Neighborhoods battling predatory signage
Thanks to the Journal Gazette for the Aug. 19 article, “Sell-your-house signs stir debate.” This topic deserves coverage and demands better solutions.
For several months, members of the Packard Area Planning Alliance have been working to keep illegal, obnoxious and predatory signage out of our south-central neighborhoods. If you place illegal signs in our neighborhoods, they will be removed and you will have wasted your time and money.
Based on the neighborhoods most often targeted with these signs, it is obvious that people are trying to take advantage of residents in low-income neighborhoods or areas they perceive lack anyone who cares. We do care about all of our residents and neighborhoods, and we will continue to fight back against predatory practices and sign litter.
I would encourage all other residents to help by removing signs from park strips when you see them. They are not supposed to be in the right of way and can be removed by anyone.
The larger signs (essentially small-scale billboards) on privately owned, empty residential lots present a more complex challenge. The lack of enforcement is problematic and unacceptable. Investors buy up empty lots with no intent of building homes. Instead, they want low-cost land to put up obnoxious signage next to people's homes. I wonder what the reaction might be if these same tactics were used in other residential areas, such as the more upscale neighborhoods in the north and southwest sides.
PAPA and its member neighborhoods stand with the other residents and neighborhoods affected by these issues. We strongly urge the city to continue working to find long-term solutions to keep these signs and these “investors” away from our friends and neighbors.
President, Packard Area Planning Alliance
Reasoned perspective on retiring senator
The Journal Gazette's kudos to Sen. Dennis Kruse (“A Principled politician,” Sept. 1) were thoughtful and fair. I, too, have not always agreed with all of his positions. I appreciated the comments about him, and I thought they were fair and objective. That is the kind of measured and reasonable editorial commentary that is unusual in today's day and age. Thank you, and please keep it up.
Teryl R. Smith
Diversity a woke diversion in medical decisions
The opinion columns by Dr. Mark DelBello and Charlene Bell regarding modern medical issues (Sept. 2) displayed stark differences in philosophy.
DelBello's column acknowledged medicine's accomplishments and the intellectual discipline needed to create them.
Bell's column was a ringing endorsement of using education to promote diversity (read quotas) over excellence.
If I'm a patient, I don't care if my doctor is male/female, black/white/yellow or green with purple polka dots.
I do care that he or she has the competence that comes from being taught by a demanding medical mentor, rather than a “woke” sociologist.
Because of an author's error, a word was left out of a sentence in Christer Watson's Sept. 7 column. It should have read: “It is important to note that back in December and January, the delta variant was not the dominant strain.”