|
Cowan and Burrell stood up for people
To the Editor:
Thanks to Commissioner Joe Cowan, Jackson County citizens finally witnessed democracy in action at the county commissioners’ meeting on Monday, April 18. A group of Tilley Creek residents and others who support their cause once again asked the commissioners to save their community from a proposed shooting range that would effectively destroy their current quality of life.
At a previous meeting, Cowan made the motion to adopt a moratorium on the shooting range so that the issue could be studied further. His motion was not seconded and the board failed to discuss the matter further.
Undaunted, Cowan again raised the issue at the April 18 meeting, recommending that the commission adopt an ordinance regulating shooting ranges within the county. His approach was articulate and thorough, imploring the commission to allow time for environmental impact studies and other fact-finding expeditions. He made it abundantly clear that any ordinance passed would not affect the rights of gun owners and individual shooters. He was an advocate for those who elected him to represent their best interests in county matters. In short, he did his job.
Newly-appointed Commissioner Conrad Burrell is also to be commended. Following an explanation that his earlier inaction regarding the moratorium was due to his lack of familiarity with the issue, he made a reasoned plea for research and an ordinance regulating shooting ranges, too.
Following the remarks by these eloquent men, the commission voted 3 to 2 in favor of an ordinance.
Concerned citizens of Jackson County have formed a coalition that comprises disparate groups working to preserve a way of life that we treasure. We are working toward clean air, unpolluted soil and waterways, and the right to the quiet enjoyment of our properties.
Cowan referenced a petition against the shooting range signed by almost 1,000 of those citizens.
Rest assured, Dr. Cowan and Mr. Burrell, that those 1,000 citizens will remember your courageous stance when we go to the polls for the next election.
Carolyn Diamond
Sylva
Artificial night lighting should be minimized
To the Editor:
People move to the mountains of Western North Carolina for all sorts of reasons, but one of the most popular is the opportunity to be closer to nature than people in many other parts of the country.
Changing seasons are more pronounced here, the rising and setting of the sun is more dramatic, and night is more expressive. In towns located this far from the lights of the metropolis, the stars, the planets, the Milky Way, and the moon present beauty that is missed or obliterated in more populated and light-strewn areas. It seems, however, that there are those who would emulate the light pollution of the cities, here in the Appalachian and Smoky Mountains. A collection of porch lights, pole lamp lights, and spotlights can transform a yard into a downtown Charlotte or Raleigh hotel parking lot, and, when this image is maintained throughout the night, such excess illumination serves to eclipse the natural light struggling to reach us from space.
The excess lighting sends another message – one of disregard for the need to conserve energy in all forms. Artificial light for light’s sake is wasteful, ostentatious and arrogant. It conveys an attitude of disrespect for the limited, available resources of the natural environment.
The natural beauty of the stars need not be traded for a glow in the sky that rivals the appearance of the World of Oz in the distance. Use of minimal night lighting can increase appreciation of the night sky and conserve energy for another day.
Carl Nienstedt
Webster
What happened to freedom of speech?
The Bill Of Rights, the first 10 amendments to The Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1791, made a part of our Constitution, and became law. Not all of these statements of rights and privileges directly address individual rights but they all have to do with our individual and collective basic freedoms and protection from excessive government.
Which of these statements of citizens’ individual rights is the greatest?
I do not know, but I cringe every time I hear one of them misstated or misinterpreted.
Often we fail to remember that our freedoms are dependent on our neighbors’ freedoms and are therefore limited by our neighbor’s freedoms. For our freedoms are shared with all other citizens and when we press our freedoms onto or over our neighbor’s freedoms then we are by definition depriving our neighbor of his civil rights and are therefore guilty of a federal and moral crime.
This is true whether we do it individually, collectively as a mob, or, collectively as a unit of government. If our county government fails to protect the citizens from having their Bill of Rights violated then that government is wrong (as in the Tilley Creek /Smoke Rise Gun Club debacle, in which Jackson County’s commissioners wronged all parties on all sides of the issue.
But last Friday I witnessed a much greater and more frightening violation of the Bill of Rights.
I went to The Great Smoky Mountains National Park to protest President Bush’s plans to reduce federal air quality regulations. All of the protestors, and especially persons with a sign, were ordered to remain in one small grassy strip and told that they were not to raise their signs at all if they were not in or on that grassy strip, the free speech zone.
I am not aware of any part of the Constitution and certainly not any part of the Bill Of Rights that limits or confines to specific areas the First Amendments guarantees of freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion, of the press, and the right to petition government for redress of grievances.
The event that led me to write was witnessing a school teacher from Knoxville with maybe eight of her students, fifth-graders I judge, who arrived about 10:30 or 11 a.m., got out of their vehicle and were standing around getting organized when they were “set upon” by both park law enforcement and what I was told were Secret Service agents. The teacher and the kids were threatened with arrest for being outside of the free speech zone with signs in their possession (signs having been declared a clear and present danger to the president). This was not a good scene, and it did not teach a good lesson.
Remember, I said our individual freedoms are limited by the freedoms of our neighbors. Well, in this case the kids were not obnoxiously shoving their signs in any one’s face, nor were they even shouting or prancing around in an unseemly manner. They were not even there to protest the president’s air quality speech; they were there to protest his education policies.
All of America should be a free speech zone, and we all, adults as well as children, should be able to express our opinions openly and without intimidation, especially to any public official. If we are not allowed to do so how are they to know what we, their bosses, want?
I understand that crowd control can be a major headache for law enforcement, and I believe that we should always be reasonably courteous to others when expressing our opinions, especially in public places. But George W. Bush apparently does not believe that he should be faced with dissenting opinions, because the incident in the Smokies was only one case in which citizens that apparently were not in agreement with George have been intimidated, threatened or removed from the venue. The more I see and hear of George, the more he reminds me of Adolph, and I do not mean Adolph Coors.
I still do not know which is the greatest of our Bill Of Rights, but I am now fearful for all of them.
Due to bad weather the president did not show.
Bill Lyons
Cullowhee
Citizens get half a glass
To the Editor,
In the commissioners’ meeting April 18, the citizens of Jackson County got half a glass full. Commissioners spent almost 90 minutes discussing the wording of a motion to have the planning board draft an ordinance regulating shooting ranges.
Commissioner Joe Cowan started filling the glass when he brought up the issue in general discussion. He spoke directly and eloquently on behalf of the people of his district, which includes Caney Fork, Tilley Creek and Pressley Creek. He called for caution so that the financial burden of an environmental cleanup down the road and safety issues could be examined properly. He also made it clear that he had no intention of subverting Second Amendment rights. He got strong rounds of applause from the audience, mostly opponents of the proposed shooting range, three times during his comments.
Commissioner Conrad Burrell continued to fill the glass when he said he now had more information on Smoke Rise, and he was brief and quite clear in his comments that supported Cowan, and he seconded the motion when it finally was made.
Eddie Madden stopped the glass from filling and was illogical in his explanation of why he opposes a moratorium. He said a moratorium should only be used to avoid an irreversible problem. How he can think that allowing a shooting range to be established anywhere in Jackson County would not be irreversible shows an ignorance of or complete disregard for the existing laws protecting shooting ranges, the absence of enforced laws in Jackson County to regulate shooting ranges and their associated problems and the pending North Carolina bill in the Legislature (S.B. 1137) that would exempt existing shooting ranges like Smoke Rise from all local ordinances when they move to a new location. Without a moratorium, if S.B. 1137 passes and becomes law there will be nothing anyone can do to regulate where a shooting range can be located or how it is operated. He also insisted he wasn’t “a coward.” When they voted on the motion to draft an ordinance, it was 3 to 2; McMahan and Crawford voted no. Why? Are they waiting for S.B. 1137 to pass so they can say, “Sorry, it’s out of our hands”?
Everyone in Jackson County should contact our representatives and oppose S.B. 1137. Everyone in Jackson County should ask their doctor if they are one of the known doctors that are members of the Smoke Rise Field Club, and if they are, how they can justify their Hippocratic oath with the lead pollution and its documented health problems, and the stress on the elderly and others of constant noise associated with their hobby. Or why they are supporting the greed of a local real estate broker at the sacrifice of the health of the community. Is this the kind of health care professional they want providing their medical treatment?
Jackson County voters who have an interest in the issues of a proposed shooting range on Tilley Creek, Qualla helicopters, south county property tax, the junkyard in the floodplain and other vital issues have communicated with each other realizing that these issues affect all of us. We support each other’s positions on these and other issues. It is clear that all of these issues and others are about countywide voter concerns, not individual problems or special-interest groups. The Tilley Creek issue started out with about 500 signatures on a petition. Now, because of networking with other groups whose issues are not being appropriately addressed by the commissioners, there are approximately 1,000 Jackson County voters committed to supporting each other, pooling their talents and sharing resources, including financial, in resolving all of these countywide issues.
The number keeps growing as voters are kept informed. Therefore, going forward the voters of Jackson County will be networking together in all respects to ensure that county government works to bring about the quality of life that the vast majority of Jackson County voters have said again and again that they want.
Louis Spagna
Cullowhee
|
