Letters to the Editor - March 6, 2010
My name is Dee,
In the Jan. 23rd. issue, your article “Comprehensive Land Use Amendment” could hurt the county. Adam Babington (Legislative Council member) and our County Commissioners do not want citizens to vote YES on amendment #4 this Nov., they say it could hurt growth in Santa Rosa County if the amendment passes. The citizens could vote on what land could be considered industrial, business and if certain properties could be rezoned.
I don’t know about you, but I’m voting for it!!!!! I live in a nice residential neighborhood, the man behind me wanted to rezone is residential property to Highway Commercial, the neighborhood got together and walked a petition, we had over a 100 names who did not want part of our neighborhood rezoned to Highway Commercial. The County Planning Board turned this request down, but our County Commissioners passed it, why have a Planning Board, if they carry no weight?
Our property was zoned residential when purchased, we followed the rules, did as asked and build residential. I will now have a commercial building and a parking lot with street lights in my back door, and my neighbor will have a turn lane in her front yard.
I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of our County Commissioners making my decisions for me that impact my way of life and bring my property value down. I always thought the majority vote wins, but not in Milton, we still go by the GOOD OLD BOY SYDROM.
Protecting the Individual’s Rights
This is a response to the Our View editorial, “What happened to individuality?,” published February 27. Rather than simply give commentary, I want to directly respond to specific quotes from the editorial.
They call the prayer case here a “polarizing topic.” This could not be further from the truth, as the citizens in our county overwhelmingly support the teachers and student’s rights to freely exercise their beliefs, which is what the First Amendment actually states.
They mention the court cases in 1962 and 1963. Remember, courts make decisions, not laws. Actually, those decisions went against 118 years worth of Supreme Court decisions that upheld religious influence and Christianity in public schools. The 1844 case of Vidal v. Girard’s Executors made the declaration in their unanimous ruling: “Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the [school]—it’s general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles of morality inculcated?”
Using the Press Gazette’s own reasoning; why should we still be arguing these principles over a matter that was settles 118 years ago? This same Supreme Court decision actually addresses the rest of the Press Gazette’s comments as errant, such as; “we should not expect the education system to teach morals, ethics, and principles to our children.” Wrong. I encourage everyone to look up the above court case and read the entire decision. You will see how the Supreme Court of the United States ruled about how students were to be educated in our public schools!
Finally, the editorial wants us to believe that our children’s education is being put, “On the line” for maybe up to 10 years. What, are the teachers going to quit teaching? Of course not! What a preposterous statement. Our students are actually getting a better education. They are being taught that the original principles contained in it are what makes America great, and that they are worth fighting for! It is because of the actions of the School Board and Superintendent that we are in this fight, and if it takes the rest of our lives….the Constitution is worth the fight.
Wayne Riddlebaugh
Pace, Fla.
