Crofton covenants protect the area's quality of life...


April 15, 2001

Crofton covenants protect the area's quality of life

Thank you for the accurate and objective reporting in The Sun's article about the front-yard fence which is in violation of Crofton covenants ("Crofton homeowners firm in opposition to compromise over neighbor's fence," March 14). It is refreshing that The Sun chose to take the ethical route of investigating the facts.

There is much more to the fence issue than appears on the surface and the article caused some Crofton residents to seek more information about it.

We expect the Crofton Civic Association board to decide whether or not to enforce the covenants within the next few weeks.

We need to continue to reinforce the message to all citizens that a waiver of any kind would be a blow to Crofton as we know it today.

Crofton's covenants are a significant factor in making this the wonderful place it is to live. A waiver in our small Willows subdivision would have a far-reaching impact on covenant enforcement throughout the entire area.

This is not a personal issue between neighbors and a family with a hearing-impaired child. We simply resent the manipulation of the covenant process for what appears to be aesthetic reasons and the questionable information that has been presented for self-serving purposes.

It appears the fence is just not being consistently used for the purpose for which the waiver was applied -- the protection of a child.

B. J. Loftis, Crofton

How can we believe any of our politicians?

On The Sun's March 20 Opinion

Commentary page we were regaled by remarks from both Mayor Martin O'Malley ("Critics overlook strides in city's crime fighting") and state Comptroller William Donald Schaefer about the crime scene in Baltimore ("O'Malley missing the beat, no vision").

In brief (and in my words), one said murder and crime are down and the other said the opposite. I am sure others must have noted the divergence between their remarks and are also dismayed and disgusted.

What can one believe of the statements of our elected representatives? The inescapable conclusion is, very little.

F. W. Bury, Annapolis

Keep `gun safety' out of our classrooms

Del. Carmen Amedori should realize that her views regarding gun control, "gun safety education" in the classroom and deadly violence as a way of protecting property belong nowhere but in her own backyard of Carroll County -- or other areas where, unbelievably, citizens still cling to the outdated tenet that they are entitled to arm themselves with weapons then shrug off any blame for the proliferation of guns and gun violence in this country ("Teach kids gun safety," Opinion*Commentary, March 27). There are many of us who find guns, and people who feel the need to own guns, offensive.

Relying on the Second Amendment, which is outdated any way you interpret it, these people attempt to legitimize their appetite for weapons that have no other purpose but to maim and kill.

But in reality there is no acceptable reason in this day and age for any civilized citizen to own guns. It will be over my dead body that a gun is brought into my child's public school classroom to teach him "gun safety."

Thankfully, I am in no way alone on this issue and these misguided attempts to further the agenda of National Rifle Association puppets and legislators who ascribe to their politics will certainly be foiled.

Mary M. Davis, Pasadena

Gun rights don't make sense in today's world

Michael Olesker joined the "right to bear arms" debate with his column taking on WBAL talk-show host Ron Smith and others ("Proponents of guns have misguided opinions," March 29).

That group believes non-criminals should arm themselves to defend against criminals -- and even against federal oppression should it occur (though in that case something more than handguns might be indicated).

The fallacy in the gun rights argument is the attempt to define who the gun owners should be. The goal is to have all non-criminal types armed for defense against criminals.

The problem is not all crimes and gunshot injury are committed by "criminals."

Guns are also in the hands of law-abiding (so far) citizens and, sadly, readily available to teen-agers, toddlers and, most of all, thieves.

Gunshots occur during arguments, accidents and suicides. In 1997 in the U.S. guns were used for 17,566 suicides compared with 13,522 homicides.

Criminals or would-be criminals acquire guns mostly though theft, friends who buy them for them and loose background checks.

Some may sympathize with the dogged support for the right to bear arms, but society has changed. There are too many easily acquired guns around for thugs, children and as knee-jerk solutions to justify the Second Amendment today.

And the need for a militia is questionable.

Virginia L. Bennett, Pasadena

Gun lobby represents citizens' real passion

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.