Letters: KC readers discuss overreaching protests, COVID-19 tests, supporting Rick Smith

Patience tested

After listening to a segment on NPR this week on efforts of protesters to “tear down” a building in Westport that supposedly housed or sold slaves, I am wondering how that furthers this movement.

My support for this cause is lessening as the destruction of statues and buildings continues. The emphasis on quality education, housing, jobs and health care for all seems more beneficial than more protests at night and more destruction.

- R. Arlene Moore, Overland Park

Tantrum time

I am truly flabbergasted by how some people act when asked to wear a mask.

Most businesses have posted that they require masks, so you know the requirement before you enter. If you refuse to wear one, you should turn around and leave instead of entering the establishment, acting like a brat, frightening workers and creating havoc.

No one wants to wear a mask, but when does life consist of always doing what we want to do? Sometimes life involves doing what’s best for others — following the rules.

And what is it with the statements I keep hearing, “I’m an American” or “I know my rights”? We’re all Americans, and the rest of us have rights as well.

In case you didn’t know, this isn’t the first time citizens were required to wear masks. The flu pandemic in 1918 demanded basically the same requirements: wearing masks, closing shops and theaters, banning public gatherings. Some cities required a “quarantine” sign on the door of a home where someone was infected. Thankfully, we haven’t had to do that.

So grow up, think of others and put your mask on for a few minutes.

- Carolyn D. Spears, Kansas City

Testing’s cost

When our family found out that one of us had possibly been exposed to COVID-19, we thought we should get tested. We had heard that testing was free.

However, the Health Department informed us that tests were for symptomatic people and that we would have to pay for testing that helps stifle a pandemic. In reality, few of us are symptomatic, and even fewer would shell out $100 to $200 (or even a $20 copay) for a test.

Sporadic testing and the cost suggest that the data from local, state and federal governments does not provide an accurate assessment of the current state of affairs. Both concerns indicate that those in power are not working for the common good. Maybe their examples are why many of us may have decided to throw caution to the wind.

In the midst of a virus of pandemic proportions, the well-being of citizens should involve extensive testing for everyone without a price tag. Until that happens, inaccurate statistics will continue to plague us, and those imprecise numbers will continue to affect us individually and globally.

- Grant D. Moss, Pittsburg, Kansas

I support Smith

I met Kansas City Police Chief Rick Smith as an officer, and he is still true to his character in serving this city.

As chief, he implemented a social worker program to assist in calls and obtained private-sector funding. He reinstated community officers, assigning two per patrol station. They meet with neighborhoods, schools and organizations to build relationships with the community.

I know times are tough. We want crime rates to decrease, domestic violence to stop, homicides solved and people to treat one another with kindness. These are not issues the police or the chief can stop alone. It takes all of us to work together to change behaviors.

To the people asking for the chief to resign, what do you think a different chief would do better? What are your expectations? I would say the bad things happening are not because of our chief or our police officers.

Those for local control of our police, what do you think would be better? The Board of Police Commissioners consists of Kansas City resident board members including Mayor Quinton Lucas, who has a vote, and taxpayer dollars to pay for the department.

I support the KCPD and Chief Rick Smith.

- Kansas City Councilwoman Heather Hall, Kansas City

Sticks in spokes

Here’s an idea: Let’s all vote for the most unlikely candidates on any ballot this year. Few people running, if any, are qualified, and those who claim to be are beholden to their parties.

If we did this, a large number in Congress (both houses) would be able to actually pass legislation beneficial to all Americans, with no special-interest groups or laws benefiting only “buddies.”

Wouldn’t that be a hoot?

- Edward Barnes, Prairie Village