By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Qualified to qualify?
ConnectSavannah Import Default Image


One city council candidate's residency is in question, which threatens to remove him from what some could characterize as a tightly contested race.

According to the City of Savannah's website, one of the qualifying requirements is to be a resident for a specified period of time. Also required is the submission of certain financial data. If requirements aren't met then a candidate should be disqualified.

Because of the residency issue, I wanted to research the candidates in my district to find out a little about them. I went to the Georgia State Ethics website (now a longer and more confusing name) and found information about some candidates to be satisfied, while others have simply failed to comply.

Additionally I was told that candidate Mary Ellen Sprague and others are in direct violation of filing requirements.

A friend was able to go in person and was told that she was in fact in violation from campaign disclosures and personal disclosures this year.

What is troubling me, is why the city is pushing to enforce requirements for a candidate that is in full compliance when others are non-compliant? What does the city have agaisnt this candidate?

How many other candidates have failed to meet the requirements? We citizens deserve to know and we deserve officials capable of complying with policy.

So my question is this... are all of our candidates really qualified to qualify?

Name Withheld by Request

Thanks for 9/11 column


Just a note to say (a bit belatedly!) that I thought your column "Fighting the next war" was the best commentary I read during the days surrounding the 10-year anniversary of 9/11.

Just happened to be in Savannah and picked up a copy of Connect Savannah. Thought your insights were spot on!
And what a wonderful city to be writing from!

Dixie Tate


Fight rampant coastal development


As a member of the community who had the opporutnity to participate through committee evaluation of the Tricentennial Plan, I would like to speak out against being any more lenient about the 35-foot buffer.

We as stewards of the Coastal Region must take greater not lesser stands against developments so close to our vital salt marshes and coastline.

There should be required readings and testing about our special ecosystem that eduate landowners and developers about the sensitivity of our coast and their responsibilities to not damage it or prevent it from doing the amazing work it is capable of if it is not drained and filled and distorted and polluted beyond capacity.

It is not just a matter of protecing our resources. Our coast is the eastern cradle for all sorts of creatures that nourish the whole ocean.

Should it really be in the hands opf a few private property owners and questionable zoning that may not display the latest research?

While I am not an authority on any of these things, I am an advocate for sea life and against the ill effects of heedless and careless development that I have witnessed firsthand.

Think of the huge disconnects of information surrounding Katrina. A National Geographic article foresaw the Katrina disaster a year before it happened.

If the right information had gotten to the right people at the right time to make decisions about the developments through the years there would have been far fewer casualties and devastation.

The greatest practical analogy that comes to mind is from Christ:

"Let us not build upon the sand."

Robin Runnels