argue strongly that the entire debate, comment, conversation and vote of the evening concerned the "architectural style'"of the building.
Everybody in the room knew the "architectural style" of this building was on review. The new rule was not in effect on this specific evening. Arguments concerning this rule at this particular meeting need to be dropped as they are a moot point.
2) The BAR always takes public comment into advisement. In this case, the Preservation Society, the Historic Charleston Foundation, many neighbors and interested parties spoke.
However, the board is not in any way bound by public comment. They are a board, each individual appointed by the mayor of Charleston to review and vote his conscience in the best interest of the city, while respecting the city's preservation ordinance. Public comment is carefully considered and weighed by each individual board member as he sees fit.
3) Whether or not an individual project complies with the city's preservation ordinance is a matter of judgment for each board member.
Differing opinions within the public at large and on the board often happen. On the evening of the board meeting the vote was 4-2 in favor of the project. Those four board members had vision.
Lastly, it must be pointed out that BAR Chairman Robert DeMarco should not have gone before the Charleston Legislative Delegation to lobby his case against the project.
It's time for Chairman DeMarco to resign.
I recently read a quote by Lyndon Johnson in the November 29, 1963 issue of Life Magazine.
He said that it is a professional politician's first duty to "appeal to the forces that unite us, and to channel the forces that divide us into paths where a democratic solution is possible. It is our obligation to resolve issues - not to create them."
We sure could use that attitude in politics today, couldn't we?
Fort Johnson Road