Letters to the editor

Letters to the editor

February 10, 1991

SAVE WESTMINSTER TREES

EDITOR'S NOTE: The state is planning to widen East Main Street in Westminster. To accomplish that, most of the trees along the street will have to be removed. A number of citizens oppose the project, especially if the trees -- part of the city's historic nature -- are removed. We have been asking readers if they think the street should be widened and if so, is it acceptable to remove the trees; we also are asking if they would prefer to see parking limited to only one side of the street as an alternative to the widening. Here are some of the replies we received so far

From: Norman C. Gerhold

Westminster

A widened street of less than two additional lanes will do nothing to increase the flow of traffic through the town.

Anything less makes the loss of those fine old trees a terrible price to pay for a dubious gain!

Save the trees! They define the character of the town!

From: Lilija P. Allison

Westminster

Why is the state planing to widen East Main Street?!

Instead of trees, let's remove the ugly telephone poles and wires.

We could make Main Street one way going west and Green Street one way going east, then improve all of the sidewalks and plant more trees.

Parking on one side only would be fine.

From: Mary E. Allen

Westminster

I think Main Street, Westminster, is too beautiful to change.

No! No! No! No!

Do not cut down the trees onMain Street.

Main Street, Westminster, is quaint and beautiful. It is a lovely and comfortable street to shop on.

All the times I've been shopping on Main Street or driven through town, I've never seen a traffic situation that was a terrible problem.

However, I do think "on street" parking should be limited to just one side of the street -- there really is a nice and good-sized parking area behind thestores to accommodate the shoppers.

And widening the street really won't change things for the better. If you make the street wider, it will only encourage more traffic and make shopping more uncomfortable for the pedestrian shopper -- and think of the children using the library.

Please don't destroy this peaceful and beautiful old townby modernizing it and thus depriving future generations of the enjoyment and an appreciation of their heritage.

From: Eva Shillingburg

Westminster

Little by little, first one landmark, then another, Westminster could become just another insignificant appearing small city.

East Main Street, with its charm, beauty and home-like appearance, would be destroyed. This cannot be revived. There must be some intelligent alternative to this situation.

Limited parking on one side of the street is merely one. There are so many of us who careabout our hometown and are deeply moved when they see ruins like theold Gilman Inn on Route 97 stand as a sad monument to the caring days of Westminster or to this farm or barn moving into oblivion.

Perhaps we cannot help many of our changes, but to destroy the whole appearance of a section of our city need not be. Please, for a wise and good sense approach to save it.

SPEAK OUT ON ABORTION

EDITOR'S NOTE: Abortion once again is before the state legislature. Proposals range from Delegate Lawrence A. LaMotte's bill to affirm the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 legalization of abortion to bills co-sponsored by Sen. Larry E. Haines that would restrict abortions except under extreme circumstances and prevent abortions on minors without parental consent. We have been asking readers if they think abortions should be legal and readily available in Carroll, if parents should be notified if children plan an abortion and if minors should be required to undergocounseling first. Here are some of the replies we received so far

From: Vincent Perticone

Licensed social worker

Taneytown

Two abortion bills presently before the Maryland Legislature hopefully will draw the strong, vigorous opposition of caring Carroll County citizens.

Under the usual guise of "choice," these bills, deadly for babies and dangerous for women and girls, are designed to perpetuate the decriminalized wholesale killing of unborn humans permitted by Roe vs. Wade and to protect the $2 billion a year abortion industry.

For example, Senate Bill 146, the Abortion Omnibus Bill, requires:no parental choice or consent for pregnant minors contemplating abortion --effectively removing a parent's choice to guide and protect his or her child; no informed consent -- leaving women and girls in thedark about the nature and risks of abortion surgery and the developing baby within their wombs.

Is this freedom of choice? No accountability or liability for malpractice on the abortionist's part -- depriving women of any rights to appeal or legal redress of damages suffered whatsoever, including serious complications from induced abortion(don't bet that the National Organization For Women will be opposingthese provisions); and no reporting of abortions by "physicians."

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.