Letters To The Editor


January 15, 2008

Older bridges make everyone slow down

The Sun's article on modernizing rural roads makes passing mention of pedestrians but omits any discussion of bicyclists ("Unstraight and narrow," Jan. 13). However, the picturesque roads of rural northern Baltimore, Harford, Howard, Carroll, Frederick and other outlying counties are used year-round by casual and serious cyclists (including me).

As the article pointed out, "obsolete" and "structurally deficient" bridges, such as the lovely wooden bridges on Cuba Road and on Pocock Road, not only preserve the rural character of the roads but also serve to slow down traffic.

This makes the roads safer for everyone - for cyclists and pedestrians as well as motorists.

Of course bridges that are unsafe should be repaired or replaced. But widening small, low-speed roads facilitates speeding, which does no one any favors.

Janet Goldstein


York Road bridge also needs upgrade

The York Road bridge across Western Run in Hunt Valley should be added to the list of bridges needing upgrading ("Unstraight and narrow," Jan. 13).

This historic road carries a lot of traffic as sprawl has grown in northern Baltimore County.

But with its two narrow lanes, the bridge looks like it was built for horse-and-buggy traffic.

And the pedestrian walkway is very narrow, making the bridge hazardous to cross by foot or bicycle.

Harry Blumenthal

Hunt Valley

Article takes sides in neighbors' spat

The Sun's article "No address, no options" (Jan. 8) claims that 20 people have a "big problem" with my agency, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, because it "rendered their land useless" by not officially acknowledging an old rural trail to be a legitimate connection to a public road.

The article misses some important points.

This issue is really a neighborhood dispute.

Some neighbors want to open up the farm road The Sun's reporter described as a trail and transform a historic pathway into a public road - which it never has been. But other property owners in the immediate area strongly oppose that idea because of the potential for new traffic.

It is not accurate for The Sun to leave the impression that all the neighbors are in accord.

It is also incorrect to imply that my agency's inability to treat the "farm road" as a public road leaves the land owners with no options.

For instance, one of the land owners quoted in The Sun's article told another newspaper that he once tried to reach a private deal to gain access for his parcel, but negotiations fell through.

The property owners featured in the article hope to convince a court - or, apparently, the court of public opinion - that an old farm road is a public road. Then they wouldn't need to pay for access to it.

But my agency doesn't believe it's appropriate to suddenly declare an old rural trail - portions of which have not been used for more than 50 years - a public road, without clear legal justification, just to favor the pocketbook of one neighbor over another.

Valerie Berton

Silver Spring

The writer is acting chief of media relations for the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

Dismissive attitude ill fit for high court

Regarding the arguments before the Supreme Court concerning voter identification laws in Indiana, I was enraged by the Notable Quotable attributed to Justice Anthony Anthony M. Kennedy: "You want us to invalidate the statute because of minimal inconvenience?" (Jan. 10).

What does an individual of his standing consider to be "minimal inconvenience"?

What does a man with an exalted position know about inconvenience in the lives of ordinary people - especially poor people who face nothing but inconvenience every day?

Justice Kennedy's snarky comment is telling about the attitude of a court that is smugly defending the patrician class.

J. D. Goodyear


Polling just distorts choices voters face

Other than bringing money to the polling companies, polls have no positive value that I am aware of ("Pollsters look back at where they goofed," Jan 10). And there are at least three ways polls can muddy the waters.

First, a person might not vote if the polls indicate that the candidate of his or her choice is ahead. The voter might think his or her vote is not needed.

Second, a person might not vote if his or her choice is behind in the polls. The voter might think that his or her vote will not help.

Third, some voters jump on what they consider the bandwagon. They simply vote because a candidate is in the lead, according to the polls, and therefore think this is the person for whom they should vote.

It's bad enough that our system of nominating a president in effect disenfranchises many, many states.

We don't need the added complications of polls swaying voters.

Barbara Blumberg


Leaders again reach into our pockets

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.