The issue of towing illegally parked cars continues to be a point of contention. I’m frankly surprised at the number of people who don’t see anything wrong with parking on private property without abiding by the rules and then complaining that their car was towed.

Businesses pay for parking for their customers. They are not spending that money to provide customers of nearby businesses with parking. If I’m downtown and can’t find parking at Chipotle’s and Panera’s has parking available, I will probably go and eat there and the money they spent to provide parking will be partly recouped. If someone has just parked there to run over to Chipotle’s and there were no spots for me then my money and I would have gone elsewhere and their investment would have been wasted.

With the relatively high turnover a restaurant like Panera’s has, even someone who was “only gone for five minutes” may have cost them a customer or 12 customers an hour. Even at $5/customer that means Panera’s would lose $60/hour. If they are open 12 hours, then that’s $720 per day, over $5,000/week or more than $250,000 a year. In today’s economy, those kinds of losses can mean the difference between a business succeeding or failing with the associated loss of people’s jobs and taxes to the town. Can you face someone who loses their job because you couldn’t find a parking space?

Setting standards for towing is fine. Punishing the business for paying to provide their customers parking is short-sighted.

James Harler

Chapel Hill

Aid is essential

It has come to my attention Chapel Hill Transit buses contained advertising sponsored by the Church of the Reconciliation and friends seeking an end to military aid to Israel. I do not dispute the congregants are well meaning; however, they apparently have forgotten what occurred in the Third Reich and the gassing of, among others, millions of Jewish people.

The end of the Second World War and the founding of the United Nations brought about the creation of Israel in 1948 from the British mandate of Palestine. Arabs opposed the creation of Israel in 1948 and waged war then, in 1956 and 1967 to defeat Israel. Eventually Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties; however, these and other Arab countries encouraged the Palestinians to leave and become a people without a country. Today Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Syria and Iran continue to attack not only Israelis but those Arab peoples who stayed in Israel and became Israeli citizens.

It would be wonderful if, as the Church of Reconciliation wishes, we “could teach the world to sing in perfect harmony”; however, human nature being what it is there is a hatred for Jews by many Palestinians and their leaders. I do not object to equitable treatment of Palestinians. It is absolutely necessary to promote peace. However without U.S. military aid and cooperation, Israelis would and Jews everywhere would be subject to annihilation by the Iranians, Syria Al Qaeda and their allies.

I am a 1971 UNC graduate and realize there is an openness and tolerance in college communities that is not prevalent in other American towns and cities. But U.S. military aid to Israel and many other countries is necessary in order to keep peace and avoid the outbreak of another massive World War.

Mark G. Rodin

Durham

Church is right

Well, if you ask me, the Church of Reconciliation has got it right. There never would have been a 9/11 or all of the aftermath were it not for the U.S.’s loud and lopsided favoritism to Israel. We should have been and should be “neutral” to both sides and let them peacefully work out their differences together. This is what reconciliation is all about. Peace. War has cost them and us (the U.S.) a lot of death, grief, and money.

Ross Pipes

Durham

More than speech

I believe that the Chapel Hill Town Council allowed these ads inside buses thinking it was only a freedom of speech issue. But it is far more serious.

If our government stopped supporting the qualitative military advantage need of Israel, it and half the world’s Jewish people would become easy prey for another holocaust. The surrounding neighbors of Israel are keen to wipe them out and have said so. An advertisement objecting to the treatment of the Palestinians is a reasonable and ethical option. But supporting the destruction of a nation is quite another matter.

It is clear that this is part of a National pro-Palestine campaign designed to delegitimize Israel ( bit.ly/O5U5lR and bit.ly/OAVxiH)

It seems very likely that money is coming from outside our community from donors who are not listed on the ad. That concern should be very thoroughly be examined as well.

Please review your decision very carefully.

Robert Gutman

Durham

Editor’s note: This letter was originally sent to the Chapel Hill Town Council.

Abortion alternative?

I favor abortion right but also realize the Right to Life crowd has a point of view. The main issue isn’t about when life begins, because no one wants to kill a fetus.

There’s also a hypocrisy issue. Many RTLs also oppose social programs, preferring the boot-strap mantra. They want to bring them here, but don’t want to pay to support them.

Given today’s medical technology, we can remove an egg and either freeze it or place it in a surrogate. The program would work like this: Any pregnant woman, regardless of the reason, could choose not to bring a pregnancy to term (the decision would have to be made while such a transfer is still feasible). The state would have to, at its expense, remove the embryo.

Once in the custody of the state, the embryo could be placed in a surrogate or frozen for later implantation. Surrogates could be volunteers managed directly or through charities. If we don’t have enough surrogate volunteers, the state could spend tax dollars for incentives.

This isn’t a perfect solution. The biological father or mother might prefer not to bring the fetus into the world for some reason – rape being the best reason. There is also a risk to the embryo in the procedure, particularly if there are insufficient surrogates. My answer to that is “tough luck – go take a lesson in weighing alternatives.”

R. Lewis Stanford

Chapel Hill