ON January 19, 2001, you were kind enough to publish a letter from me under the heading, "Helping to solve the crime problem''. It outlined the improvement in the crime statistics in Washington, DC over a six-year period, which was attributed to a weekly prayer effort by some 6,000 people.

I hoped it would prove to be a challenge to Bermudians to follow this example.

The feedback from a letter included a telephone call informing me that there is already a non-denominational prayer group that meets every Friday from 12.15-1.30 p.m. in Par-la-Ville Park. I have not yet had the opportunity of attending this gathering, but I understand that concerned people from all segments of the community participate in this prayer initiative for Bermuda.

Hopefully, this information will prove an encouragement to others to join in prayer both privately and corporately for Bermuda's social problems.

LINDA DESILVA, City of Hamilton A handsome tribute to Wil February 13, 2001 TWENTY-five years ago the United Bermuda Party recognised the effect the "listing'' of selected houses would have on asset values -- and hence on the voters. As a consequence, they backed off enforcing the provision for it in the new Planning Act.

Unfortunately for everyone, the obvious alternative of employing planning advice and publicity to enhance the public's appreciation of traditional design, and hence the value of it, was never adopted.

This should not have been difficult, as the architect Wilfred Onions had already proved that new, thoroughly up-to-date homes, carefully recreating the traditional image, inevitably attracted enhanced values.

The extra investment in exposed wall plates and other reproduction features became an asset enhancement, more than recoverable if the house was sold. The old houses themselves suddenly became the vogue and an excellent investment -- critical to the survival of many.

Sadly, Mr. Onions died early and there was no successor.

The planning authorities, faced with persuasive architects, anxious to make their own "statements'', allowed the balance to tip, and the momentum, and perceived value of the traditional image, slipped away.

The key to Mr. Onions' success was that his then thoroughly modern, but traditional-appearing houses attracted added value, as did also, as a direct consequence, the genuine articles he had used as templates, well beyond the investment made in the houses and land. Even those with little aesthetic appreciation soon grasped that simple but critical fact.

Today, the Historic Buildings Advisory Committee is in a position to assume Mr. Onions' role. To do this it must first understand, as he assuredly did, that his success was based on creating the essential market forces that would more than underwrite a return to tradition.

This will require a fundamental shift away from the current frustrated drift towards enforcement, imposition and conflict, to one of leadership and guidance.

Certainly, the Committee has done immense work, and as one of the members points out, over the years a real understanding of traditional design has been acquired. This should be put to use, amid professionally organised publicity, to provide in-depth advice at any time, for anyone, and most especially those embarking on new construction where the Committee's stamp of approval would soon be seen as added value. It should not be too difficult to turn the current distrust, resentment, inevitable asset erosion and eventual decrepitude into a realisation that such advice will add appreciable value to new homes that take advantage of it, and especially to the old ones they emulate.

It would be a handsome tribute to the late Wil Onions.

CARROT, City of Hamilton