The entire slant of Jo Ann Armao's article {Maryland Weekly, Sept. 3} was the "emotionalism" surrounding the issue of development in Silver Spring. Yes, we feel strongly about this issue, but wouldn't you if it were your neighborhood? Citizens involved in this issue have expended extraordinary amounts of their own personal time and money to review and understand what has been a slipshod planning effort.

The Post article failed to state the true opposing positions of County Executive Sidney Kramer and citizens. It is true we share the same stated goal -- a revitalized Silver Spring. But from that point on we differ.

Mr. Kramer wants to almost double the number of workers and commuters making their way to downtown Silver Spring each day. Citizens do not. We know that without any change in the job ceiling for Silver Spring, a 30 percent increase in people and cars in our community can be expected. Mr. Kramer wants to speed up that change. Citizens, on the other hand, want a phased-in approach, an approach called for in the master plan, which is slated for review this year.

Mr. Kramer wants to weaken the power of the planning board. We do not. A balance of power in the planning process has served us well in the past.

Mr. Kramer's plan is specifically geared to enable one developer, Lloyd Moore, to build. Public policy should not be tailored to meet the needs of one individual. Building another massive shopping mall -- five 20-story towers -- without any road improvements would cause unbelievable traffic in Silver Spring and would not improve the quality of life.

Mr. Kramer offers us some "no right-hand turn" signs as a remedy to already difficult traffic. This traffic law would be hard to enforce and would make us prisoners in our neighborhoods.

These are real and rational, not emotional, reasons for concern, and The Post ought to report them as such. This important debate deserves better.

MICHAEL Z. GRAVITZ Silver Spring