Pro-choice, no problem and city fathers

By Published by The Editorial Board

Published: September 6, 2008

Pro-choice isn’t pro-abortion

To the editor:

I would like to correct a misconception that was not only in the editorial, “Running in place?” (Sept. 5, page A8), but said during the opening statement U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-5th, gave at the recent candidate forum at the Institute for Advanced Learning & Research.

Democratic congressional candidate Tom Perriello is not — as Goode stated — “pro-abortion.” Perriello is “pro-choice.”

There is a huge difference.

Roe v. Wade gave the decision making to the woman involved — where it belongs. The next president will most likely have the opportunity to appoint two to three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court — and shift the balance against this landmark decision if the issue comes before the court again. I believe there are far better options than abortion, but I do not believe that my government has the right to make that decision for me. It is a decision between me and my God.

LAURIE TILLETT

To the editor:

No adoption questionnaire has ever been denied simply because the person already had another pet, “Why couldn’t I adopt one?” (Sept. 5, page A8). Let me repeat — no adoption questionnaire has been denied simply because the person had another pet.

We do not doubt the sincerity of the person who believes that this happened, but we dispute the facts. Most of the people we adopt to already have other pets, so there were other issues involved.

Half-truths and misconceptions continue to circulate about our adoption policies and guidelines. This began a few years ago when a television reporter confused two stories and reported them as one story, and when the newspaper continued to publish hateful letters.

The bottom line is this — yes, we do decline adoptions for various reasons, as does any humane shelter that truly cares for the animals’ future. However, we do not decline anywhere near the number of questionnaires that some people would have the public believe. When questionnaires do not result in an adoption, the reasons are many, including people changing their minds, not calling back, their landlord saying no, a previous dismal pet history, the people have been convicted of cruelty to animals in the past — the list goes on.

We do everything in our power to place animals in homes. Our adoption guidelines are far less restrictive than most shelters in other areas. A friend who is the executive director of a shelter in another region of Virginia has approved one adoption in eight years for a dog to be completely outside. Some shelters will not allow puppies to go into homes with small children. Some shelters will not allow adopted cats to be declawed.

For those people who adopt from the Pittsylvania County shelter — please be aware that we help pay for the spay/neuter surgeries for those dogs.

Speaking personally, I find it very discouraging that people continue to believe half-truths about us and some seek to do us harm when we try so very hard to help every single animal in every single situation. Has our society really come to the point that “no” is an unacceptable word?

PAULETTE DEAN,

To the editor:

Let’s really look at how things are here — not the smokescreen that we have been shown by the city fathers for so many years.

For years, we have been told by city hall that bringing new jobs to Danville would solve most of the city’s issues. To get people into jobs, the city would provide education and all would be well. By doing that, Danvillians would then have the income to support a new shopping district that would stop people from going to Greensboro, N.C., and keep money in Danville.

Let’s look at how it really is. Many new and terrific jobs have been brought to Danville, and many former Dan River employees have found new jobs, which is obviously good. But some of the companies that have come have realized that the work force that is left will only stay off drugs long enough to get a job — but not long enough to hold one. We have a strong base of welfare people that could work but choose not to. Their pastime is to stand on street corners. Why is it so easy for people to do that here in Danville? There are laws on the books that need to be enforced that could deter this lifestyle. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in the state, and it isn’t because we don’t have the jobs. We actually have a lot of people that don’t live in Danville that work in Danville. Plain and simple, the people that want to work either already are or are on their way — and the ones left don’t want to. So don’t sell companies a bill of goods that you can’t deliver.

Which brings me to the issue of Danville needing a new shopping district. Whose idea was Coleman MarketPlace? We have all said we needed better shopping here in Danville, but the quality that the citizens were talking about was not what they got. One reason people go to fabulous shopping areas outside of Danville is for the experience and the diversity of upper-end shopping. Most of the really nice shopping districts that are built now have pedestrian-friendly design with gorgeous landscaping and some of the best stores in the industry. They also have a diversity of great restaurants. Obviously, Coleman MarketPlace was not a well thought out idea. It has none of the aforementioned features. The city spent a lot of incentive money to get stores here. Will they make it, or will they be another Boscov’s?

City fathers, you are not listening to the people that have the disposable income. It is obvious that there is no real plan or vision for our town.

Which brings me to tourism, which could mean trips to see the Historic District, Tank Museum, VIR, Danville Science Center, the Last Capitol of the Confederacy and to enjoy the whole “old town” Danville experience. Is that idea supported properly and encouraged by the city? Instead of increasing our taxes, we could actually make money from the visitors that want to come to enjoy our town. Isn’t that what we want? The city says that to get their support, the citizens have to put money where their mouth is.

Well, citizens are spending a lot of their own money developing new shops, renovating buildings and homes — all to have to fight city hall. The citizens have gotten fed up with the battles and a lot have shut down. Again, there is no real plan or vision and no allowable input from the citizens as to what is really needed to make Danville work and be successful.

One thing that new companies and citizens moving to our area really look at is health care. Why was a hospital that was successful on several fronts and developing one of the best medical facilities that the city has had in years sold? What real benefit was it to Danville? Heaven forbid you have a heart attack.

City hall has no real plan or true vision for a well rounded, successful Danville. Or if there is a plan somewhere, it obviously is lining some people’s pockets and not working for any good. The city needs a plan that encompasses all issues, not spot planning.

What is needed is Strong, meaningful communication with citizens and working with the people — not against them — and a true appreciation for the people that have the means and are willing to take some serious responsibility for progress.

Hopefully, the next city manager will have a true appreciation for the citizens of this wonderful town and turn a deaf ear to the corruption that has run this town for years. No town is successful if there is no good working relationship between city hall and all of its citizens.

PAM GRAY

Danville