Gerrymandering didn’t influence GOP wins in NC? Here’s how Phil Berger can convince me.

Sen. Berger

Regarding “Phil Berger: Republicans prevailed across NC because voters like what they see,” (Nov. 16 Opinion):

If Sen. Phil Berger really believes that his party’s success in the recent elections was due to their policies, and not the fact that North Carolina is heavily gerrymandered, he should take the opportunity now to create fair election maps that are not gerrymandered. He should also pass laws that encourage people to vote, instead of making it harder. If he does that, I’ll be inclined to believe what he says about winning due to his policies.

Andrew Citron, Raleigh

Win-win for Berger

Senator Berger made some good points in stating the case for fiscal responsibility. His case would be much stronger if the legislature would finally pass a bill accepting Medicaid expansion, thereby gaining the $1 billion in federal incentives offered this year. Plus, expansion would benefit so many of Berger’s constituents who do not have healthcare coverage. Win-win.

Dale W. Oller, Raleigh

Raleigh bonds

Post election, I’m still shocked at the bottomless tax appetite Wake County citizens continue to have. It’s a safe bet to assume there is literally no bond with a tax liability attached that won’t pass with at least 60% approval right now. Net result? Our affordable housing problems will continue to multiply exponentially over the next decade.

J.D. Howard, Raleigh

What voters said

When Republicans start looking around to see who they can blame for the midterm elections, they should grab a mirror. The electorate clearly told them that we are tired of crazy. And, as much as we are concerned about the economy, we care more about democracy. Without it, a robust economy isn’t much good.

We care about the fundamental human right of bodily autonomy. We care deeply about crime and safety, which is why we want reasonable gun legislation to protect our neighborhoods and schools. We don’t think our children’s safety should take a backseat to any Second Amendment right.

So, after Republicans are done licking their wounds, they should come back to the bargaining table where the American people want them. Do your job — while you still have one.

Kathleen Lynch, Cary

Raleigh zoning

In his Nov. 13 letter, former Raleigh Planning Director Mitchell Silver asked that we give the “missing middle” concept a chance to work.

I agree that Raleigh needs more housing stock, but do we want to provide it at the expense of the integrity and character of the kinds of neighborhoods that gave Raleigh its appeal? As a licensed architect with a graduate degree in Urban Design, I was taught the value and importance of good contextual design — respecting the site, the neighbors and the existing scale and character of a neighborhood.

Our zoning protections assured this to a degree, but now those protections are gone. Perhaps our newly elected City Council will stand up to Mayor Mary-Ann Baldwin and reverse this neighborhood-destroying concept.

Eugene Wilson Brown, Raleigh

Campaign signs

The election is over but everywhere you look, political signs litter the streets. Candidates are not required to remove the signs and they don’t. Our tax dollars pay for removal and this really makes me very angry.

Candidates raise and spend millions to get elected and they can’t afford to have the signs removed? North Carolina should pass a law that makes candidates bear the expense of removal. Taxpayers should not bear the burden of a politician’s expenses to run for office.

Nedra Mills, Holly Springs

Wrong-way signs

Recent “wrong-way” accidents in Raleigh (Nov. 15) can no doubt be credited to more than one cause, but surely one of them is improper placement of signs.

Driving from Wilmington to Sanford on Monday, a route I rarely take and so depend on signage, I encountered a couple of signs that made the right way to go ambiguous.

NCDOT must modify wrong-way signs to save lives. They could be redesigned to make them less, or not at all, visible to those going the right way. A simple baffle at the edge of the sign might help, and I’m sure there are higher-tech solutions, as well.

Allen Spalt, Carrboro

Duke Energy

The N.C. Utility Commission must decide by the end of December which carbon reduction plan Duke Energy must adopt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 70% by 2030.

Three plans Duke submitted to the N.C. Utilities Commission would not meet the 2030 goal. A plan prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) does, but Duke did not submit it. The Utility Commission also seems to be ignoring the NREL plan. I urge them to consider it.

North Carolina is extremely vulnerable to the effects of climate change because it is a coastal state and because agriculture and tourism are major industries here. Our food supply and agriculture and tourism profits depend on the weather.

At the opening of the climate talks in Egypt, the UN chief said we are on a path to “climate hell.” What part of “climate hell” do Duke and the N.C. Utilities Commission not understand?

Stephen Jurovics, Raleigh