Letters to the Editor
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Merrill Foto News, its publishers, Editor, or staff.
To the Editor:
Recently I had hoped to gain a seat on the Merrill Historic Preservation Committee, but unfortunately, the five seats were full. I then thought, perhaps in the near future, a seat will open, but this was not to be. You see, my husband and I live a few miles outside of town because our only child has Autism and is not safe near busy streets. At the May 13 meeting, a [City] ordinance was passed so that no “non-residents” could join the Historic Preservation Committee. The reason for this ordinance was that “non-residents” would “dilute” the committee and that “too many committees have already been diluted” by Lincoln County residents.
We have lived here for 15 years, our son attends public school, and we patron local businesses. We own a city property and pay taxes, but still we are NOT considered to be part of the Merrill community just because we live outside the city limits. Being told that we are “non-residents,” it is assumed by certain “residents” that we have no stake in city affairs and therefore should mind our own business.
This attitude is very non-progressive and clannish and ultimately hurts the future of Merrill. Given the fact that Merrill has lost population, with many young people leaving, one would think that “residents” would be more welcoming to “outsiders” like myself and my husband, who want to help with community efforts, but alas we are shunned.
– Heather O’Neill
Town of Harding, Lincoln County, Wis.
To the Editor:
I’m glad that Kittie Crossan recognizes the religious aspect of sanctuary. (Any reputable encyclopedia will do to check it out.) But her assertion of “immunity” seems like magical thinking. Specifically, so-called sanctuary cities do recognize federal law regarding immigration. It’s just that sanctuary cities have, via the path of religious tradition, made the ethical aspect of sanctuary available to those in need of protection. But to try to slip “sanctuary” protection for violence and weapons under this ethical umbrella is morally and politically cynical. It is precisely the moral impulse to protect against violence that gave rise to the concept of sanctuary in the first place. Sanctuary is not and never was intended as a protection for violence.
– Paul Gilk
To the Editor:
I’m sure most of us know we live in a beautify country. Yes, there are lots of ugly happenings, too. I have not met this young man of 14 years old, but I am going to a benefit for him on Saturday in Kempster. I’ve met a few other people there, too.
Yesterday, I met a 96-year-old gentleman. He told me a joke after telling me he was married for 68 years. Anyway, he said his first wife divorced him because he was driving her buggy!!! Should have gotten a carriage, I guess.
– God Bless America
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR POLICY
*Letters must be 250 words or less (There will be no exceptions to this. Any letter longer than 250 words will not be printed.)
*All letters must include full name, address and phone number of the composer. Phone numbers and addresses will not be published, but will be used for verification purposes, if necessary.
*Letters will be published at the discretion of the Editor. While letters on most any topic will be published, any letters deemed derogatory, inflammatory, slanderous, or involving vulgar language, will not be published.
*Letters will be published on a “first come, first served” basis. Any letters which we are unable to publish in the printed newspaper will be run online at www.merrillfotonews.com and may be printed in the paper at a later date if possible.