Monday, May 08, 2017 1:00 am
Electric car drivers must pay fair share
I read the letter from John Hathaway (April 28). I'm going to assume he has an electric car.
Apparently, he wants to drive his electric car for free on public roads instead of paying the new $150 fee contained in the new road bill. If he pays no fee for his electric car and no road tax, how are roads going to be built and maintained?
In a separate article was a comment on the taxes paid on a Toyota Corolla, $310. If that is true, then in my opinion, the fee for an electric vehicle should be $310.
Dennis A. Headlee
Address infrastructure ahead of amenities
In response to John Crawford's April 23 article, riverfront development sounds nice for a city seeking to revitalize local attractions. I have not seen where our need for infrastructure maintenance and expansion are addressed prior to these proposed expansions. This is a necessary priority that any community with aspirations to grow needs to address first. Crawford mentions sidewalks and alleys that need repair. I would suggest a close look at the streets and sewers that require updates or expansions to sustain current residents and accommodate development. These need to be addressed before the riverfront.
I'm a senior citizen and our costs keep rising, but not our income. Over the years we have worked hard to provide a better environment for our children and grandchildren. Now we have a wheel tax and a proposed local income tax to pay for the riverfront. Why are infrastructure needs not being addressed with current taxes? Has the private sector been solicited for funding the riverfront? There are various commercial entities that will benefit and therefore should have a vested interest in this plan. Where do you propose the additional income be found for a local income tax, and how did this become a viable option to fund such a project?
I am suggesting an in-depth evaluation of the streets, sewers, sidewalks and bridges to grade our city on its current condition. Our priority as a community and your responsibility as elected officials is to use our tax dollars judiciously. Additional local income tax will not build a sustainable riverfront without addressing priorities. Aesthetics before infrastructure is a short-sighted ideal from which we will suffer long-term loss without first addressing these issues.
If a local income tax is implemented, and it sounds like a probability, priorities should be for streets, sewers and sidewalks for our children's safety. Grandiose plans for the riverfront and downtown arena should be curtailed until these other issues are addressed.
Students for Life fulfills educational mission
As the President of IPFW's chapter of Students for Life, I was among the organizers of the recent pro-life outreach on campus that showed the preborn victims of abortion.
A recent letter called our display “reprehensible,” “inappropriate” and claimed that we were looking to “cause drama.” Abortion itself is reprehensible and inappropriate and causes extreme trauma to the child and mother. A life is ended every time an abortion takes place, so the display too was offensive, as it unveiled the injustice. The display was intended to move the dialogue on abortion from catchphrases to visual truth. On the day we held the event, our campus saw what abortion really looks like. In response, many students stopped by to speak to us. Some conversations lasted up to 45 minutes, and most conversations were cordial.
As college students, to be confronted with the pressing moral and ethical issues of our day is rightful and healthy. Soon each of us will be on our own in the world, outside of the college atmosphere. When we've thought through these issues, we are better citizens, neighbors and friends. Education is a strong component of our mission at Students for Life. Therefore, we will continue to educate fellow students on how abortion hurts women and men and ends human lives.