Unsigned Letters

March 15, 2006

We got two terrific letters last week in response to Anne Stanton’s “Rough Justice” story (3/6) on allegations of police brutality.
Unfortunately, one was unsigned and the other writer requested that we not print her name. Poof. Like most newspapers, the Express doesn’t print unsigned letters unless there’s an exceptionally good reason.
To refresh your memory, the article told the story of Les Bowman, who was 70 years old when he was struck eight times with a police baton by a State Trooper for refusing to leave his home under arrest. Les required stitches and says the resulting stress led to a heart attack. Also told was the story of Ray Brandt, who wasn’t even resisting arrest when deputies came to his home on a minor dispute, but received painful handling despite notifying officers of a neck injury.
Back to the letters: one writer thanked the paper for exposing “vigilante tactics and abuse of power of local law enforcement.” The other writer took the opposite tack. He (or she) pointed out that when you are told that you are under arrest, you are no longer in charge of the situation -- the police are in charge and you must obey or face the consequences.
Two great letters with different viewpoints, both worth printing. Both unsigned. A shame.
Newspapers require signed letters for specific reasons. It shows that you have the courage to back your convictions with your good name. And, since reporters have to sign their work -- even though they may care less about a story -- newspapers expect as much of readers who care enough to write a response.
Of course, most newspapers run unsigned editorials under the rationale that they are the collective, considered opinion of the staff. We don’t run unsigned editorials at the Express because frankly, we don’t have a collective opinion on most issues, and I’ve always cherished the notion the writer’s name attached to an article encourages at least some slight measure of wisdom, restraint and courage.
Consider the letters printed in this issue. None of the writers pulled any punches and they all had the guts to sign their names. Three cheers for their freedom of expression, three cheers for their courage, three cheers for something we are still free to do in America where the First Amendment is our country’s foremost guiding principle.
Some might say that they can’t sign their name to a letter because they might lose their job. That‘s bull -- 90 percent of the time that’s a cop-out. If you can’t express your opinion on a topic of general public interest without the boss threatening to fire you, then it’s time to find another place to work.

The Sunshine Factor
Here’s a retraction of the Random Thoughts column of two weeks ago on how tall we should allow our small downtown districts to grow. I regretted it as soon as it hit the streets.
In that column, I wrote that it would scarcely matter if Traverse City had a new eight-story development on the west side of downtown. Or, for that matter, a five-story building in Petoskey. The gist was, that’s progress.
But, as someone reminded me, once you allow a single tall building in one part of the city, you have to allow them elsewhere.
And if and when downtown TC or Petoskey becomes crowded with five- or eight-story buildings, then people will be locked in eternal shade. The bright, sunny main streets that people love to stroll down and shop along will disappear, and downtown’s charm will be eclipsed in gloom.
One eight-story building on the west side of TC might add an interesting counterpoint to downtown’s skyline, but what happens if another is built in the lot next to Horizon Books? Or if a developer opts to knock down some of the old two-story buildings in the center of town to build another tower?
The sunshine factor should be considered before we allow any more tall buildings in our downtowns.