Regarding “Could Raleigh actually be the top prospect for Amazon’s HQ2? One think tank says yes” (Jan. 19): No, Jeff, while our community is genuinely flattered to be a finalist, Raleigh and the Triangle are not the right place for Amazon HQ2. Oh we’re a great community and HQ2 would do fine here but, well, our region is doing better than fine as it is. We already enjoy plenty of national recognition as a great place to be.
The competition for tech jobs would run up wages and make recruitment much harder for the wonderful, diverse tech community already here and those on the way. Amazon’s arrival would accelerate the current run-up in housing prices in a tight, already undersupplied market. A few of us in the business community, particularly the real estate business, would make plenty of money, but that gain for a few would come at the long-term expense of most in terms of cost of living and general community livability.
Our kids live here and HQ2 would not improve the community they inherit. The Raleigh/Durham/RTP community is too healthy, too happy, too well-balanced, too well-governed and too successful to want or need a behemoth like HQ2. Amazon has other good candidates willing to bleed for its approval. We’re in great shape managing the riches we enjoy now. Thanks, though, for the chance to be considered.
Regarding the editorial “Trump strikes a softer tone, but delivers the same awful message” (Feb. 1): If Democrats seriously want to solve the dreamers problem on a timely basis, why not make a proposal and begin negotiations? It is clear, given the make-up of our current governing bodies, nothing will get done without some give and take from both sides on these issues.
Senator Schumer offered, and then quickly withdrew, what looked like the beginning of negotiations. Apparently his party has decided to grind the process to a halt and hope that year-end elections will give it increased political power. This being the case, is it not clear that Democratic comments about to the need to free the dreamers from the cloud over their heads is an insincere position masking their purely political power motives?
Democrats that are sincere will get busy negotiating to solve the dreamer problem now.
Carlton (Smoke) Betts
Hope for peace
The editorial “In Jerusalem, Pence backs embassy move” (Jan. 26) suggests that the Trump stance on moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem forecloses the possibility that some part of Jerusalem might become the capital for a future Palestine. But, here is what Trump actually said in his announcement: “We are not taking position on any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved.”
In addition to being the holiest city of Judaism, Jerusalem has historically been the capital of the Jewish people and served as its emotional center for over 3,000 years. Jerusalem has never been the capital of another people. Israel should not have to wait for recognition of their capital because the Palestinian leadership rejects peace.
For too long, well-wishers have indulged the Palestinian dream that one day Israel will be gone. Israel’s offers of a viable Palestinian statehood, including a capital in East Jerusalem, have been repeatedly rejected by the Palestinian leadership. Just last week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas made another belligerent and under reported speech, which The Atlantic did describe: “[Abbas] deployed anti-Semitic tropes [and] undercut the Jewish connection to Israel ... [Abbas] has morphed into a bureaucratic tyrant, hostile to America and downright incendiary towards Israel.”
I would rather we envision a secure and prosperous future for both peoples, in which their respective histories are acknowledged. Accurate reporting and analysis are essential for that aspiration. My hope is that outside observers including journalists can provide better clarity to encourage the mutual understanding essential for such a peace.