Perrysburg right to exit TARTA


You said in your Nov. 10 editorial “Get back on the bus” that Perrysburg officials need to vote to rejoin the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority. You may as well tell people in Lucas County and union members to change their vote in favor of Mitt Romney.

There is no mandate for public transportation. Perrysburg officials should not have signed the agreement with TARTA in 1974.

There should be no new vote in May, because voters this past Election Day did understand what was at stake. Perrysburg leadership can find a solution for the small group of people who have a real need for transportation by working with local churches, schools, and organizations.



Editor’s note: The writer was Perrysburg’s representative on TARTA’s board of directors from 1999 through 2001.


Submit a letter to the editor


Perrysburg needs to provide transit

I voted against pulling Perrysburg out of TARTA. Although I took note of the large, half-empty buses rolling through town, I figured the people at the top knew how to run a bus company.

I also voted against establishing a new transit system just to serve Perrysburg. A system owned and operated by a Missouri company is a dumb idea.

What I see filling the newly created void are senior care facilities that already have vehicles necessary to transport the disabled, or letting the school district transport the able-bodied. The obvious solution is to get back into TARTA.

Perrysburg’s elected officials and administration should forgo any future raises to help pay for transportation, and as a sanction for making the city so unfriendly to the underserved and less fortunate in our community.




HIV screening not really free

Your Nov. 25 editorial “Life-saving HIV tests” states: “The guidelines could extend eligibility for HIV screening, without co-pays, as part of free preventive care under the Affordable Care Act.” Are doctors and test labs not going to bill for this service? If a bill is paid, how is this free?




Why can’t we all get along?

Political pundits and the parties are overthinking campaign strategies and the reasons for the outcomes of the election. Sound and constructive policies and practices can be found on both sides of the aisle.

Instead of clinging to a “we win, you lose” mentality, why don’t lawmakers strive to do what is most likely to improve the quality of life for all? If our elected representatives would do that, they could run on their records rather than on hatred of their opponent.

The nastiness voters experienced in the campaign creates a culture that destroys our will to improve. We don’t have to hate people to disagree with them.