Untitled Document
We welcome letters. Please include your full name,
address, and telephone number. We edit all letters. Send them to Letters, Illinois Times, P.O. Box 5256,
Springfield, IL 62705; fax 217-753-3958; e-mail editor@illinoistimes.com.
DIG UP HUNTER LAKE REPORT Although I have tried to avoid the subject, it seems
that every time I look there’s a letter about Lake II (Hunter Lake),
usually with several misunderstandings. I would like to try to provide some
information to clarify some issues. As the original plans provided, there would be no
private lake leases (as on Lake Springfield) because the new
“lake” is intended to be drawn down to fill the existing lake,
as needed, probably every three to five years but more frequently —
even annually — as required. That drawdown process would leave a
virtual mud flat — a smelly, foul-looking mess of decaying
vegetation, fish, and other underwater species and runoff. The odor might
abate when dry but, when wet again, could return — even if not as
intensive. Some lake contracts — the exact number I cannot
now recall — contain sell-back clauses entitling the former owner to
a first option to buy back at the current appraised value should the
decision ever be made not to proceed. I would suggest, as I did in the
past, that there would be nothing to prevent the same option to be offered
to former owners if they desired and the city agreed, whether or not such a
provision was included in the original purchase agreement, subject to legal
review. By far most of the acquisitions were accomplished on
a “willing-to-buy, willing to sell, at arm’s length”
basis. Of course, the law provides for eminent domain for necessary public
improvements, which require [that owners be compensated] on a fair,
professionally appraised basis. In about 1977, the attorney for the department,
Bradley Blodgett, a straight-shooting, highly professional lawyer,
approached officials of CWLP and me about the question of being able to
then prove the need for Lake II in order to continue eminent domain
proceedings. I indicated to him directly that we were in the process of
conducting exactly that kind of study because we had significant doubts on
that subject. In fact, I believe I suggested to him that it seemed we had a
moral obligation, if not a legal one, to stop such proceedings until
completion of the study. He agreed, and we did — although we
continued to acquire on an arm’s length basis. There were many who
wanted to sell. That study was completed and submitted to the City
Council, the media, and the public on Dec. 13, 1977. The results
essentially demonstrated that we could not proved such need [a need for
Lake II] until at least the year 2000 or even perhaps 2010, absent
substantial population growth or the establishment of especially large
industries.
Finally, if you really understand the purpose of Lake
II and if you value the legacy of John Hunter, as I do, the new lake would
not be named for him. As I suggested in 2004, the entire complex on Lake
Springfield instead should be designated as the John H. Hunter City Water,
Light and Power Generating Station and Water Purification Distribution
Plant. I invite anyone who would like to know the facts
about this subject to read that report, the results of which were accepted
by the previous firms that had conducted the original engineering studies,
by the City Council on Jan. 17, 1978, and editorially by local newspapers.
More than 15 independent sources were cited in that report.
James M. Henneberry Commissioner, CWLP, 1975-1979 Springfield
DON’T REPEAL NUKE MORATORIUM
Exelon’s announced plan for early decommissioning
of its Zion nuclear site has renewed the controversy over nuclear
waste and power. HR 2971, sponsored by Rep. JoAnn Osmond, R-Antioch,
unnecessarily heightens the controversy. The bill would amend the Public
Utilities Act by repealing the moratorium on new nuclear-reactor
construction until a permanent solution is implemented for disposing for
radioactive waste.
Why the rush to lift the moratorium when: • There still isn’t a national permanent
disposal facility for high-level radioactive wastes (the reason the
moratorium was instituted). • Illinois currently has no power shortage
(Exelon would benefit by selling power on the market; Illinois residents
would get stuck with the downsides of nuclear power). • New nuclear construction deliberately
undercuts and sabotages the 2007 Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards
legislation, which calls for 25 percent renewable energy by 2020. This is a thinly veiled attempt to again sabotage
Illinois’ pursuit of a renewable-energy future — one without
the risks of nuclear waste and the high costs associated with it. The California State Assembly just defeated two such
unreasonable
proposals. So should the Illinois Legislature. Follow the law: First, get to 25 percent renewables
and dispose of the 8,000-plus tons of high-level radioactive wastes; then
discuss lifting the moratorium.
David A.
Kraft, Director
Nuclear Energy Information Service Chicago
TEACH KIDS ABOUT ABORTION Please forgive my ignorance, for I have not read
Cristina Page’s book How the Pro-Choice
Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex [see Cristina Page, “Results matter,”
April 10]. I am sure I will have to in order to get a clearer picture and
better understanding. However, I must confess, my initial reaction to this
claim, has hurt my brain. “Saved America”?
Forgive me, but isn’t it the American soldier
who has sacrificed, fought, suffered, and died who has earned the right and
privilege to say, “Saved America”? I’m confused and I don’t know the
statistics, but I’m wondering how many abortions, STDs, unwanted
pregnancies, broken families, and unwed mothers were happening before the pro-choice movement
infiltrated the American conscience.
Being born in 1970, it has been a long time since I
sat in a sex-ed class, so forgive me if my ignorance shines through, but
I’m wondering (as I wondered as a teenager who was not pro-life or
pro-choice per se and was not exposed to an abstinence-only program): If I,
as a 16-year-old, am allowed the freedom to drive a car, be exposed to sex
and violence in the media, and be given the education, right, and
responsibility to protect myself if I choose to engage in sexual activity,
then why am I being protected from the whole truth? Why don’t they
show teenagers and young adults what an abortion is? Does the pro-choice
movement endorse this inclusion of awareness in their sex-ed platform? If
not, why? If, in eighth grade on a science field trip, I can be taken to a
funeral home and shown the room and tools used on the body after death,
then why can’t a teenager, who is being “educated” into
sexual maturity, be taken to an abortion clinic and shown the tools and
rooms that are used on and in the body to induce the death of the fetus? Is
this happening? If you are going to educate, why not go the distance,
arming the children by giving them the freedom to know the whole ugly
truth?
Then there is the question of politics, money, and
funding. Let’s say that teenagers and young adults truly begin to
understand and value the sacredness of their bodies and begin to respect
and practice the chaste and pure life. How can this return to the
vision of family life be harmful to America? Whose wallets would begin
to hurt if this old idea became a new reality? Do I dare ask whose wallets
would weigh less if the need for contraception, abortions, and STD
medications declined? Janine B. McDonald
Springfield
JUST LIKE DECATUR I must have missed something. When I read that 30
perfectly good trees were cut down — having a slow day there? —
I thought I was reading about something that happened in Decatur [R.L.
Nave, “Make like a tree,” April 24]. Decatur does things like
that, however illogical and unnecessary they may be. What a tremendous
disappointment Springfield, where I am originally from, has become to me in
the past few years.
Jean Stables Decatur
BUSH’S MISSION ACCOMPLISHED I am surprised Bush can get away with his
administration’s lies. Of course, it has taken him five years to come
up with a story to explain his “Mission Accomplished” banner.
At that time his personal mission was accomplished. He was able to invade a
country that had relatively little to do with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda
by attacking the similar-but-not-the-same Taliban in Afghanistan.
Considering that Osama bin Laden’s palace is and has been in Pakistan
(as are the majority of Al Qaeda terrorists since before 9/11), Osama has
never had much to worry about as far as getting caught by U.S. forces is
concerned.
Bush also accomplished his goal of getting the USA
Patriot Act, the most unpatriotic document ever to get through the U.S.
Congress, passed, giving the government the capability of taking away the
constitutional rights of any U.S. citizen if they saw fit to do so. He also
got the Bush tax cuts passed by the Republican-led Congress, making the
country’s previously balanced budget into a yearly deficit while
giving the citizens who make the most money in our society tax breaks.
Bush’s mission was accomplished after he had succeeded at these
things, but most of all after he conned the country into invading Iraq,
where his oil affiliates have been pumping oil ever since, which can be
noted by the facts as well as considering the fact that the majority of our
U.S. military bases in Iraq are protecting oil wells. Bush’s personal
vendetta against Saddam Hussein, who at one time threatened his father, was
solved when he was captured, which was the time when Bush’s personal
mission was accomplished, as noted by his banner five years ago.
It is no surprise now that he is coming up with
excuses for his banner on the ship that day in 2003 when he gave his
speech, in a pilot’s jumpsuit, noting that the mission was
accomplished, which happened to be on that day shortly after Hussein was
found. Bush had no personal war experience to speak of at that time and
still did not understand that the battle may have been won but the war was
far from over. There are still treaties yet to be created and signed as
well as much rebuilding that needs to be done.
The president’s “war on terror” has
actually increased terrorism and terrorist recruitment worldwide. As of
now, the world has lost respect for our country and has no reason to
believe anything we say, especially with a president in office who lies
regularly using our once-great country and its resources for his own
personal benefit. With more lies on top of lies, Bush is now trying to
expand his oil empire even further by trying to come up with more faulty
intelligence and poor reasoning to invade Iran and/or drill for oil in
America’s wildlife reserves. Bush should be tried for his war crimes, the United
States’ unnecessary war of aggression, and crimes against humanity,
then subjected to some of the torture techniques that were directly and
indirectly approved by his executive branch. Then, while he is being
subjected to those techniques, somebody should lie to his face, telling him
that it is not really happening. That would be poetic justice!
Isaac Lashley Springfield
CAHNMAN’S NO KNEEJERK POPULIST Sam Cahnman’s no vote on water-rate increase
was probably correct. After all, our water system was reported to be in
disrepair, crumbling, and antiquated, but that very same water system was
able to withstand a 5.2-magnitude earthquake followed by subsequent earth
tremors encountered in the month of April. Sam does not always take a
populist position simply because it is the popular thing to do. When it
comes to taxpayer representation, Cahnman has proven to be anti-populist
but not to the extreme of obstructionism. Tim L. Thornton Springfield
NEVER AGAIN I am writing this on May 2, which is, among other
things, Holocaust Remembrance Day. Several times I have met people who
claimed that it never happened, just as the ruler of Iran claims. I met a
skinhead once who swore that it was a Jewish plot. I told him that my
father was with Patton’s army and helped liberate Dachau. The
skinhead told me that my father lied to me. I revealed that my father,
George Johnopolos, had shown me pictures that he had taken from the
guard’s office of the stacked bodies and emaciated, barely alive
prisoners. I saw the pictures in 1956. The skinhead left, declaring as he
had when he started, that it was faked. It happened, and we must stop it
from happening again now. Patrick Johnopolos Springfield
REBATES OR REFUEL? My grandparents never forgot their
grandchildren’s birthday. Enclosed in their card, came a reliable
check of $25. In the memo section of those checks my German grandfather
wrote the words: “Use Wisely.” In two words he conveyed the
value of being mindful of gifts; of being a good steward of money.
This year an inversion of his guidance exists. The
U.S. government thinks it prudent to return a $600 rebate to most
Americans. They want us to go buy stuff with it. “Spend it. Put that
money back into the economy.” Imagine a grandparent telling a child
the best financial remedy is to indulge!
Can we as taxpayers tell our authorities to use our
tax dollars wisely? As givers of money to the government, do we have the
moral authority to judge whether taxes are wisely used? I think so.
Is the stimulus rebate package a wise use? Consider
the following: • The Energy Information Association, the keeper
of official energy statistics, reports that America uses 141.8 million
gallons of gasoline per year. According to them, that purchase in 2006
would have cost $359.3 billion; in 2007, $400 billion; and, at the current
going rate of $3.50 a gallon, that same expenditure totals $496.4 billion
— a 38 percent increase and major drain on the economy. • The IRS spent $41 million mailing letters that
explained the stimulus rebate to 130 million families. Total costs for the
entire program are projected to rise to $150 billion. $150 billion. That’s a lot of change; one-third the current cost of the war in
Iraq. What would happen if, instead of giving us a check, the government
subsidized retail gasoline purchases?
Subtracting the $150 billion rebate costs would
reduce the annual cost of gasoline to $346 billion, lowering gas from $3.50
a gallon to $2.44 a gallon. Subtract the $8 billion in federal subsidies
for ethanol production and the $200 million for additional hunger issues
caused by burning corn as fuel instead of feeding 450 million people, and
the cost per gallon drops to $2.35. Subtracting the 18-cent gas tax, the
price plummets to $2.17 a gallon and then an excellent economic stimulus
package is at hand!
The government is going to spend the $150 billion
anyway, but most Americans will use it to pay down existing debt, which on
a national level stimulates little. Imagine what America could do with cheap gasoline!
What if the government lowered the price to $1 a gallon? Profits, corporate
earnings, and tax revenues would increase dramatically. It’s easy to
believe that such a program would be a better stimulus than a $600
personal-debt reduction check!
Countries in the Middle East have been subsidizing
gasoline for years and the stories of growth in Dubai, Qatar, and Kuwait
are now legendary! Additionally, softening the impact of high energy costs
removes the influence of OPEC and tells the terrorists, they can hurt us
but not for long! Keep the checks and subsidize energy for our own
benefit! If this government were your grandchild would you be convinced if
they said: “Grandad, we used your money wisely”? C. S. Stahlman Springfield
This article appears in May 1-7, 2008.
