To the Editor:
The Flyer editorial "The Tragedy on the Bluff" [Editorial April 3rd issue] is as fallacious a piece of irresponsible journalism as I have read.
The Henry Turley Company proposed cutting the bluff walk into the face of the bluff. It is because of the Henry Turley Company that dirt will fly.
The Chickasaw Bluffs Conservancy sought to preserve the existing trail along the top of the bluff that the public enjoyed for decades and along which the Memphis Park Commission maintained trash receptacles. The bluff walk was there before the houses.
The Henry Turley Company proposed cutting the bluff walk into the bluff as a compromise when the city council indicated that it would not eliminate the much-enjoyed existing walkway so that the developer could build houses on top of the bluff.
Far from being stiff-necked, the Conservancy agreed to the Turley Company proposal as a way of encouraging housing in the downtown area while preserving public access to the city-owned bluff with its incomparable views of the waterfront and the Mississippi River.
In regard to deforestation of the bluff, it has already been largely accomplished. The mutilated magnolias and rotting stumps are stark testimony that trees have been cut to open wide vistas for the bluff-top residents.
The real tragedy of the bluff is the developer's stiff-necked refusal to incorporate the much-used and enjoyed bluff walk into his development. It would have been inexpensive and would have encouraged development beyond the bluff's edge.
When the dirt flies, thank the Henry Turley Company. Give credit where credit is due.
Patricia Merrill
President,
Chickasaw Bluffs Conservancy
To the Editor:
With the long-established Memphis Historical Trail along the top of the edge of the bluff, "The Tragedy " is that the developer and his eventual residents tried to eliminate that heritage. It was Henry Turley who suggested notching in the bluff walk giving him the bluff top. Preservation of the heritage was promised.
The 15-mile walking trail, DeSoto Park to the Medical Center, went one way along the river's edge and returned along the high bluff, where the official map shows the Grant-Sherman headquarters, the 1862 Battle of Memphis, and black Union soldiers camped in Ft. Pickering -- at approximately Chester Street and Butler. This Civil War site, an important part of Memphis history, on the bluff walk, was put on hold when South Bluff development began. The understanding then was that "it would open again when safe for Boy and Girl Scouts and others to travel."
The original agreement was that three acres of closed streets be devoted to development in exchange for the right-of-way along the crest of the bluff for the trail. The city kept its part of the bargain. Surely residents and developer want to be honorable and keep theirs.
Anne W. Shafer
Memphis
To the Editor:
As you note in your peevish complaint, the citizens who care enough to get involved, the Chickasaw Bluffs Conservancy, were "single-mindedly zealous" enough to fight to preserve the public's right to continue to enjoy the panoramic view of the Mississippi River from the top of the bluff.
Your anonymous editorialist's choice of words -- smear campaign, labeling fat cats, patently vindictive, glossed over objections -- coming from a community newspaper shows an ugly bias against a group who went through legal channels at all times to preserve public land for public use. The developer asked for the notched walkway; the conservancy accepted this compromise on design that the city council approved not once, but twice. Who, may I ask, should be accused of "glossing over"?
Isn't it wonderful that citizens for the common good get justice in the courts every now and then! From a "stiff-necked" reader.
Mary Wright Robinson
Memphis
To the Editor:
The local daily has a longer memory than that of the Flyer because it has been in business longer than your paper. It can remember that a four-foot-wide path ran from the old railroad river crossing in front of the west side of the Rivermont, across Ashburn-Coppock Park, across Riverside Drive, along the top of the bluffs to Beale. The path was shaded along the bluff top by over a hundred trees and paved with cinders. The bluff slopes were decorated with crape myrtles contributed by the City Beautiful Commission. Pedestrians regularly traversed it, many came just to enjoy the view, and Scout troops were awarded patches for hiking over it. It was not a concept, it was a reality. If the city did not own it, it certainly had an easement by usage over the pathway.
Progress dictated that housing was a better use for the south bluffs than an unused railyard. The developers asked to be able to build to the edge of the bluffs. At this point, I don't remember if the developer ever paid for the land of the path or its easement, but a compromise was agreed on so as not to interrupt the bluff top trail and to preserve the views for all. It was an honorable agreement and should be honored even now.
Your paper wasn't around to cry for the trees bulldozed by the developer or for the crape myrtles that froze and weren't replanted so that the bluffs would be safer to mow. There are presently plans for another development which would cut the remaining bluff-top trees and ask the city to cut some that would spoil their view. Will you cry for those trees?
I question how the Flyer is able to prejudge an unbuilt walkway on its looks by calling it the "Worst Public Eyesore" for next year. You should have seen the area when it was a garbage dump. It will recover.
Just cool it! Your editorial was too florid.
Ray Skinner
Memphis
To the Editor:
As I was reading Richard Cohen's piece "One Toke Over the Line [Viewpoint, March 27th issue], I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. It sounded like the writer would have us believe that President Clinton is single-handedly responsible for the world's illegal drug trade. And that, I thought, must be a joke.
As I read on, I discovered that Cohen might actually be serious. He seemed to be saying that because, 30 years ago, Bill Clinton took a drag off a marijuana cigarette, all of Mexico must now produce, sell, and transport illegal drugs to make a decent living. If only Clinton had a presidential "policy," the illegal drug market would disappear. Yeah, right.
His statement, "It's utterly naive to believe that non-Americans will turn down vast riches or, even, moderate bribes" completely ignores the U.S. public officials who take the same bribes and get filthy rich off illegal drugs. Does anyone really believe that the Mexicans, or the Colombians, are the only ones profiting from the production and sale of cocaine? How many administrations have there been since the 1960s? What presidential policy has made a dent so far in the sale or use of illegal drugs? And by the way, is the president of the United States the only person with the power to make a difference? Aren't we all involved in this democracy? Yes, but it is always easier to blame someone else.
It's ludicrous to even think the president can stop the drug trade with a "policy" and a few public-service announcements. Cohen is right about one thing, though. The war on drugs is a stupid war. The "war" we should be fighting is a war on greed. As long as people can get rich beyond their wildest dreams on the production and sale of illegal drugs, it will never stop whether we have a presidential policy or not.
Leslie Hester
Memphis
To the Editor:
I'll be a politician here and say both that I understand First Tennessee president John Kelly in his opinions of downtown progress ["City Reporter," April 3rd issue], and ask at the same time, "Why is this such a surprise to a man in a high-ranking position such as he is in?" Assuming that he does know how things work, then his statements must only be for the purpose of getting more from the city in return for staying downtown.
It seems that money and power are the issues here (and it should be no surprise to us). I don't really blame him for trying to get all he can, but I think the city should only do so much. If he wants to go, let him.
Arthur Williams
via the Internet
To the Editor:
I must voice my displeasure concerning a statement by John Oros, senior vice-president of the Memphis Convention and Visitors Bureau, regarding the Tunica vs. Memphis convention battle [April 3rd issue]. Oros states "Tunica's more interested in the bartenders association than the bar association."
This slight is unnecessary. I have won five bartending national championships and am about to assume the national presidency of an organization known as Bartenders Against Drunk Driving (BADD). We stress responsible behavior by our bartenders and by our customers, and are very concerned with the proper enforcement of all liquor laws.
It will be my responsibility to coordinate this year's convention and national championship tournament. Perhaps Mr. Oros would prefer I take these 500 visitors to another city, perhaps Tunica. The final decision rests with me, and if Mr. Oros thinks bartenders rest at the bottom of the professional ladder, then I will.
I am not defending all bartenders. There are unethical, uncaring bartenders, just as there are attorneys. By the way, Mr. Oros, I probably made more money than you last year.
David Morelli
via the Internet
The Memphis Flyer encourages reader response. Send mail to: Letters to the Editor, POB 687, Memphis, TN 38101. Or call Back Talk at 575-9405. Or send us e-mail on America Online at MEMFLYER, or on the internet at memflyer@mem.net. All responses must include name, address, and daytime phone number. Letters should be no longer than 250 words.