Letters to the Editor

Mt. Daniel Problems could Be Changed

Editor,

Supervisor DuBois has framed the proposed Mt. Daniel School expansion properly. Our Fairfax County community should not be expected to bear the traffic burden of Falls Church City's children arriving and departing school. However, their immediate safety problem could be solved with better management. Those out of control speeding parents described by the Mt. Daniel principal should be told to queue, staying in line until they reach the designated place to leave their children. Such rules, once understood, should be easy to enforce.

I have lived in this Ellison Heights-Mt. Daniel Fairfax County community over 40 years. For 24 of those years I was a classroom teacher at Mt. Daniel School. I worked with several of the present staff members, and so it is with much sadness that I recall the recent cheering by those staff members when the City school board voted to proceed with the proposed monumental expansion of Mt. Daniel School. Such expansion would overwhelm our Fairfax County community, destroying its heart and soul.

The presence of Mt. Daniel School in our community is not a situation of our making; however for over 50 years we have managed to accommodate it, although not always happily. Recent school staff testimony indicates that this site no longer meets their needs. Clearly the city needs to relocate Mt. Daniel School to another site, within the City.

Anna Link

Falls Church

Supports City Mangers Gun Regulations.

Editor,

As a resident of Falls Church City, I wholly support City Manager McKeever's proposed administrative regulation which would, among other things, call upon city employees to notify city police if they see someone carrying a weapon into a city-operated facility, city-sponsored event, or onto city-owned property.

I am one of those who believes the carrying of weapons without a license or permit should not be permitted under any circumstances, but our state legislature, with reasoning which completely eludes me, believes we are actually safer with an openly armed populace. Since Northern Virginians seem to have little sway with the state legislature, I believe it is incumbent upon our local governments and municipalities to enact regulations which they believe protect their own citizens within the confines of current law.

It is currently illegal for certain people to carry firearms. These include convicted felons, those under the age of 18, those convicted of a domestic violence offense, those dishonorably discharged from the armed services, and those convicted of crimes related to drugs or alcohol. Especially in these days of growing threats of terror, one would not know whether a person who wandered into a city park with a gun tucked in his or her belt is lawfully carrying that weapon. The only way for that determination to be made is for someone in authority, in this case, the city police, to ascertain that fact.

We are told on the one hand that there are too many regulations affecting the rights of gun owners and that the laws already on the books should be enforced. How can police enforce those laws unless they have the authority to investigate whether someone is lawfully doing so? A good analogy is drinking. It is unlawful to drink if you are under the age of 21. How is that law enforced? It is enforced by someone making inquiry of those who order a drink. We don't call it harassment if bartenders inquire the age of a bar patron. Similarly, the police should have tools which would reasonably enable them to ascertain whether someone is lawfully carrying a deadly weapon.

My sixteen year old daughter has told me if she saw someone openly carrying a gun in a Falls Church park, she would leave immediately. It is unbearably sad to me that we live in a state where that scenario is a likelihood -- where our children will actually feel less safe, rather than more protected with people carrying guns in public places. The regulation proposed by Mr. McKeever is appropriate and intended to make sure that those who are carrying guns are lawfully doing so. That is the least we can do. I wholeheartedly support Mr. McKeever's proposal.

Elizabeth Wright

Falls Church

McKeever Plan Strips Rights to Privacy

Editor,

Your coverage of the proposed "McKeever Zone" failed to address the proposal's ominous implications for city employees' civil liberties. McKeever's proposed regulation would strip all employees of their rights to privacy and private property by requiring them to submit to warrentless searches on demand, even in their cars parked on private property or a public street. McKeever proposes in his city regulation to require immediate termination of any employee found to legally posses a machete, large knife, or even a child's sling shot locked in the truck of her car.

Let's not let the politics of the "gun issue" overshadow good judgement on civil liberties generally. It would be a shame if the city council passed McKeever's regulation without really reading and understanding it. Isn't that what the Congress did with the USAPATRIOT Act?

Mike Stollenwerk, Chairman

Fairfax Co. Privacy Council

Consider Impact of New Policy on Free Speech

Editor,

The Falls Church City Council is considering a significant change to the way we meet and share ideas. Titled "Permit for Parades and Processions," the proposal amends Section 20-13 (Motor Vehicle Code) to restrict the right to use "streets, sidewalks, and public places" for all forms of assembly, rallies and demonstrations.

The proposed language is extremely broad. It would require parades, processions, assemblies, rallies and demonstrations -- of any size -- to apply for a permit, pay a $100, and obtain permission to hold an event. A "procession" is "a group of persons, vehicles, or objects moving along in an orderly, formal manner" (picture a group of dog walkers), an "assembly" is "a group of persons gathered together for a common reason, as for a legislative, religious, educational, or social purpose" (picture a small church picnic, kids on a nature walk or even a birthday party), a "rally" is "a gathering, especially one intended to inspire enthusiasm for a cause" (picture a group meeting to discuss concerns with changes to City Code), and a "demonstration" is "a public display of group opinion, as by a rally or march" (even two or three people).

Have the drafters considered the impact on the rights of free speech and freedom of assembly? Motor vehicle code changes should be tied directly tied to major disruptions of traffic, not small groups meeting in the park or peacefully protesting on the steps of City Hall. This proposal reaches into our parks and sidewalks to limit our most cherished freedoms.

I think there must be some mistake. We all agree that the essence of our liberty lies in the right to assemble peacefully and share our views, even if they are minority or unpopular views. It is a fear in other countries that small groups talking and protesting peacefully will be harassed by police, not a fear here. We have the right to express our opinions - without prior restraint, without a fee, and without fear.

I think the current code - requiring a permit for groups over 100 people or 25 vehicles - gets it right.

Kathryn Kleiman

Falls Church