D.A.’s Race: No Contest
In your August 26 cover story, you report on “the first contested Northwest D.A.’s race in decades.” The contest, you explain, is between a candidate, Michael Cahillane, who believes it’s okay to put to a popular vote the constitutionally protected right of many of those he would serve to marry the person each loves, and his opponent, Dave Sullivan, who believes it’s not. That’s no contest. Dave Sullivan for D.A.
Kevin Eddings
Amherst
*
No Free Lunch
Who doesn’t like a free lunch?
Paid sick leave supporters endorse mandated paid sick days for employees (“It’s Enough to Make You Sick,” August 26, 2010)—as long as someone else is footing the bill.
Here’s the hard truth: employers aren’t cash cows that can be milked for every conceivable benefit that the working public would like to enjoy. That means employers have to find a way to offset any increased labor cost.
For staffers earning $10 or $11 per hour (or more), paychecks will adjust downward accordingly. But what about the less experienced staff who are already working at the minimum and can’t legally be paid less? In this case, employers figure out how to do more with less, cutting back on customer service and trimming the number of entry-level workers they hire in the first place.
As the saying goes, a free lunch is never really free. And a mandated benefit that puts your income at risk is no benefit at all.
Michael Saltsman, Research Fellow
Employment Policies Institute
Washington, D.C.
*
Greenfield Needs Facts, Not Opinion
Much has been written and discussed about the effects of a “big-box” store on communities across the world. Many Greenfield residents have an opinion about the proposed 135,000-square-foot development for our town. Some feel a “bring-it-on-at-any-size stance” is warranted. Others assert that a 50,000- (or 80,000-? or 100,000-?) square-foot store is the appropriate size to satisfy Greenfield’s need for a discount store.
Yet it is not opinions we need at this crucial juncture. We need cold, hard data.
The truth is that without more information, no one knows how much new retail can be absorbed in Greenfield before negative consequences take place.
I am part of a citizens’ group, called the Greenfield Coalition for a Sustainable Future, that supports the development of a discount department store in town that is appropriately sized to complement existing retail and the existing capacity of municipal services. We have collected signatures on a letter requesting that our planning board require an independent Community Impact Assessment, paid for by the developer. Without objective projections about how the proposed size will likely impact our town, it is not reasonable to proceed with a thumbs-up or thumbs-down vote.
It is a reasonable request being made by reasonable people.
We believe a smaller store would complement our existing businesses without negatively impacting our town. This is an important step in determining Greenfield’s future and we cannot afford to be wrong. Let’s get the facts before we proceed.
Sandra Thomas
www.sustainablegreenfield.com
*
Of BP and Vermont Yankee
The lingering concerns about the handling of the BP oil catastrophe in the Gulf are discouraging and disconcerting to many people who care about marine life, the oceans and the environment.
It is clear that the rules were rigged from the start. Existing regulations put into place by the oil industry governed operations. Complicity by public officials was a key component.
Environmental attorneys can attest to the difficulties involved in protecting the environment in situations like this. We can see it locally with the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.
Is it acceptable that the flesh and bones of fish caught near the plant contain strontium 90? Is it acceptable to use this water as an irrigation system for farming? Is it okay for Entergy to be unaware that cables associated with the safety systems are submerged in water when they only work on dry land? Does a plant like Vermont Yankee seem an environmentally sound option for providing energy for the next 20 years?
Why do existing rules and regulations allow this kind of operation to continue?
When people feel discouraged and disempowered in these kinds of situations, it is a win-win for the corporations and ruling legal bodies, which regularly determine unhealthy and unjust outcomes for the environment.
Over the years the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution has relentlessly advocated for the environment in this climate of rigged rules and regulations—bringing in expert testimony, doing the costly legal work, exposing deceitful and reckless behavior on the part of the company and public officials.
Some day environmental justice will be the law. Until that time, supporting organizations like NECNP is one of the important ways to make that happen.
Amelia Shea
Peterborough, N.H.
*
Letter About Letters
I have been a reader of the Valley Advocate for approximately 30 years. Over this time, there have been changes that I disagreed with (smaller format, smaller font, less emphasis on live music listings) and lost features that I mourned (Globe crossword, Tom Tomorrow comic, automotive column). Until now, I have been tempted to write, but never followed through.
The tipping point that prompted this letter is, ironically, the content of the Letters to the Editor section of the paper. In recent weeks, there have been many letters that have no relationship to the articles in the Advocate, and many were submitted by “readers” from far outside your circulation area.
Your invitation to write to the editor states that priority is given to letters responding to stories that you have published. Yet in the last few weeks there was a letter regarding Michelle Obama’s trip to Spain and most recently a hateful rant regarding the fact that Mexico City will allow gay marriage. The letter “Disappointed in Mexico” from a “reader” in Ontario, Canada really took the cake. Letters such as this read like “blast” emails forwarded by relatives and friends of questionable intelligence.
Perhaps your in-basket is so empty that you need to fill space with such nonsense. If so, I ask fellow local readers to step up and fill your letters section with comments pertinent to timely local issues. Otherwise simply reduce the size of the letters area.
Maybe your intent is shock value to create a buzz about what type of writing is now in the Advocate. If that is the reason, please reconsider and return to the perceived mission of the Advocate: alternative local news, progressive opinion pieces and entertainment pieces.
Chris Mastroianni
Agawam
