Planning body's a rubber stamp for buildersAs a citizen of...


June 30, 1996

Planning body's a rubber stamp for builders

As a citizen of Carroll County for 25 years, it is embarrassing that we are funding a planning commission that is a rubber stamp for the building industry. Your June 19 article, "Planning jTC Commission OKs eight major subdivisions" (by James M.

Coram), confirms the disingenuous ways this outrageous group behaves in order to satisfy the greed of developers.

In following the voting records of the planning commission as it is presently formed, four of the seven members have no concern that schools, especially in the South Carroll area, are so overcrowded that students begin eating lunch at 10: 30 a.m. They are oblivious to traffic hazards and delays that occur daily.

Worse, though, they have been told by emergency medical service personnel that responsive fire and ambulance service cannot be guaranteed any longer because of the growth. The state police -- our police force -- has echoed the same bleak observation for police services.

The same four commission members have ties that can be considered close to the real estate industry. This conflict-of-interest should not be permitted. Only Messrs. Joseph Mettle, Richard T. Yates and Grant S. Dannelly (an alternate) view inadequate facilities as a cause for rejection of building grants.

It is past the time for the county's planning commission to stop the building altogether until the infrastructure can catch up. It is simply not possible for government to provide services as fast as builders can build houses. There is no reason why Carroll County has to be built up so fast or beyond its capacity.

The taxpayers of Carroll County are going to be facing massive tax increases in the next few years to support additional necessary services to fund the new homes now being built. To allow even more homes -- 370 in the last few weeks alone -- is so egregious to be obscene.

Let's get rid of the four commission members, stop the building and look intelligently at growth.

Gene Edwards


Porn in the military is not an issue

In an editorial on pornography and the armed forces (May 29) The Sun takes on Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-6th. The paper mentions that these hot-selling magazines constitute one-fifth of the periodicals sold at military facilities. Of course, no mention is made of the matter of gender in reference to the magazines. Does this include "boylie" publications for the young ladies who now comprise a growing number of our military?

With an all-volunteer armed forces I would have thought that the number of these types of periodicals would be on the decline.

The Sun states that these questionable periodicals are not "legally obscene." When was the last time anything carried that label?

The Sun claims that "military personnel are adults capable of choosing what they want to read or view." Apparently they are not adults when it comes to drinking unless they have some ID which sets their age over 20.

The Sun concedes that short people should be inhibited from buying these magazines by placing them on higher shelves, and also that covers should not be visible because some immature people may see them.

Finally, The Sun says these materials should never be used for "sexual harrassment or embarrassment of personnel. Standards of conduct and respect apply to the military as well as in the civilian workplace." How could anyone draw the conclusion that girlie magazines could ever be categorized as demeaning or out-of-line, at least as long as both sides are represented? It is a good thing that the movie "Stalag 17," which shows men dancing with men and pictures of Betty Grable, came out when it did.

4( Let The Sun get back to real issues.

D. Bush


Pub Date: 6/30/96

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.