“In the proud tradition of Bobby Kennedy, let’s ‘dream of things that never were and say why not!’” So writes Janice Vuncannon Sears, one of several commenters on Bob Geary’s column last week [“Believe in Bernie,” Jan. 27]. “I’m not a millennial; my sons are,” echoes Doug Roach. “Ever since Gene and then Bobby initially won me over in 1968, I’ve been a fan and a supporter of what many yet see as political lost causes. Senator Sanders is the right man for the job at this time. He’s not plowing the path for some future candidate of the people; he’s the one.”
Half of Iowa Democrats apparently agree. But not everyone was as sanguine about Bernie’s prospects. Says Roy B.: “All the push against Bernie is not simply due to timing and the threat of him winning. There is a lot of truth in doubting the viability of a candidate like him when we as a nation are still struggling to shake off the Cold War mentality that taints anything related to the word ‘socialism.’”
Alex Leon thinks our story on a Raleigh developer building an outsize home in an old neighborhood [“When Bigger Isn’t Better,” Jane Porter, Jan. 20] is no big deal: “As long as everything was done legally, I don’t see a problem with this. People can do what they want with their property. It’s a free country, after all.”
But commenter Outofstater offers this counterpoint: “Everyone has their own ideas of what is or isn’t compatible, good design, etc. I live in Glenwood-Brooklyn, where we are nearing the end of a process to establish a historic overlay district. Many would paint this as an attempt to ‘control’ what people can and can’t do with their property. While an HOD certainly puts restrictions in place, that is not the objective but merely a means to an end, namely the preservation of our shared history as manifested in the homes we inhabit (for now). These houses were here long before any of us were born, and if our efforts come to fruition, they will be here long after we are gone. That’s what it’s about, at least for me.”
