'Discrimination’ claim a stretch
After reading Marsha Katz’s letter (“Loft seems to practice discrimination,”?March 26) I had to give a little perspective to the matter. I have worked both in design and construction for over 50 years.Originally the Americans with Disabilities Act came into being with stipulations that stated that, in any construction, the structure must accommodate various disabilities. It also stated that “reasonable accommodation” must be provided for any disability and must not place an undue burden on the owner. Several years after ADA was enacted, the body of the act was included into the Uniform Building Code. This, at first, seems like a wonderful thing, and for the most part I agree.
In new construction this is not a problem in most cases, but in remodeling existing buildings there are many problems. For example:
This may seem extreme, but I have seen and had to deal with many problems very similar to it. I have no idea how the Loft came into being and its lack of accessibility, but to say it was a act of discrimination may be a stretch. It was more likely a lack of foresight and thought.
F. Gary Wipplinger, Missoula
Unions once opposed practice
Reading Connie Schultz’s column on tipping (March 30):I wondered if anyone remembered the days when unions took a stand against the custom of tipping. In Detroit in the 1920s, many restaurants had signs in the windows - “no tipping allowed” - which advertised that they were pro-union and lured others who were watching their pennies.
Margaret A. Carson, Missoula
Stop killing for convenience
I couldn’t agree with Ben Griffing (Letters, March 27) more.Two thousand two hundred children are killed in Montana every year for no better reason than convenience. The cost of raising these children is just too much. As Griffing referred to adoption being a burden, let’s wipe out all the orphanages and foster homes. We’d save a bundle there. Next, we could lower medical costs by “voluntarily terminating” the mentally and physically handicapped. None of these could possibly be welcomed into their mother’s arms. Why stop there? Think how much we could save by closing down the nursing homes. It would be like Hitler’s Great Society but without the bad publicity.
Frank Chappel, Missoula
Stop trying to control people
I have a few questions for the supporters of CI-100.What makes you people think that you or the government have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do when it comes to her own body and health? Will you people next try to say a man cannot get a vasectomy under the guise of he’ll be killing thousands of unconcieved children, or that a woman cannot have her tubes tied for a similar reason? Have you people even thought about the health risks to women who may be so distressed over an unwanted pregnancy that they put themselves at risk to try to “force” a miscarriage, or worse yet, try to self-abort the fetus?
Try focusing on your own lives instead of trying to force others to live their lives as you feel they should!
Gary Galland, Missoula
Procedure doesn’t solve poverty
Abortion is not the solution to poverty.I am a post-abortive woman writing in response to Ben Griffing’s letter, titled “We can’t afford to make abortion illegal” (March 27).
When I chose abortion, I felt trapped, desperate and without any choices. Abortion did not solve my problem, it only made more. I suffered for years with nightmares, flashbacks, panic attacks and intense grief for my aborted child.
Poverty was one of the reasons I chose abortion, especially after eavesdropping on someone like Griffing go on about how poor women cost taxpayers the expense of delivery, shelter, food, clothing, health care and education. This type of talk is a form of social coercion, which makes poor women feel they have a duty to abort as a way of being responsible.
Abortion does not solve the poverty problem and make women not poor. Abortion hurts women. Women deserve so much more.
Discussions like Griffing’s often overlook, or even deny, that there is such a thing as abortion regret - focusing more on the tax benefit of aborting poor children rather than helping women in crises with solutions that do not hurt.
I look to the day when abortion becomes more than illegal - a day when abortion is unthinkable because abortion hurts women.
Susan Gliko, Deer Lodge
Save our community treasure
I tried to read with great interest George Dennison’s comments in the March 26 Missoulian, in which he was trying to justify the demise of the University Golf Course, which has been a treasure in the community (in the university’s own words) since 1924. I found his guest column to be dissembling and difficult to follow, but the message came through loud and clear: Dennison is out to get rid of the golf course.If the Montana Board of Regents were to change their minds about the George Dennison Retirement Village, I am sure Dennison would suddenly discover a far more appropriate spot for the College of Technology.
One wonders why Dennison is so bent on ridding Missoula of an excellent course that is used daily (weather permitting) by old and young, students and non-students, golfers from out of town and from out of state. The golf course generates money for the university and those profits were used to help pay for the the million dollar athletic department fiasco. Is this to punish those who spoke out at the public hearing on May 10, 2005? Is this to let the townsfolk know who is in charge?
Gov. Brian Schweitzer, Commissioner of Higher Education Shiela Stearns, Board of Regents: Save our treasure. Let’s celebrate her 100th in 2024 with a rousing round of golf.
Pearl Cunningham, Clinton
Where does Dennison play his golf?
After reading University of Montana President George M. Dennison’s guest column in the March 26 Missoulian, my initial thought was why waste all that space bloviating about an issue (the future of UM’s golf course) that he’s not going to back down from?Dennison could have followed the example set by his alter ego - Vice President Dick Cheney - when recently asked by ABC’s Martha Raddatz about the fact that the majority of American people disagree with the Iraq war. To paraphrase that interview:
Interviewer: Two-thirds of Missoulians say it’s not worth fighting, and they’re looking at the value gain versus the cost in lost open space and a recreation area serving fixed-income retirees, poor university students and faculty.
President Dennison: So?
Interviewer: So - you don’t care what the majority of the local citizens think?
President Dennison: No, I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. Think about what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln had paid attention to polls, if they had polls during the Civil War.
So there you have it. The UM golf course doesn’t represent the best or most appropriate use of the land, and besides - according to Dennison - it really isn’t an “open space” anyway. President Dennison has never mentioned what open space he utilizes to play golf. I believe it’s the Missoula Country Club, along with select members of his Grizzly athletic department. Gratis - courtesy of the university.
I’m not sure if that same kindness has ever been extended to any of the underpaid UM professors or not. I see most of them slogging around the UM course during the week when the rates are cheaper.
Jim Hamilton, Florence
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)