I have intentionally waited more than a month. I have intentionally waited to see how many of our so-called Mount Pleasant leaders involved in the Medal of Honor Museum fiasco would say three words, “I am sorry.”
“I am sorry for failing to serve as promised, to compromise, to be a consensus builder, to be a leader and actually lead!”
When will people who seek out and/or accept leadership roles recognize they are there to serve and not to build their social resumes?
I cannot think of an easier and more deserving cause to raise money for — and construct a lasting tribute to — than what are truly America’s greatest heroes.
I wonder how many of these leaders are embarrassed. I presume not many, if any at all.
When leaders fail to recognize the need to apologize, it only supports the notion they are not serving for the right reasons.
You all have had plenty of time to say, “I am sorry.” You all were charged with honoring Medal of Honor recipients, and yet you stood for nothing close to what they embody.
You did not lead, nor did you sacrifice. I am embarrassed for you. I will say “I am sorry” to those who will not be honored appropriately, or at least not locally.
I am sorry we have some officials who are more interested in having it their way than working as a team.
The Town of Summerville is close to approving a large commercial office development in the heart of our historic district.
The location, 211 W. Richardson Ave., has a lovely antebellum residence on a 1-acre lot. Developers have proposed converting it to office space and squeezing two more buildings on the site to create 12,000 square feet of office space.
Several outbuildings will be demolished and most of the land paved over for parking. This will likely cause potential flooding problems and parking will spill over onto residential streets.
One of the charms of Summerville is the absence of cars lining the streets in front of our historic homes.
This proposed development would permanently damage the small-town feel and character of the historic district. It would be just as harmful as the now-failed Dorchester Hotel and condo development across the street.
It is too massive and does not belong in the historic district.
Understandably, nearby residents are upset that their protests are being ignored by the Board of Architectural Review, which is charged with protecting the historic district.
Mayor Wiley Johnson was blocked by the Town Council when he tried to replace some of its members who seemed to favor developers over residents. Even today, one member is being paid to represent the developer before the board.
Charleston requires any developer to consult with neighbors and reach consensus before submitting plans to the city. Summerville should do the same.
South Magnolia Street
What pathetic resumes we saw for finalists for president of the University of South Carolina.
There is no shame in reopening a search. The leader must embrace today’s diversity. I’m a 1973 alumnus of the journalism and honors colleges.
Ponderous resumes and one from the “Long Gray Line” sadly reflect a long gone past.
Our 21st century demands a fresh mentor with a challenging vision to lead our premier institution of higher education.
Twin Lakes Court
Sunset Beach, N.C.
More justice, love
Yet again, hate has reared its ugly head. The April 16 article about the burning of a rainbow flag at a family home in West Ashley shows that our beloved Charleston community still has work to do.
Several times the Unitarian Church in Charleston has had banners that proclaim tolerance and respect stolen from our wayside pulpit and our front fence.
We believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person. We create spirituality and community beyond boundaries, working for more justice and more love in our own lives and in the world. We honor those in our community who are doing this hard work.
Wappoo Hall Road
The “Judging the judges” letter to the editor on Page A12 Saturday contained an editing error.
A sentence should have read: “Judge Goodstein heard objections to the
proposed settlement agreement by a small group of attorneys; however, these objections pertained to the fairness of the proposed ‘class plaintiffs’ recovery rubric,’ rather than the proposed class counsel legal fees.”