Disregarding mask ordinances at tourist destinations like the zoo puts people at risk
Masks at the zoo
I recently visited Riverbanks Zoo with my family. As a physician who is well aware of the devastating consequences of COVID-19, I was appalled at its lack of precautions. I read on the zoo’s website that, in accordance with the cities of Columbia and West Columbia ordinances, masks are required inside, and outside if guests are “unable to maintain appropriate physical distancing of at least 6 feet.” There was no enforcement of this policy. It was often not possible to maintain six feet of distancing, and unmasked people surrounded us. In popular viewing areas, people crowded inside, unmasked, for long periods of time. A few employees confirmed the policies, but said there was nothing they could do to enforce them.
By allowing flagrant disregard of the mask ordinances, the zoo is complicity putting many people at risk. I have been to many public places during the pandemic, and nowhere else have I seen complete disregard for the importance of masks as I saw at the zoo. If mask ordinances are ordinances in name only, and are not enforced at top tourist destinations while many vulnerable populations remain unvaccinated, we will likely continue see COVID-19 surges for many weeks to come.
Cara Litvin, Charleston
Columbia development
As owners of a commercial real estate firm, we are writing in support of Joe Taylor’s recent opinion series. Countless times we have pitched institutional investors/REITS to develop new products in Columbia, and have been unable to get them to invest due to noncompetitive property taxes, a reputation for being unfriendly to business, or because they deem Columbia a tertiary market.
However, these same groups are actively investing in the Upstate and Charleston. Even our local businesses are hesitant to reinvest in Columbia for these same reasons. We have seen comparatively limited rental rate and property value appreciation. While Columbia’s Main Street transformation has been a success, we believe it is long overdue and realize much of that redevelopment has occurred as a result of historic tax credits that subsidized the renovation costs or the Bailey Bill that set the tax value at the pre-renovation value.
This strategy is a good one to re-energize historic structures, but does nothing to generate new dense-quality development that will attract new jobs, enhance quality of life and spur new growth at a level to keep pace with the Upstate and Charleston. We need to adapt and commit to a better path forward.
Macon B. Lovelace and Bruce Harper, Columbia
Santee Cooper
The best thing the legislature could do regarding Santee Cooper is to pass the legislation to seek additional offers to buy the troubled utility. Especially in light of the dim chances of any meaningful reform of Santee Cooper. The utility is extremely resistant to change, and its reform plan just doesn’t add up.
Santee Cooper is a government bureaucracy, not a nimble, market-driven power company. Its leadership, which cannot be fired by the governor, has made terrible decisions that will needlessly cost ratepayers billions of dollars.
You’ve heard the saying “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” More than ever, this applies to debt-ridden, poorly performing Santee Cooper. It’s indeed insane to think this utility will change in any meaningful way on its own.
The House passed legislation 89 to 26 to seek additional offers to buy Santee Cooper. The Senate should agree. There is nothing to lose and a lot to gain for ratepayers by seeking better offers.
Daniel J. Cassidy, Lexington
Reader comments
As a long-time subscriber to The State, I am very disappointed in your decision to disable comments on Articles, Editorials, Letters to the Editor, etc. I have always looked forward to reading the differing views expressed, whether I agreed or not.
What has happened to the objectivity? Why not allow comments, differing views?
Pamela Holmes Dickens, Columbia
Editor’s note: We haven’t made a decision to not allow comments; we’re trying to find the best system that is easy to use yet discourages anonymity to improve the quality of the dialogue. We hope to have something new in place soon.