We welcome letters. Please include your full name, address and telephone number. We edit all letters.
Send them to editor@illinoistimes.com.
—-
BAD IDEA
Let’s spend a ton of money to improve the beach house and still not open the beach (“Back to the beach,” March 9). Sounds like something Springfield would do.
Melissa Eades
Via Facebook.com/illinoistimes
—-
BAD SURVEY
CWLP claims that every lake and river within 50 miles of here is so overused and crowded that we really need five more reservoirs built to satisfy the demand for swimming, motorboats, etc. No, I am not making that up. This is based on some silly survey they hired to justify a costly back-up second reservoir.
Swimming was one of the biggest demands from the survey that they used to justify this. And yet, what the survey actually found is that 70% of people are satisfied with water recreation as is. CWLP can’t even operate a beach on Lake Springfield, let alone build and maintain a whole new lake. If they want to meet demand for swimming in a lake, why not just reopen the beach? The beach house stands as a testament to their 50 years of neglecting what we have, while pushing for this second reservoir boondoggle.
And guess what else? The mayor and CWLP agreed with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources there will be no beach and no swimming and their lovely second reservoir touted for recreational opportunities. And no hunting. And no camping. And no water skiing or jet skis.
Expanding lake access at the beach house and all around the lake is a good idea. The beach was closed citing “lack of demand” for lake swimming, so repurposing it in some way seems like a great idea.
Don Hanrahan
Via Facebook.com/illinoistimes
—-
BAD LOCATION
This is the wrong location for this. It’s far out of the city and it’s a park. Parks are for recreation, not bands and food trucks.
Dennis Sklenka
Via Facebook.com/illinoistimes
—-
BAD JOKE
Wow! The editor’s note in the March 16 issue surely was written to be facetious. The idea that taking money from anyone with more than $250,000 in a bank account to give to those with less must be a joke. Why should someone who has worked hard and/or smart all of his life or risked personal assets to establish a business have to give up any assets over $250,000 to someone who has never bothered to accumulate money or possibly never worked?
Another problem with this idea is that far fewer people have bank accounts over $250,000 than under that amount. Therefore, there would not be enough money to elevate everyone’s bank account to $250,000.
You say that this proposed system has never been tried; however, it actually has been tried many times with confiscation of personal property for redistribution, rather than money, and it failed every time (Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, China, etc.). It was called communism.
If this plan was ever adopted, we might as well trash our Constitution and replace it with the Communist Manifesto.
Dick Montrey
Chatham
—-
HELP THE EARTH
A nice thing to do is plant some native wildflowers in your yard for the bees and birds, and other insects we all need (“Practical ways to celebrate Earth Day,” March 16). Stop using pesticides. Add a water feature, shallow with exit sticks and large stones.
Rhetta Jack
Via Facebook.com/illinoistimes
This article appears in Capital competition.
