- November 22, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
Dear Editor:
I guess everyone knew funding would be a central issue if they gave school resource officers some serious thought. Creative solutions could perhaps reduce the costs and generate additional revenue for funding. I would ask the question, "Who has kids in local schools?" The answer would be a partial funding resource.
The Sheriff's Office may not need as many additional staff as they're thinking. We already have patrols running 24-7; why couldn't officers rotate school security duty for part of their shift and a means to provide additional school security? It may not be necessary to have officers dedicated to full-time school security if the coverage is provided by several different officers doing "short shifts" at the schools during their regular duty shift.
The visual of shift changes at the schools would also be a deterrent with two or more officers and vehicles appearing several times a day at each campus. Sometimes we need to get creative instead of just considering the expedient way to resolve an issue.
Scott Adie
Palm Coast
Dear Editor:
I love the way gun advocates argue that guns have nothing to do with shootings. There's always some other reason responsible.
A recent letter in your paper illustrates the point. Using the moral authority of the Bible as a bump stock to fire off a string of absurdities and non sequiturs to mow down straw men (such as we might as well "ban nails, screws, household cleaners") the writer concludes "the only thing you are accomplishing is making everyone defenseless."
Ironically, in the same issue of the paper, there is a story about a man shooting his wife to death in a domestic violence incident here in Palm Coast. According to the simplistic "defenseless" logic, his wife should have armed herself. Visualize the scenario: a husband vs. wife gun battle with their child caught in the crossfire.
It's a shame that gun advocates need to twist and spin tragedies like mass killings into cases for more guns.
And by the way, the Second Amendment begins with the conditional phrase "A well regulated Militia," not "An assault weapons free-for-all."
Bill Campion
Palm Coast
Dear Editor:
The following editorial note appeared in the April 19 edition of the Palm Coast Observer:
"About Whiteview Parkway, Jim Landon told the City Council at the March 27 meeting, 'This is really a serious safety issue, and one that’s documented that we’ve had deaths, and it’s just a matter of time before we have others if we don’t take some action.' He also said city engineers had considered resident feedback on the project."
Here are some additional questions: The sheriff is responsible for patrolling the roads, and would it not be wise to consult him for an opinion?
How are these unfortunate situations a result of the highway being two lanes?
With one lane, what happens if a car breaks down on the road and an emergency vehicle needs to get through?
The sidewalk or bike path will lead to U.S. 1. There are no sidewalks on either side in either direction, so bikers will need to ride on US 1. How is that safe?
The original plan for Whiteview was it was to be four lanes connecting to Interstate 95, so why go backward?
The new hot area for development will be the west side of U.S. 1, so why eliminate this "feeder" road?
One of the deaths included in the deaths cited by the city manager occurred at the Ravenwood and Whiteview intersection, which is about one mile from the proposed construction.
If converting a two-lane highway to a one-way roadway makes roadways safer, then why convert single-lane roadways to two-lane roadways as is being done to Old Kings Road North?
How ironic is it that the city wants to spend $42,000 to study whether to put a few stop signs on Florida Park Drive but will blindly take the city manager’s opinion before spending in ”the neighborhood of a million dollars.” Council should require further study or, at a bare minimum, consult with the sheriff.
John Brady
Palm Coast
