Letters to the editor
Input on Obey Creek
While it is true that East West Partners submitted a concept plan for Obey Creek in Southern Chapel Hill, the plan has been withdrawn, and Roger Perry and his team have agreed to work with community members to explore possibilities for this site.
On June 24, the Town Council will appoint members of the Chapel Hill community to a Compass Committee, which will work with the community-at-large, developer, staff and consultants to discuss key issues such as traffic, environment, economic development/impact, placemaking, building height and more.
The end result is expected to be a concept plan and committee report for the council's consideration in making decisions about how to move forward.
Obey Creek discussions will be held from June through December and are open to the public for comment and participation. More information can be found at: http://www.townofchapelhill.org/index.aspx?page=2212
Exercising constitutional rights
In response to H. Lucas Lloyd’s likening the Moral Monday protests against bills being passed by the Republican legislature in Raleigh to “the environment of anarchy” (letter, June 12), might I quote the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [
Firearms bill won’t make us safer
I read with interest today's front page article "Senate broadens firearms proposal."
My reaction (and recommendation) is that, if possible, The Herald-Sun obtain and print the addresses of all area locations (stores, campuses, etc.) that allow concealed weapons on their premises, as well as the names of all permit holders. This would assist your readers in entering or patronizing only those places where they feel safe -- although I see that under the Senate bill, this information would NOT be open to the public.
My question is, why not make this lifesaving data available to all? I for one would make sure not to enter those places or do business with them.
If I still had young children, I would certainly not allow them to visit the homes of friends where guns are owned. Why would anyone wish to risk the lives and health of themselves or loved ones by exposure to such dangers?
Of course, publication would still not ensure safety at places or homes where permits have not been required or obtained. So why should anyone believe that such a bill will "make us safer'? I completely agree with Gail Neely -- "This is ridiculous!"