PUBLIC SAFETY
I am sure that we will soon be hearing more of the “dangers” of allowing Sunday alcohol sales. The problem is not when alcohol is available. The problem is those who drink and drive. The overwhelming majority of people who consume alcohol do so responsibly. The solution is not to inconvenience or punish law-abiding citizens, but to punish (and punish hard) those who drink and drive.
Every state needs a zero-tolerance policy regarding DUIs. Loss of driving privileges, public service, fines, driving classes, mandatory jail time for those convicted and timely courtroom hearings should be required. I don’t mean a day or two in jail; I mean enough time behind bars that it will make a difference (along with heavy fines). If staying a month or two behind bars for a first offense was required, it would make people think twice about drinking and driving, and put a serious dent in the number of DUIs.
We should also put an end to hearing continuances. We need a “rocket docket” for DUI cases. The cost of this program could be covered with fines from those convicted.
T. Dennis Bickham III, Atlanta
EDUCATION
Thanks, AJC, for pulling lid off misuse of funds
Thank you for your excellent article on misuse of taxpayer dollars to pay large sums of money to ex-college chiefs and chancellors (“Ex-college chiefs stay paid,” News, May 15). We have all witnessed the effects of severe cutbacks in funding for higher education in recent years. To learn that these large payments have been made even while austerity measures are imposed on university and community college classrooms is appalling.
I don’t think we should blame these ex-college presidents and chancellors for accepting the money. Instead, I think we should look to our elected and appointed officials, who should be overseeing the use of our tax dollars. Why does it take an AJC exposé to alert our legislators and officials to this kind of waste? And why do we have to pay six-figure sums over multiple years to these retirees to assist them in “transitioning”? At least the current chancellor deserves credit for stating he will forgo transition payments. Maybe these funds can be used to actually educate students.
Harry Findley, Atlanta
Hope newspaper will dig even deeper into issue
I just wanted to drop a note of thanks and encouragement concerning the article titled “Ex-college chiefs stay paid” (News, May 15).
As the parent of three Georgia college-educated boys, this article was no surprise to me. My wife and I have had to endure year after year of uncaring, unfeeling and unsatisfying responses from the Board of Regents as to why we need to pay even more for our sons’ education. Your article brings to light just one of those reasons why.
Please don’t simply print one article, and then move on to something else. This type of issue needs to be pursued, and it’s one of the reasons why our household subscribes to the AJC.
Francis DeReimer, Lawrenceville
GOVERNMENT
Mayor’s living legacy is his Dunwoody spirit
Like many Dunwoody residents, I was both surprised and saddened to learn Mayor Ken Wright decided not to run for re-election. Mayor Wright embodied the Dunwoody spirit of cooperation, consideration of all views and collegial interaction with all who came before the city. Mayor Wright will not only be known as Dunwoody’s first mayor, but as a gentleman who created and made our new city work. His Dunwoody spirit will serve as a living legacy for many generations to come.
Bob Dallas, chairman, Dunwoody Planning Commission
ECONOMY
Rash housing policies led to job losses
Regarding “No work, no hope, no action” (Opinion, May 15): Jobs are produced in a capitalist economy — not in a socialist economy, and not by an act of Congress.
The economy was producing jobs until Congress decided to sell houses to those who had no resources, or any intention of repaying the loans covering those houses. And jobs are not going to be created by overtaxing those who are capable of producing jobs. They are going to be created by capital investment.
Jack Franklin, Conyers
POLITICS
If you’ll break one vow, you’ll break another
While much of the public seems unable to get enough news and gossip regarding the affairs and liaisons politicians and other famous people have, the real issue as to if they are important should be what the marriage vows (assuming he or she is married) contained.
If the vows included language similar to “keep thee only unto her (or him),” then the individual would have broken or violated a marriage vow if an illicit affair or relationship occurred during the marriage. If the vows did not include such language, no vow was broken.
The real issue is whether or not a politician can and will keep their vows or oaths. If one would break a marriage vow, why would we believe that the same person would not also break or violate the oath of office (to which one swears when entering office)? Either a person has integrity, or not.
Mike Deal, Alpharetta
