Readers write, May 20


Congressional candidates decry healthcare but collect their own

Many candidates for Congress are running on anti-federal government campaigns. They propose to do away with federal programs and cut federal spending. However, there is one consistent position they avoid: It is any criticism or disagreement with the salaries and benefits for federal elected officials. Though they are opposed to health-benefit programs, particularly “Obamacare,” you have not heard a word about the federal health benefit programs which are their entitlements. Nor has there been a word about the size and scope of their office budgets, mileage and other unknown contributions to preserving their employment. Unlike most jobs, they get paid for doing nothing but complaining. When politicians’ ads oppose benefits for underprivileged and working citizens, but omit their own entitlements, you should accept them as misleading, to use a civil term.



A vulnerable ecosystem needs our protection

Dan Chapman’s article “Mansion plan creates division on Sea Island” (News May 17) misses the point. Chapman places his emphasis on the superficial sniping among members of the island’s “corps d’elite” over plans to develop the Spit with 8 beachside mansions affordable by only the unimaginably wealthy. Indeed, the Spit should be off-limits to developers, not because of the social and economic stratification of the super-wealthy the proposed development would engender, but because the Spit is a vulnerable ecosystem. It is home to endangered sea turtles and the habitat of migrating birds. It is a place of rare beauty. The accumulation of great fortunes, whether corporate or individual, should never be considered license to own, wall off, or destroy our natural resources.


Don’t let wealthy landowners circumvent the permit process

Dan Chapman’s article about the proposed eight-lot development of the Sea Island Spit says the lots are “soon to be marketed.” Surprise! Sea Island Acquisition (SIA) has just announced that the lots are actually for sale now. Price tag - from $2 million to $5 million a pop. Obviously, Chapman’s theme that there’s little resemblance between SIA and the Sea Island company of old rings true with the revelation that SIA is disregarding legal procedures by advertising lots for sale before receiving the necessary permits from government agencies. Could it be SIA has exerted some of that well-known billionaire clout to make the permit hurdle disappear? Might it be that there’s a connection between the recently announced directive by EPD director Judson Turner to eliminate the marsh buffer rule and SIA’s bold move to market Spit lots now? For me, these are troubling questions begging for candid answers.