Feb. 11 Letters:Developing Phoebus, Black History Month, Second Amendment, cellphone drivers

February 10, 2013

Phoebus support

I'm not from Hampton, but I'm a fan of Phoebus.

The current 'redevelopment plan' winding its way through Hampton is the same old thing that we and every other medium sized burg in the rest of the county has seen foisted upon them; a McVersion of what developers see as a quick, cheap fix that looks just like Town Center, City Center, or Any Center. Nothing of the soul of Phoebus will be left, just a bunch of look alike McBuildings that won't last 10 years. The increased rents will run out most (if not all) of the cool, long running, locally owned businesses in Phoebus and will (hopefully) bring in some national chains.

Why can't we learn from other successful re-development projects by looking at what exists, identifying buildings that are worth saving and renovating before bringing in the bull dozers? I've seen many beautiful buildings simply destroyed to make way for vacant lots or glass boxes. The proposed plan has absolutely no architectural interest. Why do we want to do the same to Phoebus as we've done to what used to be downtown Newport News? Haven't we seen that the 'tear it down' approach simply does not work? Do we collectively just loath our humble beginnings?

Hampton Council, please reconsider your approach to Phoebus; renovation instead of re-development. One will result in a revitalized Phoebus that honors its past; the other will result in yet another set of chain store McBuildings with no connection to any past.

Craig Narron

Newport News

[Less] than 200 years ago, our nation was embedded in the gross practice of slavery. Some 15 to 25 percent of those enslaved were Muslim. Indeed, Muslims have been part of America's framework since its very inception.

American society saw its first population of Muslims through the import of African slaves. There are also historical accounts of Muslims fighting in the American Revolutionary War, aiming to assist in this nation's creation.

History records that 1,400 years ago, Prophet Muhammad declared that all races are equal and that racial discrimination has no place in society. As an American Muslim, I think celebrating Black History Monthis an excellent opportunity to show our unity and also to reaffirm the struggle and determination to fight prejudice and racism.

Mohammad Adnan Khan


A reader suggested in this space recently that because the only personal firearms available at the time that the Second Amendment to the Constriction was adopted were muzzle-loading weapons, the amendment should be interpreted to read as follows: ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear muzzle-loading firearms shall not be infringed."

We can apply this same rationale to other amendments. That is, any amendment is only applicable to conditions as they existed at the time it was adopted. To this end, let's look at the First Amendment, which provides for freedom of the press among other things. When this amendment was adopted, the word "press" certainly didn't include radio and television commentators. The only press at the time was newspapers, books, a few magazines, assorted almanacs, and broadsides. Consequently, it is only logical to interpret "press" to include only the aforementioned items. There was no intended freedom of the press for radio and television commentators. How could there be? They did not exist when the amendment was adopted.

Any thinking person would consider this to be a ridiculous suggestion, which obviously it is. Of course, if this sort of interpretation is ridiculous for the First Amendment, then it is ridiculous for the Second Amendment and any other amendment as well.

The Framers provided means for changing the Constitution in case some of its provisions required modification over time. Therefore, I ask those who are sincerely opposed to the right of individuals to bear arms as is now clearly guaranteed by the Second Amendment, why don't you draft an amendment to repeal that one and campaign for its adoption? The silence of people supporting such a proposition is deafening. Of course it is, because they recognize full well that they won't get much support for tinkering with the Bill of Rights.

They will, however, continue to attempt emotional and perhaps unlawful end runs in attempts to deprive us of one of our basic freedoms.

Robert V. Doggett, Jr.


I sincerely hope that they will pass the law on texting while driving.

At the same time, they need to fine the ones that have the cellphones stuck between their shoulder and head. Try it....

I see enough of it at the intersection of Denbigh Blvd and Jefferson Ave.

Arthur C. Bonevich

Newport News

Daily Press Articles