Although I am in complete agreement in the renaming of Squaw Peak in honor of the fallen soldier, I take great exception to the article's author when she stated " The five-year "cooling off" rule is idiotic, bureaucratic red tape."
Does she not appreciate that there are rules for many things we do in life and that if one simply wants to set those rules aside due to an "inconvenience," where do we draw the line?
Perhaps many of the "rules" that protect social order should be set aside for those who don't agree with them and then we could all live in anarchy. I suspect that would not be the author's preference.
If there is a governmental law or rule for which there is general disagreement among the public, then they have a right to petition for a change. It should be done through the "rules of change" however and not abject disobedience.
Admittedly change can take time, but not everything in life can have the "instant gratification" the author seems to want.
Ron Hamric, Pine