No question leads to the answer of two-way streets
A front-page article in the Herald-Leader on Aug. 5 asks "What's right way for downtown?" and explores the issue of two-way streets:
1. It would help business, supporters say.
How? People are not getting out of cars in the street to shop no matter what the traffic pattern is.
Never miss a local story.
2. The one-way system has worked for over 50 years. Left turns do not stop traffic. Will two-way streets provide more parking spaces?
3. $465,000 for a plan to convert to two-way streets.
It is a waste of money to plan a fix for a non-problem when the parking garages are inadequate and falling down. I won't enter the garage at the county clerk's office because the exit ramp is about to collapse. If the Urban County Government wants more shoppers downtown, make it easier to park.
4. "Everyone knows that one-way streets are outdated and behind the times." And two-way streets are a trend.
When something works it shouldn't be changed because it has worked for a long time, or because it is being changed in other cities.
5. Did the study and the authorities in the other cities address parking changes to be made in conjunction with the conversion to two-way streets?
6. Provide plenty of convenient parking and you will get more people downtown and you don't have to pay me for this advice.
How do you vote? Do you vote for the party? Do you vote the person? Do you vote ideology? Do you take your principles and values to the poll with you?
I have never voted party lines, so I don't understand that method. I have reviewed both party platforms and there are things that I agree with in both.
I believe both parties want America to be secure and productive and free. I even agree with some issues in the libertarian platform.
I have voted for the person.
More recently, I have become more concerned with ideology; my belief system about our country, my personal principles and values, what candidates have done and how they have lived.
As I have read more American history and from primary source material, diaries and letters of the Founding Fathers, I believe that we are getting off track. What Americans have believed and practiced for nearly 500 years seems so distorted or perverted. What was so successful for all those years we have forgotten. Please reread our history.
Review the candidates carefully; their lives, their principles, their values, their results. What choices keep us independent, responsible, lawful and caring.?
The more government can do for us, the more government controls us. If our government already costs us more than we can pay, government is out of bounds.
I am willing to hold candidates accountable and make sacrifices for the country millions of Americans have already sacrificed for.
Why limit voters?
From a recent letter to the editor: "A voter-ID law should be mandatory in all states."
It seems that first we are hearing arguments against more or new regulations and mandates, and then I guess we are not. I do believe that we have to get away from turning every idea into a law or regulation.
But what's the purpose here? There is no significant data that support this voter-ID mandate.
On the other hand, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that in 2008, 71 percent of voting-age citizens were registered to vote and of all registered individuals, 89.7 percent reported voting.
This tells us that 36.4 percent of eligible voters didn't cast a ballot for president in 2008. Some other studies show even worse statistics.
This is the crime.
We should be encouraging people to register, turn out to vote and be heard.
Maybe we should mandate that if 75 percent of all eligible voters do not turn out and vote; we have to do all over again.
Vincent C. Smith
Don't blame Chandler
A July letter asserting that the Environmental Protection Agency-backed regulations with Rep. Ben Chandler's muscle which caused San Joaquin's dust bowl was a little off base but leads to a much more serious discussion.
As a former resident of Tulare County, a semi-arid desert that has temperatures reaching 129 degrees for days at a time during the summer, I speak with some authority regarding the area.
Calling semi-desert "fertile soil" is ironic since if it wasn't for the artificially supplied aquifer system, it would've never become an agricultural community.
Unfortunately, like the Central Kentucky area, it has grown and developed in the last 30 years, selling off most of what the writer referred to as "family farms."
The Visalia-Porterville corridor population has grown to almost a half million people. Much of what used to be rural and family farms, like our beloved family horse farms, no longer exist.
Granted, most of our food comes from California — 25 percent of dairy products including this country's milk come from Tulare County alone.
However, the orange groves are Sunkist's. The town of Lindsey is Lindsey Olives. So goes much of the remaining agriculture that is produced in Tulare.
The population of the Visalia-Porterville corridor and the Tulare County farms aren't the only people relying on the water supply from what is known as the Central Valley Project. The CVP provides water to 35 of California's 58 counties.
Anyone see a problem for a water system that was developed way back in the late 1800s and modified under Franklin Roosevelt?
Ready, fire, aim
I have some serious concerns about the firearms capabilities of Lexington's police officers after what my friend and I witnessed on the afternoon of Aug. 15 on Spurr Road.
We stopped after seeing a bystander trying to comfort a fawn that had been struck by a car. He indicated that he was trying to keep the animal comfortable until police arrived to dispatch the animal, who was injured but still alive.
The officer who arrived stopped her car in the road and had us step away from the animal, which made no attempts to get up.
She shot the animal three or four times and it was still breathing and started flailing. None of the wounds were near the heart nor the head, which was very concerning considering how close she was standing to her immobile target.
As the officer waited for the animal to die, she clearly became frustrated with passing drivers, whom she thought were "gawking."
They were simply trying to safely pass her patrol car, which was blocking a lane on a hilly, curvy road.
The officer finally shot the animal point blank in the region where the heart is located. It flailed a couple more times then stopped breathing.
I'm a mere civilian, but common sense tells me the animal should have been shot in the head to quickly put it out of its misery.
I do hope this officer is not on call if my life is ever in danger, given her poor aim.