Having read your opinion editorial of Oct. 15, 2008, (Wine, beer and smoking debates: How they show a change in town), I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. You wrote, "There has not been one peep from the opposition." Having checked my files on the issue of selling beer and wine, the statement simply is not correct. Sandy Rassi of Morton wrote a letter to the paper that you published on Aug. 20 that you entitled, "What was the rush?"
Having attended the board meeting when the vote was taken, and having watched the previous meeting on DVD, where input was allowed, it was obvious to me that the majority of the board was intransigent. I am rather certain that others believed the same. However, that does not mean that all is lost and we have surrendered.
I have not been inactive. I have been gathering pertinent information. I have filed several Freedom of Information requests, something that perhaps your paper should have done, and it seems has not, and will be filing several more. I would not be surprised if at least two law suits developed from this process — the passage of the liquor ordinance amendments.
You may believe that the passage of the amendments was a sign of progressiveness. I do not and I believe that others agree. Of course, the board had an opportunity to actually determine the will of the people and they selected not to hear that voice. However, the people's voice may still be heard.
Don L. Vance
Morton
