2012-06-23 / Editorials & Letters

‘The levy…is not about guaranteeing no crimes or drug deals in Baltimore’

Editor:

“Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.” Col4.5.KJV

I use a Bible program on Facebook that allows me to get a verse for the day. The above scripture was my verse for Monday and I thought it more than ironic that it was that verse while I was trying to figure out how to answer Mr. Lambs question, “ What were the lies”. I think that most prudent readers of the previous two Letters to the Editor I have written have figured out what the untruths/lies were, but for Mr. Lamb I will try to make them more clear.

1. The drug raid was nothing more than a way to sway undecided voters to support the property tax levy.

2. The TV crews and reporters were there to film and write about a “show”.

3. All of the Village’s financial problems were caused by what “appear to be the result of the fiscal irresponsibility of the Village of Baltimore and the “surge” in spending monies out of the “water/sewer funds” to pay a Village Administrator, as well as the inability of the village council to say “NO”.”

4. You try to make a big deal of the property tax levy failing by 64 percent. How many of those voters were actually property owners and how many were renters? FYI 48 percent of the properties in Baltimore are rentals. I wonder how it would have turned out if only property owners would have been allowed to vote on this issue.

5. You constantly use the word “want” in your articles. It is only your opinion that Baltimore “wants.” The police department “wants.” On the other hand, I use the word “need” because Baltimore “needs” and the police department “needs.”.

I find your statement – “Rather than accept the will of voters, they are coming back with a different plan and “many” of the voters that may benefit from increased police protection, will get it for free.” – to be rather appalling. Unlike you, there are many people who have to live only on fixed income and I certainly don’t begrudge them police protection because they don’t have “earned” income.

I also find it amazing that you waited until now to tell us, “One of the news persons at the scene told me, after I asked “ask them why did they do this so close to the election date?”...The answer.. “it’s politics”.” If this did occur, then was the answer from the police on the scene or was it this reporter’s opinion? I highly doubt that any of the officers on the scene would have told any reporter on the scene “it’s politics.”

Considering you have never been in law enforcement, I don’t think you have any authority to decide who should and shouldn’t be a police officer. Furthermore I never said anything would stop drugs in Baltimore or anywhere else for that matter. You, Mr. Lamb, are the one who needs a reality check. You want a guarantee of no crime in Baltimore and no drugs in Baltimore. It isn’t going to happen.

The levy on the November ballot is not about guaranteeing no crimes or drug deals will happen in Baltimore. What it will guarantee is that there will be a Baltimore Police officer on the streets 24 hours a day and 7 days a week so when you need help an officer will be readily available.

I said that the last letter would be my final letter, but I felt compelled to try to answer Mr. Lamb’s question. If anyone, including Mr. Lamb, would like to discuss this topic any further or would like an answer to a question you might have feel free to contact me at one of the following:

Home Phone: 862-2616

Cell: 740-438-3782

Email: w8rvd@columbus. rr.com

Facebook: Robert Van Dyke

Thank you, and God Bless!!

Robert Van Dyke

Baltimore

Return to top