It's premature to vote on Question L
I read with astonishment your Oct. 17 editorial endorsing Question L, which will appear on the Nov. 5 general election ballot: single-member districts for the Baltimore City Council.
My astonishment is not based on your position, but rather that you would formulate it knowing that a thorough, public investigation of the issue by the Charter Review Commission is due to the mayor and City Council in January 1992. The entire City Charter is currently under review by this commission, which is headed by Judge Harry Cole. Part of their gargantuan task is to review the current structure of the City Council and determine what composition it should take.
As chair of the council Judiciary Committee, I held a meeting on this topic and invited both proponents of Question L and Judge Cole, so that a more rational timetable of events might be established. Unfortunately, the proponents and The Evening Sun were not accommodating.
Unquestionably, the timing of Question L is premature. If the voters approve this question, it cannot take effect until 1995, the next municipal election. Before that time, there will be two more general elections, a presidential election in 1992 and a gubernatorial election in 1995, when this issue, fully explored by the Charter Review Commission, could be put to the voters for approval or rejection.
I, personally, do not have any preconceived notion of what configuration the council should take: single- vs. multi-member districts - three, six, nine, 12 or 18 districts. All should be explored.
Rochelle "Rikki" Spector
The writer is a member of the Baltimore City Council representing the 5th District.
Publicity is being given to rumors that the "Maryland You Are Beautiful" program is costing the state money.
I think the public should be aware that this program, which was created to reward volunteers for services performed, is a completely non-budgeted item and does not cost the state anything. This non-profit project encourages volunteers and has nothing but beneficial results for the state.
To have politicians say this program should be abolished is absurd when there are no funds provided.
Dealing with killers
The Oct. 21 editorial extolling the virtues of a ban on ownership or possession of firearms in Baltimore city is the most stupid, illogical garbage I have seen in the newspaper in a long time.
You need to look no farther than Washington, D.C., or New York City to see that such bans do no more than exacerbate the violent crime problem. Those who misuse guns are willing to kill with no regard for law and will continue to do so until they are dealt with on a personal level.
When the blubbering liberal press does something more than harass legitimate gun owners, perhaps it will perform an honest public service. I challenge the media to show me any place in the U.S. where the gun-grabbing idiots have had their weapon bans legitimized and a real dent was made in violence.
Trying to deal with only one weapon of those who choose to do harm to others is like extracting one or two fangs from a mad dog after it has killed someone. Instead, we are willing to summarily execute such an animal. Why not human killers? When a few sharks maim a few humans, it is open season on sharks! Not so with persons who will destroy life without reason.
If humankind is so civilized, why are we plagued with assassins who cannot be dealt with except by the feeble and stupid thought that we can somehow stop their terror by attempting to deprive them of one type of weapon? Only in media logic is this a consideration.
Ronald L. Dowling
As reported in The Evening Sun of Oct. 16, Baltimore County Police Chief Cornelius J. Behan received a $13,000 pay raise. County Executive Roger Hayden justified this increase "so that Behan's salary would match that of Fire Chief Elwood Banister..."
At a time when all county employees are being asked to tighten their belts and when taxpayers are paying more and higher taxes, Behan gets a raise for the sake of appearance.
.` This is prudent fiscal policy?
Unfair to Israel
"It's Your Call" - Peace Plan," in the Oct. 21 Evening Sun typifies the newspaper's uneven presentation of Israel and its cause. It is interesting that you would call for a poll on the question: "The Evening Sun wants to know if you think the United States should maintain pressure on Israel to stay at the peace table and to negotiate until a plan has been reached."
Shouldn't the question be: "Should the United States pressure all parties to the peace process to negotiate until a plan is reached?" Why only Israel?
Israel has desired peace for all the years of its existence, and the reason that there has not been peace has been the failure of the
Arab nations to recognize the state of Israel.
Alleck A. Resnick
Bush's bad example