Letters to the editor: Readers discuss hazards to babies, littering and disagreeing with Steve Rose
No baby jewelry
Accessorizing our children can be more than just a fashion disaster.
To many, this may seem silly or a topic that does not need to be addressed. The fact is that jewelry designed for infants or their parents can be dangerous or poisonous to babies, and it is our job to protect them.
As a pediatrician, I have seen amber necklaces and other holistic jewelry gain popularity, with intentions of improving the child’s health. We must be aware that the beads of these necklaces are choking hazards, especially because they can break easily while being chewed on (a favorite activity of babies, as we all know).
There are also shiny metallic necklaces and bracelets designed for infants that can contain high amounts of lead, leading to possible lead poisoning and other dangerous side effects. Safer options are made of silicone.
It is ever important for us to protect our children. We must make sure that what we offer with the best of intentions will not cause them harm.
Francesca Moral
Kansas City
Litter everywhere
My husband and I have gotten in the habit of taking plastic bags along on walks through the hood in order to beautify the walkways and rid them of unsightly trash. Even after a one-mile walk, the bags are full to the brim.
We pick up just about everything except for filled doggy poop bags, which we find everywhere.
When there are no public trash cans on the route, it is not OK to deposit bags in pick-up truck beds, on driveways or on the grass. Please deposit your trash at home.
Stephanie A. Henry
Kansas City
Policy switch
In light of the many policy shifts at the Environmental Protection Agency, the latest being the placement of chemical industry lobbyists as agency managers, I suggest we change the name to EDA: the Environmental Destruction Agency.
Brian Casey
Kansas City
Subsidy doubts
In his Oct. 21 column, “Tax incentives give a boost to Overland Park,” Steve Rose confuses anecdote with research and commits a basic logical fallacy. (11A)
Research across the country has found that areas that do not rely on tax-subsidized financing grow just as fast as those that do. Reports in St. Louis commissioned by the agency that doles out these subsidies found they do not contribute to economic growth. Similar studies by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research concluded the same.
Rose points to growth in Overland Park and determines — without evidence — that taxpayer subsidies created the growth and that it would not have happened otherwise. He concludes that because growth followed subsidies, growth occurred because of subsidies. This is like saying that the crowing of roosters causes the sun to rise.
Considering the realities of the Kansas City area and academic research elsewhere, it is much more likely that Overland Park would have grown without taxpayer handouts — as it did for decades before the modern use of subsidies.
The difficult work of public policy requires a serious examination of facts — especially the inconvenient ones.
Patrick Tuohey
Director of
Municipal Policy
The Show-Me Institute
Kansas City
Yes to KCI
Raising five boys with limited resources, my family didn’t travel much. So on Nov. 7, what will the vote on a new Kansas City International Airport terminal actually mean for families like mine who may be unsure when or if they will ever see the inside of this terminal?
As chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I fought to ensure that families like mine would benefit from a new KCI terminal. I fought for the inclusion of a community benefits agreement that includes hiring preferences for Kansas City residents for jobs created by the new terminal. The agreement also requires minority- and women-owned business participation in the new terminal’s development and operations.
Far too often, we see mega-projects come and go without discernible improvement in the lives of most residents. So I made it clear that I would lend my support to a new terminal only if the benefits of the expansion directly and positively affected our working families and small businesses.
So if you’re wondering, “What’s in it for us?” the answer is simple: jobs, shared prosperity and new opportunities for all Kansas City residents.
I encourage everyone to vote “yes” on the new terminal at KCI on Nov. 7.
Jermaine Reed
Kansas City Council
3rd District
Kansas City
This story was originally published October 24, 2017 at 8:30 PM with the headline "Letters to the editor: Readers discuss hazards to babies, littering and disagreeing with Steve Rose."