Well said, oceandswell (like the name too!). The city seems to have a schizophrenic personality when it comes to the policies it generates and the "vision" of downtown. Rooftop additions are excellent means of creating a more vibrant urban core, which is supposedly what the mayor and others want for downtown. Yet, inhibiting this expansion does the exact opposite.
If you live downtown, you're going to have to live with the noise of an urban environment. To think that downtown residents should all have quiet nights (along with dim street lights) is just idiotic.
Interesting. The Shitty Paper eliminated my earlier post. I guess if you call their liberal master to task and tell the truth, they have to quell your right to free speech. You people (editors) are a sad lot.
Again, as I posted in comments for the P & C article, these proposed alternatives don't solve the problem, and they will compound it. They're nothing but half-assed bandaids. Building interconnected roads on Johns Island will just shuffle traffic around the island, and traffic usually has a destination like downtown or the beaches. Traffic will still bottleneck at the major intersections where there are limited access points to other areas of the city, towards the location where the majority of traffic is heading. The better solution is building the interconnected roads in addition to the I-526 extension. The smaller roads (which should be at least 4 lanes, though) would facilitate traffic within the particular area, and I-526 provides another avenue for that traffic to reach its destination.
The hype that the absurd CCL proclaims about overdevelopment once I-526 is completed is completely unfounded. As long as the city of Chas enforces its zoning for the island in addition to there only being 1 access point to the island at Maybank, development will still be rather limited.
Dylan, fantastic clarification, and I would have to agree with that post almost 100%. I especially like the suggestions of enhancing naval security around the ports and the Bricker Amendment...cutting ourselves off from the UN might initially hurt us in the short term, but would strengthen our own positions in the long term. Building up our bases here at home and closing some abroad: what a superb idea! Indeed, as Reagan believed, by making our own nation strong in its interior, we'll be perceived as strong on the outside as well.
I truly believe that Hunter might want to accomplish those goals. He has already stated his disdain for this global movement from free trade to international military bases...all of the "top tier" candidates want to weaken and "globalize" our nation even more. They continue to drone on about foreign diplomacy and spending more government money to numerous foreign nations. Hunter symbolizes their polar opposite, which is why I support him.
Again, thanks for clarifying your opinion!
Dylan, while I understand your logic for your opinion on Hunter, I still disagree with it. Military defense is one of the most important needs to maintain a strong nation, especially in dealing with diplomacy. Reagan was a big proponent of increases the military's budget, following the credo of "peace through strength".
Do the intelligence agencies and military departments have problems with budgeting and waste? Yes, as does just about anything in government. However, quantifying what is waste and what is necessary for the departments is measured on the outcome of those projects or operations. Besides, spending money on a strong military increases the intangibles that the US needs in diplomacy; it also provides intimidation to terrorists or rogue countries.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper