Letters

Railyard not meant to duplicate Plaza

It is apparent that the Journal North staff has had an institutional memory lapse. If they had not, they would have vividly remembered the months and months — even years — of agonizing citizen and city staff participation initiated during Mayor Debbie Jaramillo’s administration to flesh out the rationale and purpose of the city’s purchase of the Railyard. The Railyard was not to duplicate the tourist-centered Plaza — which, by the time of the Railyard acquisition, had long lost Sears, Penney’s and even Woolworth’s to galleries and mini-malls. The Railyard was created to be a community-owned and occupied center for local/regional businesses and non-profits— a role it has increasingly played.

The discouragement of national chains is not, as the Journal contended in its March 27 editorial, a matter of “snobbery;” it is a matter of faithful adherence to Santa Fe citizens’ dictates about what should be on city-purchased land. Note that the entire original purchase price of $21 million has been repaid to the city; presently the SFRCC is well on its way to paying off the $17.7 million of state-funded infrastructure.

Einstein Bros Bagels did not want to be in the North Railyard as the editorial implies. They wanted a Cerrillos Road site already under lease to the local business Recollections. And, if Chipotle were really “eager” to be in the North area, there is a more than adequate space available at the old Borders site in Sanbusco.

The Journal editorial ignores that after 2008′s market collapse, there still were local businesses interested in Railyard spaces. Unfortunately, local banks were not willing or too over-extended to lend to anybody.

Now that SFRCC has recently taken possession of the original proposed cinema site, things are moving in exciting directions. Stay tuned for April 16. The Journal may have to swallow whole its fast-food, high fat, salty corporate burritos.

OUIDA MACGREGOR

Santa Fe

Editor’s note: MacGregor, a former city councilor, says she is “proud to be a member of the Santa Fe Railyard Community Corporation.”

2nd amendment meant for militia

The National Rifle Association and fellow gun enthusiasts continue to misconstrue the Founders’ original intent in creating the Second Amendment to the Constitution. A recent published comment states that “Guns save lives, stop crime and protect you. This is why we arm police, why people arm themselves and why the Founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution.”

The Second Amendment reads as follows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The comment in the first paragraph would be accurate if the first half of the Second Amendment concerning the role of a militia had not been included in this simple statement. The first half had meaning. The Founders were much concerned about the power of a standing army and the possibility of overt military control of the fledgling country.

The members of the Virginia legislature elaborated on the importance of a militia in a letter accompanying their ratification of the first 10 amendments, in 1791. They stated that, “…a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty… and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.” 1791 was a time when less than 15 percent of the white male population, mostly untrained in the military use of weapons, possessed guns.

Of course, the issue of no standing army was short-lived. The War of 1812 proved that a standing army and navy were essential to our survival as an independent nation. The concern, however, about undue influence of the military remains today.

Over the years, Supreme Court rulings have essentially ignored the first half of the Second Amendment, opting instead for easy access to weapons. A question: How did the Founder’s intent to provide for a Militia evolve into a nation with over 300 million guns in circulation?

HANK BAHNSEN

Santa Fe

Economic toll of war is tough

Pastor Steve Wiard’s commentary in last Monday’s Journal was very forceful. Loss of any lives in war is regrettable, and the economic toll could last another decade or more. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the combination of the Iraq war and Bush tax cuts will account for nearly half of the projected 2019 national debt of $17 trillion. War is not the answer.

DICK FOSTER

Los Alamos

Businesses helped us honor teachers

The Parent Teacher Coalition (PTC) honored Santa Fe High School teachers with an appreciation luncheon Friday, March 22. The PTC sponsors a yearly luncheon as a way to thank and recognize the dedicated, hard-working teaching staff at the school.

The luncheon was made possible by the generous donation of food, drinks and supplies from the following businesses: Olive Garden, Piccolino, Coca-Cola, Whole Foods, Dulce, Chocolate Maven Albertson’s and Mangiamo Pronto Italian Café. Without these businesses’ generous donations, it would have been difficult for the PTC to provide the delicious and abundant foods that made the luncheon such a success.

The teaching staff expressed their thanks to both the PTC and the community’s businesses for their efforts and contributions towards the luncheon. Everything was delicious. Thank you Santa Fe for helping us recognize the people working with our youth on a daily basis.

DIANA M. GONZALES-PACHECO

Santa Fe

Perspective about same-sex marriage

I read with great interest Winthrop Quigly’s UpFront column in these pages entitled “Gay-Rights Ruling Could Impede Political Solution.” While the author supports marriage for same-sex couples and has a gay son himself, I believe he misses the mark when he says the courts are not the place to fight for the freedom to marry.

It would be wonderful if tomorrow, legislatures across the country woke up, went to work and repealed all the laws that keep same-sex couples from marrying. But we know that is unlikely to happen. This is precisely the reason we have courts, to keep the majority from holding captive the rights of a minority.

Lest we not forget, until the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws against interracial marriage in 1967, several states would have prevented me from marrying my wife not only because we are both women, but also because I am black and she is white. Even in 1986, only a few years after we began our relationship, two-thirds of the public still opposed interracial marriage. Our country’s history overflows with examples where the courts needed to set the pace for instructive change on how we treat one another.

Today, as I write this letter, my spouse and I are celebrating our 30th anniversary together. We are similar to many couples. We’ve had good times and not-so-good times, and we’ve been there for each other through sickness and through health. We share a loving, supportive and committed relationship. We married in California during the brief period when it was legal, and we want our relationship to be recognized and respected here in New Mexico, the place we call home.

If my wife and I had met before 1967, should we have waited for a political fix to anti-miscegenation laws? How long should my wife and I now wait for politicians to decide our love is worthy of inclusion? The majority of Americans already support marriage for same-sex couples. If the courts affirm our freedom to marry, they will be catching up to the will of the American people, not leaving them behind.

JANICE BRUCE GRIFFIN-HIGHTOWER

San Jose