City did not give enough information to the public

 

We are writing as residents affected by the proposed zoning changes related to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base ("No decisions yet on D-M, TMC changes," Sept. 2). The process involved in educating the public on the issue was particularly poor and did not promote informed public input. We received a notice of a public hearing with the Planning Commission on Wednesday. This notice included the title of the land-use code amendment, but no explanation of what the amendment was about. We felt this notice provided so little information and was written in such formal language that it could easily be dismissed by many people. We attended the public hearing. The hearing about the zoning changes began at 11 p.m., at which time many people who showed up to discuss the issue had gone home. Whether deliberate or not, we feel we were not given the proper tools to participate in what is supposed to be a public, open conversation about the future of our community. Loretta Ishida and James Harding

 

Tucson

 

Garbage fee hike a hardship for some

 

On Aug. 28, I received my statement from the Tucson Water Department. It was $33.07. Last month, it was $17.52, including the $14 fee. I am an 83-year-old, self-supporting homeowner, living on self-earned Social Security retirement. It is an extreme hardship to pay the $14 for garbage pickup. The city fathers woo seniors and others to move here (I agree the climate is delightful) and then sock it to us in living expenses so it is very difficult to keep one's head above the water financially. Therefore many of us exist at poverty level to pay for sunshine. There are special breaks for single mothers, working poor families and illegal residents. Are we retired taxpayers of no value except the money we spend? Doris Massie

 

Retired credit union treasurer, Tucson

 

Embryo opinion is purely scientific

 

Re: Criticisms of Aug. 20 guest opinion, "Embryos at all stages are fully human." It is a common polemical trick to take a statement with which you disagree and restate it into terms that were never there to begin with. One critic states the writer mixes "the mythos of religion with the logos of science to reach a morally relative and false conclusion." Not so. Quite the contrary. In fact, I dismissed moral relevance as a factor in defining human life scientifically. The same critic says, "All cells change with time, even DNA." He makes my point about cells changing over time; but DNA does not change except by mutation. What changes is the expression of DNA through activation and deactivation of genes. Further, another critic suggests I invoked religion by citing a passage from the Bible. The passage is a statement of wisdom. The Bible is but one book, among many, in which great wisdom may be found. One may be specious and define human life, apart from a scientific status, as social, behavioral, psychic, as well as academic, religious, etc. But these are arbitrary designations and assigned by subjective, not scientific, reasoning. Finally, the continuum of biological (read: scientific) life is never potential. Life is life. Ward Kischer, Ph.D.

 

Tucson

 

Housing boom doesn't indicate prosperity

 

Your Aug. 31 editorial stupidly celebrates the 43 percent increase in housing starts in the past year as a sign of prosperity ("Desert Whispers"). If more houses brought prosperity, then the city wouldn't be at the bottom of nearly every socio-economic list from school test scores to wages. Clearly, development hasn't paid for itself, and the costs for water supply, medical services, transportation and schools are left for the taxpayers. The millions of dollars required to improve roads will be paid by tax increases, or, more likely, we'll just have more congestion and traffic lights. While the housing boom enriches some, it leaves the current residents more impoverished. John Lowy

 

Tucson