'Twilight Zone' Editorial WrongYour editorial, "Ruling...

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

January 29, 1995

'Twilight Zone' Editorial Wrong

Your editorial, "Ruling from the Twilight Zone" (Jan. 16), was based on some wrong information. Since I was part of the presentation made by county Commissioner Richard Yates to the Westminster Chamber of Commerce, I feel I am due a rebuttal.

1.) Commissioner Yates and I very clearly pointed out that the additional inspection certifications were all to be items that were builder's options . . . not requirements.

The basic problem is that in tract housing only the county inspectors see the house during construction. In custom-built houses, the home owner has the architect or a building inspector viewing the construction or he himself is inspecting the home as it is constructed.

2.) Understanding the above, you can see Mr. Yates did not call for more regulations but was offering a way to get better houses for the buying public while at the same time giving the builder who builds a better house the ability to have a certificate that he has done so. It is a copy of the BGE program with a practical way of getting the certificates to the quality builders through the use of county building inspectors.

3.) The reason for using modern self-contained sewerage systems is to use land that cannot now be used for building. Land that drains well also farms well. Commissioner Yates was not and did not advocate large tract housing outside the master plan. He was referring only to those people who have rural building lots that will not perc. These are lots now designated for housing that cannot be used without some type of more modern system.

4.) I assembled the panel of experts for the meeting. Not one of whom was for more governmental regulations, including myself.

Your editorial did not seem to bother Dick Yates as much as it raised my hackles. Because Dick walked so much of the county and talked to so many, he has that strength of knowing his supporters know exactly how he feels and what he will do. It is sort of like having a million dollars in the bank and not being concerned by editorials that say you are poor. The bottom line is he got the votes. He's got the support.

Hoby Wolf

Eldersburg

Zero Loss of Life

As president of our Westminster Ministerium, I have offered up prayers of thanksgiving to our Almighty God for the sparing of lives during our recent gas explosion disaster that affected so many homes in our community.

Along with those who were directly affected, many of us spent few sleeping hours during the night after the destruction, but spent precious moments in meditation and prayer . . . for those individuals and families that were dramatically uprooted.

In light of our recent world events -- Jammu, India avalanche claims 125; Kobe, Japan earthquake more than 5,000 -- Westminster encountered zero, yes zero, loss of life. Over and over the comments were, "Amazingly, no loss of life," to "It had to be a miracle that no one was killed." I personally acknowledge the mercy and grace of God to spare our community.

Mark N. Wadel

Westminster

Poor Grammar

In your Jan. 6 edition, you write, "more than anything" . . . Why do I find this error in grammatical logic so widespread? You mean "more than anything else." Anything is an all-inclusive term. You just cannot have more than anything. Why do presumably well-educated writers so frequently omit "other" or "else" in comparing one thing to a group of which that thing is a member? Every time I see that, it really irritates me. Sure we all know what you mean, but why not say what you mean?

Edward Caldicott

Westminster

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.