News & Views » Letters

Letters to the Editor

comment
SouthPark I

To The Editors:

Regarding "And The Folks Behind The SouthPark Lawsuit Are..." (by Tara Servatius, March 13), do you think that if you were an attorney in solo practice, you would take on a case against the City's attorneys and two large firms representing big-name developers and their financial backers, and do it pro bono for publicity? So that -- what, you'll be able to get even more free work for other neighborhoods?!

Please! Once again we are able to see Ms. Servatius' ignorance in this matter. She's young, and apparently uninterested in bothering to do the work that is involved in actually covering the issue.

The state EPA used the wrong population and traffic numbers in their calculations that resulted in a permit being issued for the SouthPark parking garage -- at a time when our air is close to the most foul in the nation. Now, there's a story.

The city's own plans call for business and high density housing to be on transit corridors (which Sharon Rd. is not) and our center city's failing as a convention destination -- because there's no shopping. Now there's another story! And finally, Martin Cramton seems to finally understand that urban planning is needed to control sprawl and make this a livable city -- after 20 years as one of Charlotte's top city planners. Yet another story! But they will involve some work -- harder than being a mouthpiece for whomever.

Luke McGinniss
Charlotte

SouthPark II

To The Editors:

Tara Servatius has misinformed her readers regarding the Summers vs. City of Charlotte (aka SouthPark) lawsuit. Residents who opposed the rezoning were (and are) more than a "small handful." Due to some early covert "suggestions" regarding continued employment, the ranks declined in number. Those who felt their livelihoods were safe stood up to be counted. Our names are on public record, hardly anonymous. And we are assured that a multitude continue to wish us well.

Attorney Ken Davies is far from using the suit for publicity. His reason for committing his efforts (underpaid, to be sure) and time is more altruistic than those of his clients. He has our whole-hearted support in his aspirations even as our basic concerns tend to be the effect of overkill development on our property values, sustaining breathable air, and preventing the loss of a quality of life that seems to be disappearing as the city grows.

Mr. Davies spent his youth in the gentle environs of SouthPark. Stemming the tide of exploitation by developers solely interested in profit with little regard for the mall's neighbors is his goal. His commitment is to help preserve neighborhoods through laws that will support, rather than stymie, their efforts.

Three rezoning requests -- SouthPark, Carnegie Town Center, and Phillips Place, all located on Fairview Road -- were offered in tandem on one evening with 10 minutes each for protests. The issues to be considered during those 10 precious minutes were complex enough for a full day's discussion.

Common sense alone should have told the council members that such explosive growth in a residential area could cause untold problems immediately and a disaster for the entire city in the future. Instead, as stated in the Charlotte Observer editorial dated February 2, 2002, big developers routinely offer campaign funds to city council members -- the implication being that it's business as usual. Depositions in a lawsuit are made under oath and at least one in the SouthPark suit has indicated clear evidence of such a bribe.

Currently the state appellate court is assessing the constitutionality of the laws under which these rezonings were approved. The decision of the judges could send the case to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Frank V. Summers
Charlotte

Thanks For Transsexuality Story

To The Editors:

I am writing to express my appreciation for Sam Boykin's article on transsexualism ("Right Sex, Wrong Body," March 13). In this day when so much public information is gathered from the Springer show, it is encouraging to see the topic presented in a factual and empathetic manner. As a person who has been part of the "transgender community" in Charlotte for over 30 years, I have witnessed how far we have come. Your piece indicates that continuing progress. I wanted you to know I am most appreciative.

Pamela Rogers
Charlotte

So That Explains It

To The Editors:

As a writer for the paper which publishes "Karma Cleanser," Sam Boykin missed the most obvious and logical explanation for transsexuality in "Right Sex, Wrong Body." Transsexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, effeminacy, etc. can all be explained by understanding the effect of past lives on the

present.

Master hypnotherapist Dr. Michael Newton's research (Journey of Souls; Destiny of Souls) explains gender and sexual confusion. Most souls incarnate one, two or three lives as one gender then switch to the opposite gender. However, if a soul continues a much longer succession of lives as one gender then switches, gender imbalance and sexual confusion can result. This manifestation is especially likely for "younger" souls who have no or fewer experiences as the opposite gender.

Over many lifetimes, balance is achieved. Individuals who can draw on both their masculine and feminine sides are on the road to spiritual maturity. Gender and sexual confusion, like many hardships in life, create obstacles and "negative" experiences for spiritual learning and growth. Reincarnation and karma explain much in life that to the Western mind seems inexplicable.

James Perry
Davidson

Stay In Line

To The Editors:

I object to the item in "Another Week Already" about the police protesting the Mint Museum's showing of a movie about a cop killer (by John Grooms, March 20). It's one thing to disagree with fine public servants about an issue, but to joke about it and say that convicted killers will be protesting movies about law enforcement is totally out of line. Why would you want to give convicted cop killers any ideas? I support the police and don't think movies like this one should be shown anywhere at all, but definitely not on public property.

Lawrence W. Settle
Charlotte

Is Ms. Servatius For Real?

To The Editors:

Tara Servatius writes in "Cruising For Love" (CL, March 6) that we must crack down on gay men who cruise for sex in public if we "truly value" them, because their behavior is self-destructive and the business of the rest of society. If a mother administers corporal punishment to her child in a public park, is that the business of everyone else in the park? If not, why should it be anyone else's business if two gay men discuss sex in a park? Mind you, I say discuss sex, not actually have sex in a park. Yet gay men can be busted simply for talking about such topics. Does Ms. Servatius believe this is OK? That this is how to best help gay men who seek casual sex? Is Ms. Servatius for real?

C.J.
Charlotte

Too Many Assumptions

To The Editors:

I think Ms. Servatius has made too many assumptions about the public and private lives of Charlotte's citizens. People shouldn't be arrested for talking about subjects of a sexual nature. Furthermore, tax dollars shouldn't be used to pay police officers to entice and entrap citizens who have just as much right to meet and talk as anyone else in parks. That is the nature of public space -- it is public and open to everyone.

MTS
Charlotte

Add a comment