Letters

St. Louis is faring worse than Cincinnati, and is facing the issue in exactly the wrong way: by seeking to build a new, unneeded, publicly financed baseball stadium. Meanwhile, the city's infrastructure continues to decline, black and white folks are leaving in droves, and bureaucrats are as arbitrary as ever.

Staley lays out a coherent and useful case. Too bad the key people in these various cities are unlikely to read it. Norton Long screamed and hollered in the '705 and everyone heard him but ignored him. They'll probably ignore Staley, too.

Tom Vonder Haar

Washington, MO

Title IX Debate

I greatly enjoyed most of Cathy Young's article on Title IX ("Good Sports?," November). But one statement tainted the article: "...most of the blame rests with the reluctance of college administrators to touch the bloated budgets and inflated rosters of football programs."

"Bloated" budgets for football programs are only half of the story. These programs not only hold their own financially, but make money for the school. I am a student at Michigan State University, whose athletic program ranks second in the nation. We hold lotteries here just to determine who can camp out to buy cheering-section tickets. If prices truly scaled with demand, major sports programs might be even more profitable.

The idea of Title IX seems to be that a person should be able to participate freely in a sport regardless of other factors. But if that's your paradigm, then men suffer the most. Many women's sports simply aren't as popular and positions are available on most teams for almost anyone who wants to play. For major sports, like men's football, the average student can only dream of being on the team.

Finally, cheating and preferential treatment are major problems that need to be addressed directly. Title IX certainly won't solve that.

Joseph Blaim

East Lansing, MI

Freedom to Farm

Michael W. Lynch hardly gets started on the subject of government involvement in agriculture ("Money for Nothing," November). I do hope he is aware of the broader picture.

I have a small farm in western Oregon and work elsewhere full time. After 40 years, I have seen a lot. During that time, the government has always controlled agriculture to some degree, with the soil bank, set-asides, subsidies, incentives, land-use laws, quotas, etc. I was there when the government paid half our costs to drain wetlands to increase wheat production because Russia surprised them with a sudden, large wheat purchase, raising the price to $6 a bushel. The government put a stop to that, making the Russians space their purchases out and schedule them in advance.

Wouldn't want the farmers to have a windfall year. Russia went elsewhere for wheat, looking for the best deal like anyone else.

I looked forward to the Freedom to Farm policy. I was tired of reporting to the government every acre I planted and where. I was tired of having to grow certain plants to maintain my allotment.

Land is zoned farm-use only. It can't be divided, built on, or used for anything else. One can get stuck going broke farming poor ground that can't be sold or used for anything else. Between wildlife overlays, scenic overlays, riparian overlays, permits, and the rest, there is no private property when it comes to agriculture.