Letters: Reducing parking will not lure people to Clematis

  • Post readers
  • Submissions from Post readers
10:04 p.m Wednesday, March 7, 2018 Opinion

Reducing parking

not a downtown lure

Just read that the West Palm Beach mayor and the City Commission approved making the sidewalk on Clematis Street wider so it can hold more people by doing away with parking spots.

More room for people by taking away their parking spots? And a solution to the downtown parking would be to raise fees on Clematis Street and end free parking after 7 p.m.? Also asking nearby condos to share their secured parking spaces with the public?

The reason a lot of people don’t go now is congestion, little parking and meter fees. How is any of this going to help? And how about the poor workers of downtown? They make minimum wage and, in restaurants and bars, sometimes make even less. But they pay for parking, a day’s pay each week.

Good luck with attracting more people by taking away parking, charging more for the little parking that is left or making people park several blocks away.


Ban the guns, then

work on mental health

It is amazing to me that the so-called experts that you feature so often are so enamored of their own theories that they ignore common sense.

Steve Siebold’s insistence that banning guns (I believe he is referring to assault rifles) is wrong and that we must rely on more activities in the field of mental health is putting the cart before the horse. (“Commentary: The gun control delusion,” Sunday)

He must be aware that our entire system of government-financed mental health facilities was shut down many years ago. That’s why so many mentally ill homeless people are living on the streets today. To institute the type of system he and other advocates of additional screening envision would take years to achieve. This, of course, ignores the fact that very few shootings are carried out by mentally ill persons.

On the other hand, the banning of assault rifles can be accomplished in a relatively short time if our representatives choose to represent their constituents rather than the NRA. Then we can discuss the need for mental health interventions.

There is no logical reason that assault rifles should be available to the general public. Quite often the specious argument is made that cars and airplanes kill people and since we don’t ban them we should not ban assault rifles. The purpose of cars and airplanes is transportation. The purpose of assault rifles is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest possible time. We are all aware that they carry that out very well.

Where is common sense? Where is the understanding that the well-being of their constituents is more important than our senators’ and representatives’ political careers? Where is the understanding that their job is to represent us and not the gun lobby?


Why didn’t Democrats

act under Obama?

How could law-abiding NRA members protect anyone from a mass shooting when they usually occur in gun-free zones? How many NRA members have committed mass shootings? Why would President Donald Trump sign a mental health bill that would have prevented veterans from owning a gun?

Why did not President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party do something about guns in his first term when he controlled both houses of Congress? Why did not Obama ban bump stocks in 2014 when he could have?

Does anyone know if the Obama-era federally funded PROMISE program is in play in Palm Beach County?

Does the Democratic Party really care about the children or just want to have a campaign issue? After all, it is about the children, right?