Home >> Opinions >> Letters To The Editor >> Letters to the Editor: April 11

Letters to the Editor: April 11

False pretenses
To the Editor:
Two weeks ago I was approached by a petitioner outside of the Pointe at Ballwin Commons. I asked if the petition was a proposition or if it had a name. The petitioner said no, but that the goal was to have the removal of Confederate landmarks be decided by the Missouri History Museum and the like and not by politicians. I thought this sounded reasonable so I signed.
Then, one of my union friends posted a picture on Facebook showing two men at UMSL trying to get people to sign the petition under the same pretense. Turns out that they are paid out-of-state petitioners deceptively using this ruse to get people to sign a petition for a ‘Right to Work’ initiative. I recognized one of the two men as the one outside The Pointe.
What a foolish tactic. Ultimately, it fails. Not to mention the fact that it’s just plain wrong.
Tim Cibulka

Regarding ‘Time for a
new Valley view’
To the Editor:
Your suggestion that it’s time to “consider the vision” of Chesterfield Valley [“Time for a new Valley view,” West Newsmagazine, April 4] is well-taken.
All cities, organizations, school districts, etc. should occasionally reconsider their view. The question is how they go about it, what guidelines are used, who participates in the process, and what is satisfactory and what is not satisfactory in the current view.
In my estimation, the Chesterfield city fathers have failed the Valley with two impactful decisions. First, the incomprehensible decision to allow two outlet malls in the Valley, admitting that one was certain to fail. Of course, what happened is the demise of the city’s crown-jewel, Chesterfield Mall. Second, was the approval of the Topgolf complex – perhaps one of the most unsightly structures imaginable. The tax dollar “poised” [as you put it] to benefit Chesterfield cannot mitigate or repair this ugly edifice despoiling the Valley’s skyline.
Now comes Carvana. It is a transparent tower of used-cars, bathed in light, 24/7. It is without merit, it brings no needed service to Chesterfield, it is architecturally sinful and it adds another eye-sore to the Valley.
Additionally, as one speaker noted at the Planning Commission meeting, Carvana is a used car dealership. As such, approval of the project sets precedent and opens the door for other used car dealers to seek ground in the Valley.
The property in Chesterfield Valley is prime real estate. With patience and thoughtful planning, the city will not hurt for businesses wanting to locate there. High rise structures are to be expected, but they don’t have to be atrociously ugly.
The Carvana proposal should be denied. Look beyond the almighty tax dollar.
Bill Mueller

Deceptive language
To the Editor:
I want to share my huge disappointment on how poorly I felt all the propositions on the April 3 ballot were written. The citizens of Wildwood were tricked into voting for term limits and an increase in spending on capital improvements without voter approval.
None of the ballot language on the propositions included that there were already term limits in place and that the propositions were asking to change the current term limits. So as it was written, the voter was lead to believe that these propositions were to establish term limits, not change existing ones.
The same was true in the deceptive way Prop 4 was written. On the ballot, Prop 4 asked if voter approval should be required on capital improvement projects exceeding $3,500,000, but it did not state that there was already a limit of $3,000,000 set on capital improvements, so what the prop was actually asking for was an increase in spending without voter approval. Why not just state it as such? Take the honest, straightforward approach.
It could have been worded much more honestly by stating “Shall subsection B of Section 6.3 be amended to increase the amount of money able to be spent on certain capital improvement projects exceeding $3,000,000 now to be raised to a limit of $3,500,000?”
When the propositions were written, the Wildwood officials correctly assumed that the voters would not scrutinize the current city charter to see what the original charter stated in regard to the propositions, and they relied on the voters trusting them to honestly word the language on the ballot to state honestly and exactly what they wanted to change. Those officials were aware that most voters do not research the current charter before voting, but only read the language as written on the ballot, and they deplorably took advantage of this.
They took advantage of the people they are paid to represent and deceived them into approving changes to the charter.
I am hugely disappointed in all of the officials who approved the misleading ballot language. Shame on them. It is time for a huge change in our government representation in Wildwood. The citizens of Wildwood deserve better than this.
Susan Weis

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share this: