Letters To The Editor

Henrico Must Promote An Open Land Policy
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Henrico citizens should heed Nicole Anderson Ellis' concerns about the county's proposed 2026 Comprehensive Plan. In her recent Commentary column, "Henrico Doesn't Value Open Land," Ellis reveals the county's deafness to citizens' pleas for environmentally sensitive planning and restrictions on new development in rural areas.

The plan's mixed use land categories provide a welcome trend in planning. However, these densities should be located near the city where infrastructure exists -- not sprawled out to consume farmland. Lofty greenspeak phrases permeate the plan's text, yet green planning is not evident in the proposed Land Use Map, which shows inordinate growth targeted to Eastern Henrico's open lands -- growth that could be absorbed by more populated areas of the county with existing infrastructure.

For years, Henrico's citizens have begged the county to initiate a Purchase of Development Rights program to assist landowners in protecting open land. Planners know for every dollar collected in revenue from the residential sector, local governments spend more than a dollar to provide community services. All county taxpayers benefit when certain lands are conserved.

Facing shortfalls in revenue from a depressed housing market and the loss of manufacturing industries and several Fortune 500 companies, to maintain its Triple-A bond rating and 68/32 residential/commercial ratio, Henrico would be wise to protect its dwindling share of the agricultural industry. The industries of agriculture and forestry together have a total economic impact of $79 billion, providing more than 501,000 jobs statewide. The county should count its blessings and cultivate eastern Henrico as its garden, a natural productive source of revenue.

Jane C. Koontz.
Henrico.

Apparently, PBS staffers have decided to deny freedom of speech and freedom of religion to all independently owned PBS affiliated stations. While this does not currently affect Richmond's WCVE (which carries no religious programming), it would destroy PBS stations run by religious colleges or organizations such as KBYU in Utah or WLAE in New Orleans. It would deny local stations and their viewers the right to make their own programming choices, such as they do on WHUT in Washington -- which has the affront to broadcast "Mass for Shut-Ins" -- obviously a program PBS finds deeply offensive.

For many years, Union Theological Seminary brought NPR to Richmond with WRFK-FM, which later became WCVE-FM.

An enforced atheism, like the one contemplated by PBS, is every bit as hurtful to freedom and an affront to the concept of First Amendment religious liberty as an enforced theism. It is the height of elitism and arrogance for PBS even to consider such a move -- and an insult to people of faith across America.

PBS is canvassing its affiliates for input. John Felton, WCVE general manager, e-mailed me that they have not been asked and that WCVE would only form and communicate an opinion if one were formally requested from PBS. It seems that WCVE will not take a stand either for or against the commanded silencing of faith at its sister stations unless forced. Surely it has an opinion.

Even atheists should be concerned, as this is not a question of faith, but of liberty. The power to suppress one point of view is the power to suppress any.

William Sweeney.
Chesterfield.

But a lot of what the Great Nanny has in store for us is more dubious. The government will only let us have front-loading washing machines and shower heads that deliver only a trickle of water. Incandescent light bulbs have to go, even if the required fluorescent replacements won't work with dimmers, cost more, and pollute landfills with mercury. For good and noble reasons, of course.

Tobacco is already heavily taxed. It's bad for our health. Soft drinks are to be taxed more because they make us fat. Twinkies will surely be next. Maybe cookies and candies as well. All this for good and noble reasons, of course.

Soon the Great Nanny will pick our physicians for us and some clerk formerly employed in the postal service will decide which treatment is cost-effective and which one isn't allowed under the rules. Everyone's going to get the best health care available. But a lot of things just won't be available.

The Great Nanny's assumption is that the American public is too stupid or ignorant to make the right choice voluntarily. The Great Nanny must ensure that we cannot make the wrong choice. For good and noble reasons, of course.

Some say that the Great Nanny is curtailing our freedom. But with the Great Nanny making all these decisions for us, we are now free to concentrate on the more important aspects of life. Such as which idiotic TV show to watch.

Thomas Van Auken.
Richmond.

There may be some compelling arguments against abortion, but a tax argument is surely not one of them. Given that Medicaid is a poverty-based program, forcing the poor to go through with unwanted pregnancies is bound to lead to greater, far more expensive, long-term consequences.

An early-term abortion is a relatively inexpensive procedure. Without that option, how many more of our tax dollars are going toward years, even decades, of support for unwanted children in poor families? Furthermore, several credible sources -- including Rockefeller Foundation analysts and economist Steven Levitt in his book Freakonomics -- argue that abortions among the poor correlate with lower crime rates later, due to fewer unwanted children of poor families attaining their crime-prone years.

It is for these reasons that more than a dozen states have stepped in to voluntarily provide greater abortion funding for their poorest citizens than Medicaid allows. In strictly economic terms, ending unwanted pregnancies is something tax-fearing citizens should support.

John Long.
Mechanicsville.

They should know that cap-and-trade is the least effective option for managing greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union has a similar program. It has achieved increased emissions and higher energy costs. Cap-and-trade is a license to cheat and steal and has been shown to be five times less cost-effective than a carbon tax.

They are simply seeking rewards and favors from congressional dons who, like mafia dons, will extract a high price for their favors. Have they ever watched "The Godfather"?

Embracing cap-and-trade is selling out. Leadership is standing on principle, doing the right thing, and letting the chips fall where they may. They have failed that test. William O'Keefe.Providence Forge.