Below is a letter I submitted to the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times and Crain's Chicago Business regarding the proposed purchase of the Elgin, Joliet an Eastern Railways by the Canadian National Railroad.
I find the current uproar in certain northern suburbs by some politicians and residents regarding the proposed purchase of the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railways but the Canadian National Railroad to be short-sighted at best and a case of overblown self entitlement at worst. Add to these two possibilities a strong case of NIMBY (not in my back yard).
The reality of the situation is this: The faster goods can get to market, the lower prices can become. Anyone with a simple understanding of economics and accounting will tell you that goods in transit wind up as an asset on somebody’s balance sheet. Those assets, though, are not doing anyone any good. They are sitting in some boxcar on some railway siding somewhere in the Chicago metropolitan area. A reduction in the transit time for goods will be beneficial to all consumers. The residents of the northern suburbs who up to this point have enjoyed the benefits of an abundant supply of goods at fairly reasonable prices must now step up to the plate and take responsibility for helping to ensure the efficiency of the supply chain.
Having grown up in Melrose Park less than a mile from what was then the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad and now living less than two blocks from a Canadian National right of way, I understand the frustration of waiting for freight trains to pass but in my opinion, that is a small price to pay for the added economic vitality that railroads add to the entire region.
Finally, I would add that individuals who live close to the railroad who have expressed concerns about safety and property values should look at their own economic behavior. Chances are the railroad was there long before they moved into the area. They should have understood that trains run on those track and their strident outcry regarding property values and safety are extremely late in coming.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
What is Marriage
Eric Zorn is right on target with his column published on 22 May entitled "Let Churches Define What Marriage Is" http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/columnists/chi-zorn-22-may22,0,3266777.column.
My parents were married in Europe over 40 years ago and they had two steps. The first was a church ceremony and the second was registering at the marriage registrar's office. The marriage was not considered official until this second step was completed.
I think that gay marriage has become such a hot topic is because we have members of the clergy acting as functionaries of the state.
My marriage is not defined by some civil statute but how we live our marriage as our religion (we're active Roman Catholics) has taught us.
I believe that people in this country should be able to enter into any sort of contractual relationship they want. It should be fairly easy to change the "marriage law" so that any couple, be they heterosexual or homosexual could apply for a "civil union permit". Notice I did not call it a marriage license. That permit would be enough to guarantee all the benefits that married people now have. If people want to have their contract soleminized in some fashion by a clergyman or clergywoman, that would be up to the dictates of their conscience and the teachings of their chosen religion.
In a similar vein, I would call upon state legislatures to collaborate and draft a uniform civil union statute in the same fashion as we have the Uniform Commercial Code.
My parents were married in Europe over 40 years ago and they had two steps. The first was a church ceremony and the second was registering at the marriage registrar's office. The marriage was not considered official until this second step was completed.
I think that gay marriage has become such a hot topic is because we have members of the clergy acting as functionaries of the state.
My marriage is not defined by some civil statute but how we live our marriage as our religion (we're active Roman Catholics) has taught us.
I believe that people in this country should be able to enter into any sort of contractual relationship they want. It should be fairly easy to change the "marriage law" so that any couple, be they heterosexual or homosexual could apply for a "civil union permit". Notice I did not call it a marriage license. That permit would be enough to guarantee all the benefits that married people now have. If people want to have their contract soleminized in some fashion by a clergyman or clergywoman, that would be up to the dictates of their conscience and the teachings of their chosen religion.
In a similar vein, I would call upon state legislatures to collaborate and draft a uniform civil union statute in the same fashion as we have the Uniform Commercial Code.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
