By Ray Stern
By New Times
By Amy Silverman
By Stephen Lemons
By Stephen Lemons
By Monica Alonzo
By Chris Parker
By New Times
James R. Jarrett, director
American Shooting Academy
In rebuttal to David Holthouse's column:
1) The first responsibility of the government is to protect the people, and when it fails to do so, the people must take on that duty.
2) "Hollow Points" is a misrepresentation of CCW. Scottsdale Community College offers a 32-hour course in much more detail. Two million times a year, the presence of a firearm is used to stop an act of crime or violence. In most instances, a round is never even fired.
3) Your liberal, elitist concept that most of us are not smart enough or can't shoot and do not react well under pressure is a bunch of sheep droppings.
4) Do us all a favor. Sell your gun and buy a cell phone. You don't have to carry a firearm if you don't want to, but do you really not want to? It's your right.
In "Hollow Points," it was readily apparent that David Holthouse enrolled in the CCW class for only one purpose. That purpose was to collect fodder for a heavily biased column that would make knowledgeable instructors and their students appear as idiots, use a lot of quotes taken out of context, and ridicule what has been a very successful program with a positive impact on violent crime.
CCW isn't for everyone; anyone contemplating taking the class should seriously consider their reasons, the ramifications and responsibilities that accompany it.
When I took the class, I did so to learn the legal implications of the CCW permit, and properly exercise my rights as a responsible law-abiding citizen.
David and I both got what we expected from the class.
After reading the review of ASU's production of Measure for Measure("An Update Named Disaster," Robrt L. Pela, March 2), my partner and I wonder where Mr. Pela's head was while he was watching this play! We attended the Friday opening of the show, and really enjoyed this production (as did a majority of the audience).
Actually, this review does not really provide insight into the show, but speaks volumes about Mr. Pela himself. 1. He does not like the play. 2. He does not like updates of Shakespeare's work. 3. He does not like the way people from New Orleans speak. 4. He does not like nontraditional casting.
I believe that the roar of Mr. Pela's biases have made him blind and deaf to what was actually going on in this production. His review sounded like the tirade of someone deranged. After intermission, nearly all of the audience returned and gave the actors the wonderful applause they so richly deserved. The set was not monstrous, but we, and others, marveled at it as we came into the theater.
I am writing because I think that others should not be discouraged from seeing this production and making their own decisions. New York City has its John Simon. It seems that the Valley of the Sun has its John Simon, too, in Mr. Pela.
Corona, New York
Regarding Michael Kiefer's story "Babbitt's Secret Growth-Control Plan" (March 2), clarification and correction is needed of some impressions and inaccuracies. Much of what Secretary Bruce Babbitt is proposing has merit and certainly can augment growth-management efforts, but it by itself is not a growth-management proposal. Also, if the Legislature had provided an adequate "conservation trust" as was proposed by the governor's Stewardship Trust Task Force, then it might not be necessary to trade away any federal lands to save state trust lands.
In the article, Kiefer refers to some concessions that were made by the Governor's Office and the legislators regarding growth management, concessions that Grant Woods says convinced him to support it. I challenge anyone to find those so-called concessions anywhere in the bills. For example, "allowing cities to charge development fees" is listed as a concession. Cities can already do that, and the Growing Smarter bills do not address this in any way. The Citizens' Growth Management Initiative, on the other hand, requires that development pay for the full cost of facility needs for the new development, including schools. The Growing Smarter bills stick with current "fair share" language which allows the developers to continue to promote their version of "fair." The bills do nothing to clarify whether cities can impose school impact fees -- the citizens' initiative makes it clear they can.
Regarding "assurances that cities stick to their growth plans," what assurances and, frankly, what growth plans? Cities already have to draw up general plans, and it takes a two-thirds vote of a city council to approve a project that does not conform to the general plans (that was passed in 1998, by the way, so it could not be considered a concession in this current proposal). Regarding "setting designated growth areas," there is no actual requirement in the new law to do this, it simply allows service boundaries, something cities can do already. "Limiting annexation to what municipalities can realistically provide services for" is not accurate. The bill says that cities have to show in their plans that appropriate services will be provided for an annexed area, but there is no sanction if they do not provide the services. Cities could simply say future bonds or developers will pay for the services.