Another side to the cell tower story

To the editor:

In response to Mr. Heinzerling’s letter to the editor published September 24, I offer the following.

Inasmuch as Dr. Barbe owns the land, he may do with it as he chooses as long as it is compliance with the use regulations of the zoning ordinance. The tower is a conditional use, which means there must be a public hearing. Mr. Heinzerling and numerous other people were notified of the hearing. The opportunity for dialog to which Mr. Heinzerling refers was offered in the form of a public hearing; Mr. Heinzerling did not appear.

The excerpted statement from the South Bend Tribune (Michigan) is by landowners in a specific area. In the same news article, another landowner is quoted as saying “We’re not sure if property values will go down.” In the same newspaper, there was another article stating that a cell tower would not affect property values. Selective statements?

A broad study with statistically relevant data showing a decrease in property values was not presented as evidence to the board of supervisors at the public hearing. Repositioning the tower could be a possibility if there had been another location on the property with a similar elevation. That is not the case.

As the zoning officer, I carry out my duties as prescribed by law. The fact that I am also a 9-1-1 dispatcher has nothing at all to do with my ability to apply the law professionally, equally and fairly. Questioning the appropriateness of my involvement with the two separate and different jobs verges on ridiculousness. I can understand that Mr. Heinzerling may not want the cell tower in close proximity to his vacant property, but his NIMBY rants will not accomplish much more than to cause one to wonder what his real goals may be.

Inglorious ‘Inglourious’

To the editor:

It was a jolt to come upon your recent headline: “CineArt screens ‘Inglourious Basterds.’” I’ve long admired the collaboration between the Callicoon Theatre and the Delaware Valley Arts Alliance (DVAA), which has consistently featured films of special merit—films that might escape notice, locally, because of their esoteric nature, adult themes or lack of star power. “Inglourious Basterds” (with its adolescent misspellings) hardly qualifies. It’s a major Hollywood production starring Brad Pitt—an actor well known for lack of taste in selecting his star vehicles. What’s more, it’s written and directed by no less than Quentin Tarantino, perhaps the most notorious mainstream filmmaker who’s dedicated his career to the coarsening of American culture.

Tarantino’s past work has consistently celebrated vulgar violence and has largely consisted of revenge fantasies that “justified” grotesque killings and maimings—most famously in his “Kill Bill” blood romp, where he and his female star were having such fun murdering a series of bad guys that they continued filming and immediately released a sequel, “Kill Bill 2.”

Tarantino has for several years been the enabler for younger directors of similar tastes, and his name has been associated (often as producer) with virtually all the sleaze that Hollywood has foisted upon an undiscriminating public. So, now, with a film about Jewish vengeance-seekers scalping a series of Nazi officers, he’s suddenly legitimatized? DVAA sponsors him as an Artist of Cinema?

Who was responsible for such a misjudgment? Hardly the proprietors of the Callicoon Theatre who are, after all, merchants reaching to turn a profit by offering wares locals will buy. But does DVAA give no guidance regarding which films it will distinguish with the CineArt designation? If not, what is the CineArt franchise worth? Anything?

Alfred Lees

Proud to be a NIMBY

To the editor:

My backyard is very special—it’s a refuge from the world, a safe haven, a place of beauty. It is on the banks of one of the cleanest rivers in the Northeast. It’s a quiet place, where most times the only sounds are singing birds, where the night sky is so dark I can almost touch the stars, where a pair of nesting eagles take my breath away as they take off in flight, where a natural spring provides me with water so clean-tasting I could bottle it, where the air is sweet with the scent of wildflowers, where the view is of rolling hills and an uninterrupted ridge line of trees.

There are many things I definitely do not want in my back yard: toxic sludge in my pond, a contaminated water well, a poisoned river, ear-splitting noise, glaring lights blocking the stars, the smell of rotten eggs, a view of an industrial superfund site. However, this will be the fate of my backyard if those around me allow gas drilling in their backyard.

I don’t think we have the right to destroy our backyards because no one actually “owns” them. And we all really share the same backyard, one that provides sustenance for all. This could be our only chance to save it. I know there are others who feel the same way as I do, but are reluctant to speak out of political correctness. They fear being derided as a “NIMBY” (not in my back yard), someone who objects to the establishment in one’s neighborhood of projects believed to be dangerous, unsightly or undesirable. I say to them, don’t be a “Namby-Pamby;” stand up, and be a “Nimby!”

Joanne Wasserman

Repeal ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’

To the editor:

In 1993, the Pentagon commissioned a major study by the RAND Corporation on gays in the military. RAND, widely viewed as a conservative think tank, surveyed militaries around the world as well as the U.S. military, reviewed the nation’s police and fire departments, and concluded that gays and lesbians could, indeed, be successfully integrated into the military without upsetting unit cohesion. Nonetheless, for political reasons at that time, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy was put into effect and remains in effect 16 years later, to the detriment of U.S. military effectiveness.

Nearly 13,000 service members have been discharged because of DADT, over 800 of whom have skills considered mission-critical including interpreters of Arabic languages. The GAO estimates that more than $200 million has been spent to replace service members fired under DADT.

Polls show at least 75 percent of Americans support allowing gays to serve openly in our nation’s military (Washington Post/ABC, July 2008).

Pennsylvania Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-8) is lead sponsor of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (HR 1283) to get rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell” once and for all. The bill has 172 bipartisan co-sponsors and needs 218 to pass the House. Rep. Hinchey of New York has signed on, but Rep. Carney of Pennsylvania has not—yet. Contact your Congress-critter to urge support of this bill. Go to www.sldn.org for more information.

Repealing DADT would strengthen military readiness, retention and recruitment across the board. President Obama has promised to get rid of DADT and is waiting for Congress to pass this enlightened legislation to give him that authority.

Lagging on SATs

To the editor:

The Commonwealth has posted SAT scores for 2009. (See www.pde.state.pa.us/pas/lib/pas/PUBLIC_SCHOOL_SAT_2001-2009.xls)

Some of the schools listed are scoring 100 points higher on each test than Delaware Valley (see Lower Merion SD, e.g.). Is anyone from our school board or administration looking into what these schools are doing that we are not?

Does anyone care?