Ship pollution The writer of a letter titled “No ship problems” relates that, from his 18th floor perch at Dockside, he has experienced no problems with noise or pollution from the cruise ships. Nor is he ever inconvenienced by traffic diversions along Concord Street. That is nice for him, but not typical for other residents of the neighborhoods adjacent to the terminal.
For many of his neighbors, as well as motorists trying to navigate East Bay when Concord Street is closed from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., the cruise ships adversely affect the livability and mobility of our neighborhood in significant ways.
I have a balcony over Waterfront Park where I read and work on the computer to the background sounds of children playing in the fountain. When the ship is in, I have to wipe down the outdoor furniture twice a day as the black soot from the ship’s exhaust coats everything like it was pine pollen.
I worry: What about children in the park breathing all these particulates? I retreat inside where the constant announcements from the ship’s loudspeaker system still transfers through double-paned glass loud and clear. And, on top of all this, it’s easier to get to the Harris Teeter on James Island than the East Bay store.
For many in the French Quarter as well as for Ansonborough, access to the grocery store and other shops is a big factor in making our neighborhoods livable.
Yes, the City of Charleston is a great port and part of our state’s economic engine. But we residents, especially those in the boroughs adjacent to the cruise terminal, expect that our city and port will do everything possible to mitigate the problems of noise, air pollution and traffic tie-ups so that livability will be maintained, if not guaranteed.
Diane De Angelis Prioleau Street
Charleston Time warp I thought I was still asleep and having a bad dream about 1979 when I read the April 5 story about Phyllis Schlafly’s speech at The Citadel (“Schlafly says contraception issue contrived.”)
It’s a pity Ms. Schlafly was not briefed on local politics before pronouncing that “feminists” are generating controversy over reproductive health issues. In reality, politicians in our state who are pushing an extreme agenda are placing women’s health in danger.
It’s not true that, as our governor recently pronounced on national television, “Women are not concerned about contraception.”
As Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a recent opinion, women’s “ability to realize their full potential is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’ ”
In South Carolina, politicians are pushing legislation that would prevent a woman from buying comprehensive insurance coverage, allow hospitals to refuse a pregnant woman the care she needs if she arrives at an emergency room mid-miscarriage, and suggest fertilized eggs should be granted full legal rights. The same lawmakers who support abstinence-only-till-marriage programs are pushing an extreme agenda that interferes with women’s ability to make their own health-care decisions.
In Ms. Schlafly’s world view, which is one-dimensional, divisive and hostile to women, there is a notable lack of respect for everyone’s ability to form intimate relationships, to enjoy a private sexual life, and to decide whether and when to have children.
Respect for such values is precisely what most Americans want to “conserve.”
Victoria Middleton Executive Director
ACLU of South Carolina King Street
Charleston Wrong lesson All minors should be legally protected by the adults in their community from alcohol, tobacco, drugs, violence and sex.
So why are minors, who cannot legally consent to sex (even if they wanted to), taught in our schools and after-school programs that minors having sex is normal and healthy? Why are adults instructing minors how to have so-called “Safe Sex”?
If these same adults gave alcohol, tobacco or even porn to minors, they would be arrested and fired. Tell me why.
Mary S. McLellan Kilmarnock Way
Charleston Paperless idea For months the public endured the debate about plastic or paper yard waste bags. It seems the decision for paper was made without any concern for the home gardener.
And now, every time I mow or clean the lawn I am reminded of another terrible decision typical of government.
It seems to me it would be effective option to gather yard waste like the single stream recyclable materials are collected.
Of course, a different colored bin with wheels that roll on grass is needed.
Only grass, weeds and leaves go into the bin. Additional single-stream collection trucks would enable the city to “mothball” a portion of the “tweezer” tractors and dump trucks.
Imagine, no paper or plastic enters the landfill by this method. Finally, as a homeowner I would gladly pay a reasonable charge for the required bin in order to participate in a paperless program.
Don Myers W. Battery Lane Charleston
County waste I noticed in the April 6 Post and Courier a story “County Council paid attorney $400,000.”
That included $300,000, plus an additional $90,000 a year for taking on additional duties of running the county’s solid waste program.
This excessive amount paid to the attorney has been a problem for County Council for years.
The $400,000 is totally excessive. If they gave him the duties of running the waste program, then obviously that should be a full-time job (most program managers don’t make nearly $90,000 working full time). Also, no government organization needs an attorney to run anything.
This all speaks volumes about how incapable the county is at managing and running anything and why we pay wasted taxes to support such incompetent government.
This only gets worse as we go higher to state and then federal governments.
I suggest the contract for legal services be canceled or not renewed. Always settle out of court which is a lot less expensive than the county attorney.
Also, hire a solid waste manager for about $60,000 to $75,000 a year. The county should have many individuals who could run a waste program since the county has a lot of experience in wasteful practices.
Dan Cross Mahan Court Mount Pleasant
Term limits On March 21, 1947, the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution set a term limit for the president of the United States.
We have 435 representatives in the U.S. House and 100 senators who need to have term limits enacted on their length of service. It would be wishful thinking to expect this to happen with the current serving members.
Therefore, grandfather current members and place term limits on the newly elected or appointed members. By establishing term limits of 12 years for a senator and 10 years for a representative, we the people would have 535 people who really have the best interests of our country in mind rather than getting re-elected over and over.
Lastly, when they leave their office all existing perks are passed on to their successors.
And give the nine Supreme Court justices a maximum of 20 years in office.
That’s the hope and change that would restore our great country and put us on a path of prosperity.
Ed Gilligan Marsh Hawk Kiawah Island
The right move We were sorry to see the decision made by Charleston City Council regarding Club Habana. May we offer a suggestion?
An alternative location in the heart of Charleston — James Island.
Jodi Memmel Ray Stickels Kentwood Circle