Thursday, October 31, 2002
The Weekly inexplicably avoided dealing with the significant differences between the mayoral candidates'' positions and goals for the town. My own positions were poorly represented amidst the careless and inaccurate reporting ["The Happy Mayor," Oct. 17-23.]
Most glaringly, it was incorrectly reported that I am "all for getting rid of DLI." The actual statement was, "Making certain that DLI never leaves would not be the primary focus of my administration. If it stays, that''s great. But if it relocates, that would certainly open up housing and traffic solutions for the community." While different from what others have said publicly, it is light years from what the Weekly reported. The DLI is an important component of Monterey''s unique envir- onment. However, we cannot sacrifice our quality of life to it, and if it relocates we will handle its departure proactively and take advantage of the resulting opportunities for positive change. Morgan Christopher/Monterey
The Weekly stands by the facts as reported. Editor.
Balance Land and Housing As I read and attempt to get connected with the local political scene, prepare myself to vote and be a responsible resident, I find myself upset over some of the issues at hand. It is not only the larger national issues but the lesser ones that keep me awake at night.
Each Thursday I drive to Salinas to teach a class and in doing so drive through the acres and acres of farmland. Every two weeks or so I drive into the Carmel Valley and again drive past acres and acres of food growing.
I walk my neighborhood and see workers around many of the elegant homes. Where do these people live? Why is there no low income housing? Do these many people drive all the way from Salinas?
How can a community with so much affluence neglect the people that allow it all to work smoothly?
We need and want affordable housing. We also need to create healthy low-income housing and begin to give pride and normalcy to all people. And we do not want to give up the very land that provides our food to do so. Rheychol Paris/Carmel
Peace Through Innocence The fear and concern expressed by Mr. Michael Lange [Letters, Oct. 17-23] are shared by many. Who wouldn''t understand his concern?
Mr. Lange and I are in agreement that domestic security should be our top priority; however, the creation of paramilitary structure is not the method that will bring back the prized peaceful status quo for which Mr. Lange must be yearning.
A nation, or nations, can not bring about peace and security by force. Neither can anyone foster democracy and prosperity by sword where people starve and freeze.
Attempt to reduce the hunger, cold, misery, pain, hatred and lack of work which all breed desperation, therefore taking away the motivation causing people to employ violence as a way to redress their suffering.
Besides, why would we need paramilitary? We already have outstanding men and women in uniform serving everywhere. It is, no doubt, everyone''s sincere wish that our troops be well cared for and their lives not be needlessly sacrificed as in some previous occasions.
Now is the time to make a decision as to what place we want to occupy in this world and in its history. Winning over the hearts and minds of abused masses and reducing the anti-American sentiment can be the catalysts fostering peace and democracy. These concepts seem naïve at the first glance, but a key to a safe world may lie in the innocence of childhood, when one''s instinct was to heal and mend. Jane Dows/Monterey