Letters

originally published October 10, 2001

TRAILER HATERS

Patronizing is too polite a word to describe the Athens Banner Herald editorial "Moratorium vote was a lose-lose situation for commission, people", Thursday, Oct. 4, 2001, page A-8. "Anyone who thinks it's easy to be a county commissioner should have been at Tuesday's meeting. Faced with a proposal that might help Garden Springs, but would definitely hurt an important sector of the economy, commissioners were between the quintessential rock and hard place."

The ABH editors and the ACC Commissioners likely deliberately avoided the crux of the issue and misled the poor souls of Garden Springs into believing this moratorium on development could provide them hope, when, in fact, it was nothing more than a sham all along (initiated as one might have expected by Commissioner Barrow of Five Points), a red herring to divert attention from the real issues of discrimination against these "low class" citizens in the first place by their very "own" local government. At this very same meeting the ACC Commission voted to change other zoning, but did not change the zoning of Garden Springs back to residential. In fact, not one Commissioner even proposed this simple, obvious, remedy. Had they done so, this single act would likely have solved the problem for the residents of Garden Springs. Furthermore, they could also have voided most of the ACC mobile home ordinance dealing with unfair and unconstitutional provisions about moving mobile homes older than 1976, installing homes no more than three times longer than they are wide, expensive development provisions requiring at least 10 acres for a mobile home park, including fancy roads, play areas and street lighting for mobile home parks that ACC does not even necessarily provide on its own public streets, public water and sewer access, etc. The ACC Commissioners took none of these obvious actions that would have protected the residents of Garden Springs.

ACC hates mobile homes and those who occupy them. These citizens do not want to live in government subsidized housing (Section 8) or public housing run by the Athens Housing Authority. They want the pride of their own, separate, detached house, not in an apartment complex, even if they do not own the land. The rules passed by the ACC Commission make this almost impossible. The ACC government only likes large developments because they bring in more tax revenue and that revenue is easier to collect. Furthermore, the "city fathers" have determined that mobile homes are not physically attractive to others, like football fans and business "leaders" they seek to impress. So they use this deceptive and scurrilous (and quite illegal but unchallenged) route to achieve their goals. Even Commissioners Sims and Sheats, the two token blacks on the Commission, provided no leadership in this matter.

Contrary to the above quotation from the editorial, the ACC Commission got exactly what they wanted: Continued discrimination against mobile homes and those who occupy them, and this patent discrimination against some Athens citizens will only continue with this group of Commissioners egged on by the editors of the newspaper, who totally avoided the crux of the issue here. But it would be politically incorrect for them to admit all this in public.

If the attorney with the fancy law firm in Atlanta really wants to help these poor souls in Garden Springs and others now and in the future, he must start playing hardball and file some lawsuits against the ACC Commission that is responsible for this discrimination, not in the local courthouse on Washington St., but in the Federal Courthouse, which is the only chance for justice for the poor souls of Garden Springs, who are also citizens of ACC. However, don't hold your breath until this happens.

Winfield J. Abbe
Athens
MORE SPRAWL-MART

The mindless destruction of trees is certainly a painful thing to see. And while Wal-Mart is rightly to be criticized, "Wal-Mart Kills Trees" [Oct. 3] failed to point out many of the other wonderful reasons "why people hate Wal-Mart."

The true environmental impact of a Wal-Mart store is not measured in tree loss alone. The massive parking contributes to increased stormwater runoff. Existing habitats are leveled by bulldozers. Increased pollution results from car use. Wal-Mart may also be criticized for bankrupting locally owned stores, contributing to a loss of community. An entire argument is also to be found in the atrocious esthetics of the big-box store.

The most difficult notion to swallow - especially for the true conservative - is the fact that taxpayers subsidize the growth of Wal-Mart (and their ilk). The cost of access is paid for by constructing new roads, widening existing ones, installing water, sewer, electricity. Additionally, taxpayers must deal with the cost of road maintenance (Super Wal-Mart on Lexington Highway generates thousands of car trips per day) and the costs of increased air and water pollution that result from increased car use. Additionally, the consumer pays for access with his or her own vehicle, effectively deferring costs of land prices and product shipping. Wal-Mart offers low prices because the true cost of their goods has been shifted onto the taxpayer and the consumer.

Wal-Mart is not solely to blame - it is among a handful of wholly unethical corporations in America. But it does embody exploitive corporate practice on a massive scale, which makes it a worthy target for the anger of many different people, both conservative and liberal. And if you don't agree with a business' practices? Don't give it your money.

Jacob Lindsey
Athens

Care to comment on this article? Click here!

You will be the first person to comment on this article.