|
|
|
MailTribune.com
  • LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

  • Regarding the article on Verizon's large electronic reader board on North Riverside Avenue Aug. 23, we have yet another eyesore for the city, and so soon after the Barnett bridge monstrosity in south Medford. Councilor Chris Corcoran said in the article that other cities have "visual" attractions and don't draw complaints, su...
    • email print
  • Regarding the article on Verizon's large electronic reader board on North Riverside Avenue Aug. 23, we have yet another eyesore for the city, and so soon after the Barnett bridge monstrosity in south Medford. Councilor Chris Corcoran said in the article that other cities have "visual" attractions and don't draw complaints, such as New York City. Well, this is not New York City, nor do I think most people who live here want it to be.
    Many of our residents are attracted to this area because it does not have the level of congestion and visual eyesores many other cities have. Trust me, I moved from an area that was ruined piece by piece in just this way.
    Chris Cheely, president of Phones Plus, which operates 13 Verizon stores in Oregon, Idaho and Washington, said the reaction to the sign installed in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho was similar to that of Medford, and noting that there was a huge outcry there that died down fairly quickly was just plain insulting. It's all about waiting the public out, or better yet installing it first. — L. Borum, Central Point
    The recent letter to the editor from Louis Junghans started off with a factual error and slid downhill from there. Imagine my surprise to find out that Steve had applied for the city manager's job. My husband never was turned down for the Phoenix city manager's job, because he never applied for the job. Steve and others have told the council on many occasions that they were holding executive sessions on topics that should be held in public session. To this matter, even the Mail Tribune agreed in their editorial on the subject.
    As to the complaint filled against Carolyn Bartell, it was rejected by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission not because there was no proof, but because the complaint did not fall in the very narrow scope of matters the commission deals with.
    To both Mr. Junghans and the MT, I would say there is no vendetta on the part of Steve Schulman. He has met with the mayor to discuss how to improve Phoenix, he has forwarded emails from a downtown improvement organization to the mayor, and he has had a conversation with the mayor on this very topic. — Gail B. Schulman, Phoenix
    Don't these small-minded people have something better to do than pick on a school's mascot like at Rogue River? Do they realize the cost involved? Plus, the schools are already having a tough go of it with money shortages.
    The Chieftains name was fine for how many years — all of a sudden someone takes offense. Watch out Washington Redskins and many more so-called "offensive" names, and you know our governor will be right there to back all of them.
    Come on. Tend to business at hand, you single-minded people. Rogue River is proud of their mascot — look at all the effort they put into it.
    I wonder if they will go after Sherm's Thunderbird Market. After all, isn't a thunderbird an Indian derivitive? Watch, you all. They will be after you next! — R.W. Golphenee, Medford
    President Obama: Wake up. You are a constitutional scholar! As a lawyer I also know a little about treaties and our Constitution. How can you state in a speech to the U.N. that "international law" should not be an empty promise, and then propose a violation of both international and domestic law?
    The U.N. Charter was passed at the founding of the United Nations after the horrors of World War II. It provides only two instances that you can go to war. The first, imminent self defense, meaning essentially after you are attacked by a nation, and the second is with the full approval of the whole Security Council. Any other instance can be considered a war crime.
    The charter's goal was to put an end to war except in the most extreme circumstances. This treaty is not some crazy international law, it's the law of the United States. It was ratified by the U.S. Senate on a vote of 89-2. Talk about nonpartisanship. When that happens our Constitution says such treaties become the "supreme law of the land." We must stand for the rule of law, not of rogue action. War is not the answer. — Eric Sirotkin, Ashland
Reader Reaction

      calendar