DATE: Wednesday, October 1, 1997            TAG: 9710010003

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B10  EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Editorial 

                                            LENGTH:   96 lines

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT

ENVIRONMENT

Wetlands proposal doesn't add up

About your Sept. 22 article, ``$25 million venture banks on stockpiling wetlands'':

I cannot believe that the proposal to set aside 10,000 acres of swampland in Virginia and North Carolina can hold water (pardon the pun). Why is it that whenever profit is the motive, the environment loses?

Since when can you have two separate areas of wetland, destroy one of them and still end up with the same amount of wetlands? Does 2-1(EQ)2? Can you destroy watershed along the Chesapeake Bay and compensate by electing to buy existing watershed land in the Dismal Swamp?

I must be missing something, as there is no way that this plan can claim to save the wetlands of Virginia or North Carolina or anywhere else in the United States. I will gladly contribute to any group that will test this in court.

Clyde A. Decker

Portsmouth, Sept. 23, 1997

NORFOLK DEBT

Head in the sand leads to kick in pants

The Sept. 10 column by Glenn Allen Scott was yet another example of the head-in-the-sand mentality Norfolk's citizens and employees are being asked to take.

Norfolk's debt will not be retired as quickly as the author would have citizens believe. The mall, while it will attract business downtown, is not a panacea. The light-rail system won't get built for free. According to the 1997-98 operating budget, Nauticus is allocated $2.6 million this year, $500,000 more than 1996-97.

For Waterside, it has been financially tenuous in the past, and with Phillips moving, its future is not rosy. Let's not forget that Norfolk gave Hooters $300,000 as an incentive to locate in Waterside.

Citizens of Norfolk should realize that when they assume a head-in-the-sand position, their posterior is very vulnerable. Don't be surprised when it gets kicked.

Roger Hungerford

Norfolk, Sept. 17, 1997

EXECUTIONS

We don't need a hit man in office

In your Sept. 18 story, ``Hitman executed by injection for role in murder,'' it was reported that, ``Mario Murphy's death increased to 43 the number of executions in Virginia since . . . 1982. Twenty-one of those executions have taken place during the Allen administration.''

Allen put to death a man denied his rights without regard to evidence, a statement by then Attorney General James S. Gilmore and Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Even Sen. Jesse Helms sent a letter asking Allen to reconsider the execution.

During the Joseph O'Dell case, the pope pleaded with Allen to reconsider the death penalty. But Allen doesn't consider anything but how to execute the problem and make himself look tough while doing it.

Why do we have to put up with a real hit man in office? Does the death penalty really deter crime? No!

Allan H. Smith

Virginia Beach, Sept. 24, 1997

APPOINTMENT

Senate has duty not to rubber-stamp

In reference to your Sept. 22 editorial, ``Obstructionists at work'':

It is essential that the Senate not rubber-stamp the president's appointment of judges.

The Senate has a constitutional duty to block appointments of individuals who exalt the nation above the individual. Otherwise, the resulting autocracy would lead us to fascism.

This president has set a record for the most federal judicial appointments made for the purpose of increasing the power of government.

By trying to weaken the legislative branch of our government, you and the president tar yourselves as obstructionists, partisan extremists and enemies of constitutional good order.

Steven Sokolowski

Virginia Beach, Sept. 22, 1997

WELFARE

Reform works only if people are really working

The table in the Sept. 28 paper, ``Families facing work mandate,'' suggests that only about half of those originally on welfare will be affected by welfare reform.

In fact, a good number of those who were on AFDC or TANF on July 1 of this year have already left welfare, either because of various federal changes or in anticipation of the Oct. 1 work-mandate program. Many of that group are currently unemployed, and their families have fallen through the safety net.

Both federal and state officials are anxious to show people that welfare reform works. It works only if people move from welfare to full employment. Suzanne Puryear, director of human services for Norfolk, points out the consequences to the community when welfare benefits are not replaced by income from jobs.

Mary Ruth Clowdsley

Portsmouth, Sept. 28, 1997

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu