Friday, December 13, 2013
I think I'm in the Twilight Zone at the adoption of the seemingly ill-conceived Congress Street traffic redesign proposal put forth by Councilor Dave Marshall and the City Council's Transportation Committee and recently approved by the City Council ("Traffic changes coming to Congress Street," Feb. 26; "Portland City Council will consider plan for bus service, traffic flow," Feb. 25).
Removing traffic lights along parts of Congress Street will allow drivers “to zoom through the downtown Arts District,” eroding the pedestrian-friendly environment for which the city has become known, a reader says.
2013 File Photo/Gordon Chibroski
The plan will remove traffic lights in the busiest shopping corridor on Congress Street. The stated goal, to allow traffic to "flow" more "easily," sounds synonymous with enabling drivers to zoom through the downtown Arts District unimpeded at higher speeds.
It's beyond reason as to how this plan will contribute to a thriving downtown district and pedestrian-friendly environment that has won awards.
If some once-grand plan for Congress was so badly "watered down," as Marshall admits, then it should have been thrown out because what's left is just bad policy. Pull it back.
Towns like Kennebunk have wisely moved in the opposite direction by slowing or calming traffic passing through their downtown so people will feel safe to stop and shop.
Making it easier to drive through quickly only makes it harder to cross the street safely or to parallel park -- just as things are looking up in that section of town.
Faster traffic in the heart of downtown Portland helps nobody but those using Congress as a connector to get from High Street to Pearl Street in a hurry, when what we want is for our local retailers in that section of downtown to be the destination.
Early education gives kids 'safe, healthy environment'
I disagree with Rose Marie Russell's letter ("Early education doesn't bear fruit," Feb. 25).
In my opinion, there's always going to be a need for early childhood programs. They support and encourage the academic, physical and social/emotional development of children ages birth to 5.
We have to look at the bigger picture and understand what early childhood programs are intended for, which is the success of all children. In most "quality" centers, a developmentally appropriate curriculum is used.
Teachers are knowledgeable about how children develop and learn, know the individual children in their group and know the social and cultural context in which children live and learn.
As a previous teacher of Head Start programs, I can attest firsthand to the services they offer children and their families.
There was a girl about the age of 3 who was enrolled in my program. Some days she came to school, and other days she didn't. When she did come, she was usually unkempt, hungry and tired.
One day she didn't show up for school, and our policy was to call to understand why there was an absence. The parent said she didn't feel like bringing her daughter to school that day, so I offered to come and get her.
When I arrived, the child answered the door, with the mom still in bed. There was an infant crying in another room, it smelled smoky from cigarettes, and trash was strewn on the floor. When we got back to the school, the child was fed, she socialized with friends and she was nurtured in a safe, healthy environment.
My point is that early care is not money wasted on a "bottomless pit" -- it is money invested in our future. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what young children need to survive and thrive.
(Continued on page 2)