Mr. Pfriender's premise that the senators represent the society as a whole is true, and it is also true that their decisions will not please everyone, but in his personal attack on Ms. Fahy he misses the real issue here. It is not development, or "I've got mine, go away". It is that this action clearly rewards a developer who has flouted our laws from the beginning. It sends a message to future developers (following the too little, too late moratorium proposed by Senator Wesselhoft) that they can get away with anything they want. And the sneaky, underhanded manner in which the issue was brought to a vote lends the appearance that some of our legislators can still be bought.
And Mr. Pfriender closes with yet another attack on Ms Fahy regarding improving and beautifying. While Ms Fahy routinely leads roadside cleanups and spearheaded Rotary's painting crosswalks when Public Works could not, I have not heard of Mr. Pfriender doing any of that, although that has no bearing on the Sirenusa issue. It is a typical tactic of the uninformed.
Editor's note: We welcome and encourage readers to keep the dialogue going by responding to Source commentary. Letters should be e-mailed with name and place of residence to firstname.lastname@example.org.