Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Cuba editorial ignores suffering of the people

To support your anti-Cuban embargo position, your editorial cites Catholicism, JFK, China and the Tourist Development Council. You point to Christianity, a dead president, communism, and a greedy business organization to support your argument. That's a great deal of mental acrobatics and gives the impression that you're throwing toilet paper on the wall to see what sticks, but it's landing on the floor.

The glaring hole in your argument is your faked ignorance of the suffering in Cuba. They struggle under an oppressive, godless, Communist regime that has absolutely no respect for basic human rights, the rights that Americans have shed blood defending for the weak and oppressed throughout the globe. Yet, your paper believes we should forget that sacrifice because the TDC has a marketing plan for Cuba. I feel sorry for the Editorial Board because they are either really dumb or heartless. I'm embarrassed your paper even carries the name of our beloved city, and it leaves me no hope for what will become of Key West in the future if your views ever became reality.

Every president since JFK has firmly defended the embargo because America stands in solidarity with the Cubans. They are robbed of their hope and dignity by a Communist regime that laughs at our democratic values. If your Editorial Board truly appreciated those values, it would want Cubans to live them as well, instead of promoting the TDC plan for making even more money than they have already.

If the government in Cuba finally decides to embrace our democratic values, thus ending the embargo, and a bunch of heartless business people like you is what they have waiting for them, then God help Cuba and Key West. I bet your anonymous Editorial Board has strong ties to the TDC and stands to make money from opinions expressed in your paper. You have sold your journalistic integrity to the highest bidder. You could restore this reader's faith by printing the names of your anonymous Editorial Board members who don't stand to profit from the TDC's blueprint for Cuba.

Liana Blanco

Key West

Editor's note: The members of The Citizen Editorial Board are listed at the top of the Opinion page.

HARC ruling based on national guidelines

As a concerned member of the public with great interest in the historic preservation of Key West, I was in attendance at the June 22 meeting of the Historic Architectural Review Commission. I listened as the representative for Fogarty Builders of the Keys attempted to strong-arm the board into allowing visible solar panels on the historically significant home at 703 Fleming St. This home is one of the two elegant "twin" homes on Fleming Street across from the library.

In his opening statement, Fogarty Builder's representative admitted that, in the absence of landscaping, the solar panels would be visible from the public right-of-way, but then took an aggressive stance for the remainder of his presentation as to why it should be allowed.

It is clearly stated in the HARC guidelines that solar collectors "can only be placed on roof surfaces not visible form a public right-of-way."

These guidelines are not created at the whim of a local board. They are based upon the secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. These are national standards which were established to prevent the loss of our historic architectural heritage.

HARC board members made recommendations for the relocation of the panels so that they would not be visible from the public right-of-way. In response, Fogarty Builders' representative stated that the engineer would then have to re-tool the entire design, thus costing the owners thousands of dollars. If the engineer was so lax in his original design that he ignored HARC guidelines, then it should not cost the owners one penny. The engineer should pay for the redesign.

I would like to commend the owners of 703 Fleming St. for their environmental stewardship. We all understand how important it is that we move away from fossil fuels. In this case, there are alternatives to the proposal that has been put forth.

HARC must be relentless in protecting Key West's historic architectural heritage. I respect the stance of the HARC board in this matter and suggest that the public rally behind them to prevent a precedent-setting debacle for our historic district.

Kent Ducote

Key West