Letters to the Editor

Editor,

My husband and I live outside the Falls Church City limits but we are definitely citizens of the Falls Church area. We are patrons of many of the local eateries and establishments and whenever possible walk downtown rather than drive. Yes, walk. We are lucky that most of our walk is through neighborhoods, that is until we get to Broad Street.

We have noticed that more than one of the crosswalk signals does not work; people have a penchant for running lights; and generally there appears to be little regard for pedestrians.

We have watched people play a real-life “Frogger” game in areas where the speed limit posted was not the speed limit followed. Additionally, when I am crossing the street with the blessing of the “crosswalk man,” I would appreciate if people who want to turn could just wait one minute to allow me safe passage.

With the new construction in the downtown area and the desire for new businesses to settle, I hope that attention has been paid to providing safe access to the slower traffic such as myself and bikes. My husband and I would love to ride our bikes downtown but there are very few designated places (e.g., bike racks) to actually secure our bikes and sometimes the few decent poles are already taken! Most of the successful downtowns that I have visited or lived in don’t cater to cars but instead cater to people. My husband and I love this area, but we don't want it to end up as a thoroughfare for cars only. I have not taken a poll, but I do wonder if more people within easy to moderate walking distance (0-2 miles, one way) would be willing to walk to downtown every now and then if walking was better received.

Karen Bushaw-Newton Falls Church

Editor,

Some lawmakers in Virginia back restrictions similar to those in California, where damages for pain and suffering are limited to $250,000. Insurance reform worked in California after tort reform failed miserably. Doctors’ premiums increased by 450 percent during the thirteen years after medical liability caps in that state were imposed and only declined after voters enacted comprehensive insurance industry reform and rate regulation of insurance companies, known as Proposition 103.

I don’t understand why lawmakers don’t do their homework. Instead they prop up the mythical California poster boy for tort reform as many doctors have done.

When doctors persist in supporting the California myth, they have the excuse of a subtext: even though tort reform doesn't assure lowered medical malpractice rates, a cap on pain and suffering awards would assure that they won't have to make a meaningful payout when they commit medical malpractice.

Perhaps lawmakers have a subtext, too, that would benefit them when they run for reelection.

Jane Marshall Clarksville, TN

Editor,

Helen Thomas's column “Hands Off Social Security,” in the Dec. 23 News-Press, was right on target. She agrees exactly with a Princeton University economist who previously said that there is no crisis with Social Security.

The plan made by Allen Greenspan and enacted by Congress in the 1980s remedied the difficulty foreseen regarding the retirement of the baby boomers, and Social Security is in good shape. In fact, according to this economist, each time it is reevaluated, its good health is predicted to last further into the future.

Social Security is a social compact, the way in which society promises to take care of the elderly who have worked all their lives. With George W. Bush's plan, the compact, and hence the security, would be gone. Lower-income workers wouldn't be in a position to accumulate funds to invest.

And the program would be more costly because of high investment fees. At present, Social Security operates with economy. Thank God, there are some good organizations standing up for the ordinary retiree. Let us make our voices heard!

Carol LeClair Falls Church