No matter your viewpoint, it can be viewed as selfishness

No matter your viewpoint, it can be viewed as selfishness

I enjoy reading the Acorn and the often-emotional and occasionally thoughtful letters from your readers.

I am constantly reminded of how grateful we should all be for our standard of living, given the magnitude of the problems and issues about which you typically report. The only reason I find myself joining the ranks of the infamous letter writers is that I was disturbed by your July 6 editorial.

It is one thing for letters-to-the-editor to be petty, inaccurate, self-serving and juvenile, but it is quite another thing for a newspaper editorial to be so.

Your statement that people who oppose park improvement do so for purely selfish reasons is ludicrous. In my life I have never met anyone who opposes improvements of parks, recreation and wilderness areas. The discussion has always been related to the definition and scope of the proposed improvements.

As a local journalist, you should know better than most that the subject of parks in this community is a "hot-button" issue, and to label anyone who seeks a complete, open and logical discussion of the issue as selfish, is irresponsible and contributes to the growing atmosphere of societal and personal disrespect.

Using the word selfish to describe people who question park improvements is similar to using the word traitor to describe those who questioned the war in Vietnam.

Both negative personal characterizations are wrong and do a disservice to well-intentioned people in particular and public dialogue in general.

While it is clearly your place to state your editorial opinion on specific park improvements, I feel that you owe an apology to those "selfish" people who merely want to express their opinions and seek to develop a sound and sustainable plan for our limited park areas.

If you refuse to apologize, then you should at least admit that those who argue for soccer fields, swimming pools, dog runs, baseball diamonds or other desired projects, do so for "purely selfish" reasons as well. If you can’t do the right thing, at least do the fair thing. Hopefully, you will do both.

As I was finishing this letter, the July 13 Acorn arrived and the editorial, with touches of sarcasm and irony, is mildly entertaining. However, it begs the question: don’t the children of lower income