St. Louis' demolition permit process shows excessive government control

Regarding "A call for citywide razing standard" (Jan. 23); St. Louis' bureaucracy governing demolition of buildings is a classic example of excessive governmental control at the local level. According to the article, a property owner who wants to demolish a building has to go through two and sometimes three review panels before he can demolish his own building. This type of redundant red tape is unwelcoming to developers and investors, so they look to other cities that are more developer-friendly. It should come as no surprise that so many buildings in St. Louis City are dilapidated.

Luckily there is an easy fix: Simply remove the excessive of red tape. The city needs to recognize that a property owner has the right to do as he wishes to his own property. Ergo, government regulation should aim to protect people and neighboring property. It makes sense to leave the Building Division in place, but the Cultural Resources Office and the Preservation Review District can go.

If a group of preservationists believes the building should stand, then it should find investors to buy the building from the property owner. Such a system not only makes sense, but it is the American way.

Brian Kelly • Brentwood

Until it freezes over

On Jan. 20, Mario Coleman was sentenced to life in prison ("Life term in home invasion killing," Jan. 21). St. Louis Circuit Judge Robert Dierker Jr. sentenced Coleman to life without parole plus five life terms plus 90 years. These types of sentences don't make sense. Life without parole means the guilty person never will get out of prison. So why is it necessary to add five more life terms and another 90 years? This defies common sense.

When judges hand down multiple life sentences, it would make much more sense to say, "You are hereby remanded to the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections until it freezes over."

Monte G. Franlkin • St. Louis

Natural right

Seems like almost every day we hear of people dying from stray gun shots, knifings or in car chases or someone being killed over drugs or a small debt or being attacked by a group of thugs for a game. The people committing these crimes are criminals. And there are not enough police to protect everyone.

So we make a good law that says a homeowner can protect his home and family from these thugs. And it works.

But now I read that it works too well, that there are too many shootings ("Castle doctrine cases to get stricter review," Jan. 23).

Well, you know what? If people were not breaking the law, they wouldn't get shot. It is everyone's natural right to protect his family.

Bob Parry • O'Fallon, Mo.

Sophomoric actions, national embarrassment

Bill McClellan's column "Blowing some smoke in the Show-Me state" (Jan. 23) hit the nail squarely on the head. Just when I think that this state's Legislature could not dumb down any further, the legislators find ways to reach new lows in their approach to health care, education and the support of the youngest and oldest citizens of this once-great state.

The sophomoric actions of certain members of what should be a body of concerned statesmen is a national embarrassment. Sadly, these actions reflect the intelligence and sophistication of the voters who put these people in office to run roughshod over the will of the people in Missouri.

Terry Kippenberger • University City

Keystone would have been a positive step for the nation

Recently, it looked as if Washington, D.C., was going to make a positive step in getting Americans back to work, stabilizing energy supplies and increasing access to North American energy. Unfortunately, that step was abruptly halted when the Obama Administration refused to grant a permit expanding the Keystone pipeline, which would stretch from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf of Mexico.

It's estimated that expansion of the Keystone XL pipeline would create thousands of immediate construction jobs and support as many as tens of thousands more by 2035. The tar sands oil transported through the pipeline would arrive in Midwest refineries and help support manufacturing jobs. This is a win-win for our economy, which is why the pipeline was supported by businesses, labor groups, Republicans and Democrats.

Since it was proposed in 2008, the expansion had numerous hearings in Congress and public utility commissions. Environmental impact statements were prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The final report said that the pipeline would cause "no significant impacts" to most resources if environmental protection measures were followed. For the administration to say there hasn't been ample time to review the impact of the expansion rings hollow.

Energy is a key component of getting our economy working again, especially in the trucking and transportation industry.

The Missouri Trucking Association supports the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and has joined with the Partnership to Fuel America, comprised of more than 200 American businesses that support immediate construction of the Keystone pipeline. We understand that our economy needs increased access to stable sources of oil, and Canada and the Keystone pipeline can help.

Tom Crawford • Jefferson City

President, Missouri Trucking Association

Blaming the taxpayer

What former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's tax return shows is that he is a wealthy man who makes a lot of money and pays a lot in taxes. It also shows that he is an honest filer and a very charitable person. The source of his income is from legitimate investment in U.S. businesses and industries. His preferred tax rate was the product of Republican tax cutting over the last 30 years.

If you don't like that he pays a tax rate of less than 15 percent, you should direct your anger to those who voted for tax-reduction legislation for the last 30 years. Republicans have been fighting to lower the capital gains tax rates since 1978, and have made real progress since the Economic Growth and Tax Reduction Act of 2001, signed by then-President George Bush. The whole party worked very hard to get this rate down, and now they criticize Mr. Romney for paying it?

Does former House Speaker Newt Gingrich believe that paying an income tax rate of 30 percent makes him more honorable and American than Mr. Romney? What Mr. Gingrich's tax return says about him is that he also is well off and has a very high rate of "earned" income. Most of this income comes from talking and influencing people to do things — such as cutting taxes and reducing regulation. He's also received money from private equity firms for espousing the benefits of private equity investing to job creation and a strong U.S. economy.

Susan Gioia • St. Louis