Seven Days | Vermont's Independent Voice | Comment Archives | Stories | News + Opinion | Letters to the Editor

Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: Stories: News + Opinion: Letters to the Editor

Re: “Letters to the Editor (10/18/17)

Hi Seven Days. Thanks for bringing the Rights and Democracy issue into the sunlight. As a citizen who cares about transparency in politics this is very important to me.

I really did not like Mr. Haslam's response and found it both defensive and threatening. I will continue to support other Vermont organizations that do good work like the VT ACLU. My dollars will not go to Rights and Democracy after Mr. Haslam's attack on Seven Days.

5 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by MazieGrace on 10/19/2017 at 1:58 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (10/18/17)

"Our mission is to bring people together . . ."

And your hyperaggressive, accusatory attack on Seven Days is directly contrary to your own mission statement.

6 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by knowyourassumptions on 10/19/2017 at 12:48 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (10/18/17)

James Haslam,

I find your letter to the editor pretty appalling, for many reasons. But let's make it easy and break it down with your mission statement, taken from the Rights and Democracy website:

"Our mission is to bring people together to take action to build healthy communities and make the values of our communities guide the policies of our government."

You are taking money to influence our government.
You are hiding the source of this money.
The fact that you are legally allowed to do this does not cut it (especially, to quote your mission statement, when you are to be guided by "the values of our communities"): our communities want transparency, especially by those who seek to influence government and our policies.

You wrote: "It would be great if the media would focus on truly substantive issues facing our world and state."
Do you genuinely not believe that who holds political power through financial means is not a substantive issue facing America today?

Or is this just hubris?


You titled your letter: "Blame the Media." This sounds like a Trumpian attack: if you do not like the information being reported, counter it with facts, don't call it fake news.

You owe Vermonters an apology for your arrogance.

15 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by angryatwhitemen on 10/18/2017 at 3:58 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (8/30/17)

Get stuffed, Ivan. You're not my real dad.

Posted by I give up on 09/04/2017 at 5:14 AM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (8/30/17)

This is a meta comment and suggestion to those who choose to strongly criticize others on these pages. Your non- constructive hurtful language says way more about you than those who you are attacking. Please consider being civil, it helps everyone.
Thank you
Ivan Goldstein
Burlington

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by ivantotakeuhigher on 09/02/2017 at 12:44 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (8/9/17)

Mr Duquette's letter would be laughable if it werent so absurd. I am not shedding any tears for Mosher. What Duquette leaves out is that Mosher had his bulls loose on Rt 4 multiple times before this crash. He was warned, he chose to do nothing. He was even warned that evening he had someone come to his house and wake him up and tell him about his bull on Rt. 4 what did he do? He want back to bed! Explain that behavior. Duquette is actually blaming the victim? Hes going over the speed limit on Rt. 4 a major road so hes partially to blame?! Its so ugly and really despicable that he places the blame on this poor man who did nothing wrong besides hit a huge animal that the owner had repeatedly let get out of his fencing. The real tragedy besides this accident is that Mosher didnt do some jail time. I can only hope he (and not his insurance company) got hit for everything hes worth. He is a menace letting his animals roam loose and doing nothing.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by tapplinx on 08/17/2017 at 12:05 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (8/9/17)

Nah, You are sleepy. Stay that way.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Walter Moses on 08/09/2017 at 3:41 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (4/26/17)

Massachusetts Medical Society's decision to treat addicts with supervised use of drugs at clinics

Hallelujah!! Finally!! This decision will hopefully allow for intractable addicts to get their fix and maybe allow them to reflect rather than planning their next hustle of family, friends and others. During this time it may be possible to wean some off their drug of choice. Europe has been doing this with some success for sometime now. The bottom line is no more criminal activity. And medical intervention for an illness, rather than jail time for a crime.

John Earl BS/RRT, retired Dir. Cardio/Pulmonary Service
52 Arctic Cat Rd
Bethel, VT 05032
802 356-1876

Posted by kilingtonskier Watterson on 05/02/2017 at 10:54 AM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (4/19/17)

Clean up Church Street? Take a bite out of crime?

Hats off to ex-deputy state prosecutor Ben Luna for being idealistic enough to think that Burlington's power elite would have such a concern.

Murders? Where? Stabbings? Keep on moving, nothing to see here.

The truth is, Mayor Mirror (sic) Whineburger (sic) has a bigger priority - coming up with a design for a new city flag.

Can't make it up.

Meanwhile, clear thinkers such as Luna recommend a police station at the corner of Church and Cherry.

Not a bad idea, but in reality just a way to spend more money on a meaningless project. Unless cops are given the OK to, sorry, arrest thugs, all the police substations will make little difference.

Great idea in theory, but as Luna has figured out, Whineberger and his safe-space fellow city councilors are more concerned with finding the Church/Bank street vagrants a place to harass the public, lest they - the so-called city officials - come off as anti-welfare.

The mayor is so enamored of my ideas he has blocked me from his Twitter account. A little sensitive to the truth, mayor?

@TedCohen1
Burlington

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Ted Cohen on 04/22/2017 at 1:10 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (4/5/17)

I remember dating an ultra Progressive woman who would castigate me if I used the word girl when referring to a woman and how having to worry about language subtleties was completely exhausting. If there's no malicious intent it's just nit picking. I'm 47 and you can call me a boy all you want, I'm young at heart!

2 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by cresken on 04/06/2017 at 5:43 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (2/1/17)

Martha has it right. The nice guy Republicans who manage statewide electoral success in Vermont can be as extreme as the not so nice Republicans we see elsewhere, given the chance.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Michael Long on 02/03/2017 at 9:02 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (1/25/17)

@ Christopher Hill from St. Albans, humor is in the eye of the beholder. If you missed the satire in skewering two of the biggest sacred cows of the Vermont Democratic Party (i.e., (1) defending the F-35 fighter jet no matter what; and (2) sanctuary city status for illegal aliens), so be it. Some others found it refreshing.

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Chris in S. Burlington on 01/25/2017 at 11:28 PM

Re: “Letters to Editor (10/26/16)

Keep Burlington Burlington . Vote no on prop 3 and 4. Don't sell our city!

Posted by jmpphd on 11/04/2016 at 10:41 AM

Re: “Letters to Editor (10/26/16)

Good lord Joe, did your computer keyboard get stuck on a "copy"/"paste" endless loop?

How many more times to you intend to post this exact same quote on Seven Days stories? If I go look in the food section will I find you spamming it there as well? Have you taken out a personal ad with the same words?

I am dismayed at your spamming of the lowest order.

Typical Republican.

4 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by terjeanderson on 10/28/2016 at 1:05 AM

Re: “Letters to Editor (10/26/16)

I am deeply dismayed by the sudden attempt by Planned Parenthood of Vermont to portray Phil Scott as someone who would attack a woman's right to have an abortion. The announcer, Vicki Hart of Burlington, then attempts to vilify him by calling him just a "typical Republican." This is politics of the lowest order.

For the record, we "typical" Republicans in the Vermont State Senate have voted to support the principles of Roe v. Wade in a resolution that has been offered at the commencement of each biennium. Phil Scott also voted for that resolution when he was a state senator. Sue Minter knows that. Sue, I know you cannot control the Planned Parenthood PAC, but allowing this ad to continue running without challenging it places an obstacle in front of any claim to be able to work across the aisle. I respectfully ask that you publicly disavow that ad.

6 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Joe Benning on 10/27/2016 at 7:00 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (8/10/16)

Seven Days' attempt to justify smoking ads is faulty. Smoking is violent. Ask your lungs if sucking in particulate matter is a benign act. Cancer and other pulmonary diseases are deadly violent, to 35 year olds as well as those younger. Your position is one of greed over profit, and belies a disregard of public health. Shame on you.

1 like, 5 dislikes
Posted by Jimshifty on 08/10/2016 at 6:36 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (6/22/16)

Well Julie, as far as "the courage to say yes" to this totally out-of-scale project which requires us to change the newly-established Zoning as set forth in Plan BTV - why would it be courage? You think we are a mob of anti-progress know-nothings at these City meetings? We show up by the dozens because we know that if the Mayor and Mr. Sinex have their way, Burlington will no longer be a livable city. Have you experienced the traffic problems we have already? This project would make them worse. Affordable housing? As Tony Redington has detailed in many letters, that's already being taken care of, and vacancy rates are going up. Pine St. dead-ends at a gigantic building which houses the Burlington Free Press, and will never be re-connected (as Mr. Sinex has proposed) without its demolition (which has never been mentioned). There is a bill of goods being sold the City Council and Planning Commission, and it is a courageous act to question it. Check out the details, if you are interested. This gift horse has bad teeth.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by stickinthemud on 06/29/2016 at 5:59 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (6/22/16)

Radcliffe's is a far more balanced and perceptive response, and not only because it is neither snide nor personal.

The so-called courage to say yes to this rushed, accommodative, and ethically questionable arrangement to sideline inconvenient zoning laws is really nothing more than the courage to jump on the mayor's bandwagon.
Michael Long

7 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Michael Long on 06/29/2016 at 1:10 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (6/22/16)

If you want to know how difficult it is to say either yes or no to the Sinex project, please read my summary of the last planning commission meeting on our blog coalitionforalivablecity.blogspot.com. Here is an excerpt:
There has been an enormous amount of hard work and great critical thinking happening on the planning commission over the last few weeks, as commissioners struggle to understand the repercussions of the downtown core overlay district zoning change they are charged with evaluating. The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to provide their approval or disapproval of the dramatic zoning change necessary to allow for a height increase, by right, from 65 feet to 160 feet in an area of about 2 square blocks. They are charged with doing this in an extremely short period of time. As one commissioner noted last week, they spend much more time deliberating on much smaller projects. As another commissioner said when she discovered they were expected to have a conclusion by July 6th, "You have got to be kidding!"
There are many things that make this complicated and even sometimes prohibitively convoluted, but the main question is whether they are being asked to approve a zoning change for this particular project or a general zoning change. Whatever your thoughts about the project are, it is clear that the Planning Commission would not be reviewing this change right now if it were not for Mr. Sinex's Town Center project, and it certainly wouldn't be reviewing it within an irresponsibly small window of 120 days.

-From the one with "bohemian cachet" who is too cowardly to say Yes...

7 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Sud End on 06/29/2016 at 11:55 AM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (6/22/16)

I disagree with Julie Campoli’s viewpoint (6/22 letter) that it is easier to say “no”. In fact, the last 3 planning commission meetings have shown that the details surrounding the Sinex project can't be distilled to a simple yes or no. At the project's core is a major zoning change request. I don’t believe City Council’s pre-approval was in any way a rubber stamp on the Sinex project.

The planning commission is doing an excellent job of separating out the important considerations of a zoning change and its future implications from the push of one project, one developer. City staff pressure to say “yes” is huge. Regardless, the PC is working hard to stay objective and consider options. In this case, saying no may be the bravest move. The PC knows that public needs to be on board.

Most people say yes to the idea that something needs to be done with the old Mall and to reconnecting fully public streets. That's where the simple story ends. Is the Sinex project a good one? At only 55 (segregated) affordable units out of 274, and no plan for moderately-priced, below market rate, “workforce” or senior housing, the project does little for our housing affordability problem. The parking garage seems contrary to a walkable city. The massive bulk of the building has no park, garden or green space. The city will have to buy it's own streets back.

Innovative cities across the country and around the world are solving housing and climate change concerns with outside-the-box solutions, not a business as usual urban planning approach. Growth and change are wonderful when truly innovative. When a truly creative and sustainable project is proposed, with a focus on people, the planet and our unique Vermont environment, the answer will easily be “yes”.

10 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Amey Radcliffe on 06/23/2016 at 4:57 PM

Social Club

Like Seven Days contests and events? Join the club!

See an example of this newsletter...

Recent Comments

Keep up with us Seven Days a week!

Sign up for our fun and informative
newsletters:

All content © 2017 Da Capo Publishing, Inc. 255 So. Champlain St. Ste. 5, Burlington, VT 05401
Website powered by Foundation