Letters Jobs needed

To the editor:

Jobs are a concern for everyone. Do you have one? Two? Three? You are a very lucky person. To find a job in Vermillion is hard to do. "I'll call you in the fall" or "I'll get back to you." You wait hoping the phone will ring and it doesn't.

These are excuses, I call them, a job seeker hears. A recent journey to a job site became the seventh interview. The place of business hadn't even had any record of the first through sixth interviews.

Two business advertised the need for help. At the interview the job seeker was told "We're waiting for a transfer from Watertown to fill the opening." Transfers from another town. Is that helping the Vermillion community? We live here for years and have to drive miles to feed our families.

I was told that USD didn't want new industry because then students would go to work instead of school. I don't know if that's true. I do know a rental property owner did sell his property and moved away. "There's too many rentals and low enrollment at USD, I can't make it," he says.

No jobs, no students. Why live here? For those who have lived here for years the jobs are nil, also.

Buy products in town. Spend your money in town. Why should we? There aren't any opportunities here. Months go by and depression sets in. Don't laugh, when you hear negativity for months you feel pretty worthless. You can't feed your family or even just yourself.

An elderly development wants to be built. That's very good if there's a real need. Is there enough elderly to fill them? Can elderly afford the high price for rent? Think more jobs instead!

To make cities grow you need industry and employment here. Give new families, and long-time citizens a reason to be proud to live here.

Industry means more monies generated. Jobs elsewhere means less money spent in town. Vermillion will become an island no one will want to visit.

Lois J. Getzin


City hall express train

To the editor:

Choo! Choo! Choo! Get off the track or get run over by the Community First building express train. The Saga of City Hall continues.

The Beginning: A resolution by the city council to purchase the bank and remodel it at a cost of $2,200,000.

Result: A petition and definite vote against the resolution.

The Middle: A trio of people from VCRC conducted a two hours plus meeting of concerned citizens on what to do about the city hall location.

Result: A report to the council by VCRC ��some discussion � zero decisions. A political poultice to calm the rebels.

The End: Form a committee where the moderator is selected by the mayor with the admonition, "No discussion on this appointment." He then proceeds to name the selected committee members and their qualifications. Upon request, he names those who unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) didn't get appointed to the committee.

Result: After an acceptable number of lengthy meetings and pawing through the regurgitation of their predecessors the committee reaches a recommendation.

The committee recommends that the council pass a new and revised resolution to purchase the Community First Bank building for approximately $900,000, and wave the magic wand (second penny tax) over the remodeling costs.

All this to be effective before June 1. You can take this "end result" to the bank. Anyone for dominoes?

Van Pierce


Missing the point

To the editor:

In response to Kathleen Block's letter, I think opponents to marriage equality are missing the point on the marriage debate.

The movement for marriage equality is to end one of the last areas of state sponsored discrimination. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people deserve the same opportunities as all other Americans.

I respect the fact that some religious institutions will not condone marriage equality, but the government, separated from the church, has no place giving special rights for straight people.

There are at least 1,049 benefits, responsibilities, and protections that are provided to married couples. If the concern is legal wranglings, then creating a separate but equal institution seems to be a lot more work than changing the civil definition of marriage � one law instead of over 1,000.

And as the Massachusetts Judicial Supreme Court said, "Separate is seldom, if ever, equal."

Telling people like me to "get a life," but supporting laws that prevent me from doing that seems contradictory at best and reminiscent of "women need not apply" or "whites only" at worst. Opponents to marriage equality are trying to strip LBGT families of stability for their children and their spouses.

Imagine not being able to visit your loved one in the hospital or being told that your marriage is invalid if you cross state lines. Imagine losing the house you've lived in for 30 years when your spouse dies because your property does not automatically transfer.

No survivor's benefits for social security, higher taxes, and the possibility of having to testify against your spouse. These are the realities that LBGT families face every day because they do not have the protections afforded by one institution and one institution only marriage.

This isn't an abstract debate about a Constitutional amendment or some ridiculous exercise in semantics; this nation-wide movement is about equality for all people and protecting all families. South Dakotans have a history of championing fairness, and marriage equality should be no exception.

Jon Hoadley

VHS graduate, 2002

Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>