Letters to the Editor, May 27
May 27, 2012
Judges help make Senior Projects a success
Senior Projects were a tremendous success this year, thanks in large part to our community judges. I am extremely thankful to each of our community members who were willing to share their time and energy, either on a panel as a volunteer judge or as a breakfast committee member. The grand success of this event is heavily reliant on the assistance of our local volunteers.
These volunteers are the unsung advocates who somehow manage to find room in their busy schedules to commit hours of their time to make this learning opportunity more relevant and real to our students. Their support and aid in recruiting other volunteers has helped this special event grow in size and significance.
Special thanks goes out to the Greater Nevada Credit Union and Mortgage Services for making their partnership with education a priority by allowing nearly 30 employees to take time off from work to be senior project panel members.
To all of our volunteers, thank you so much for nurturing the connection between classroom and community. Each of you makes a positive difference, and your efforts are sincerely appreciated.
Lily H. Reedy
Girl Scouts help homeless animals
We at Carson Tahoe SPCA want to say thank you to Jenna Redus and her group of Girl Scouts for their generous donation of food, litter, toys and more for the cats and kittens in our care. You can be sure we will put the items to good use. You gals are awesome. We couldn’t continue to help the homeless and abandoned animals of our community without you.
Redevelop downtown reasonably
I support reasonable efforts to redevelop the downtown area or our city, and feel that it can be done with just a little help from the city/taxpayers.
But the present concept is excessive, not well considered and unnecessary. Further, consideration of increasing property taxes to fund this effort is irresponsible.
There is absolutely no justification for building a new library. The present library is more than sufficient.
A downtown parking structure should have been completed long ago. However, a fair deal would be for the Nugget to donate all of their land presently used for parking, to the city to build the parking structure, and in return, give the Nugget perpetual exclusive use of a portion of the parking facility for valet use. The affected streets in that area should be abandoned, and the property advertised as a proposed downtown development with no strings attached. The sole criteria should be, will it be economically feasible, and the risk will be taken by the developer.
I am also disturbed that the Ormsby House has lain dormant for lo these many years. What are your department heads doing to resolve the problems? Have they brought any solutions to the supervisors that my require new ordinances or modifications thereof? Perhaps they are not the right people and need to be replaced. What actions have you, as a board, taken to resolve this problem?
It’s disheartening to see such poor management of this once beautiful but rapidly decaying city.
Residents perform due diligence on City Center
Speaking of the City Center Project, Carson Nugget President Steve Neighbors was quoted as saying, “I don’t think anything as been so scrutinized since the beginning of mankind.”
Perhaps the intense public scrutiny is a result of a flawed initial concept combined with an inability of the supporters to actually agree upon what they want to build and how it would be paid for.
With each passing week, a new scheme is trotted out into the daylight of public comment and then quickly abandoned.
First it was $90 million, then $50 million, then it was all about the parking garage, then it was speculation the library would bring thousands of tourists to put heads in local motel beds, then it was to be free to the taxpayers with free money from the Nugget. Now it includes an increase in everyone’s sales tax.
Supervisors have brazenly contended they did not need voter approval to push the current “plan of the week” as if to say, it did not matter what the taxpayers wanted or what the plan actually included. Here’s the checkbook, don’t ask questions, just hurry and build it!
First of all, not one penny of additional taxpayer money should be spent until the supporters are finally able to produce their fully vetted last and best plan.
Then the voters can evaluate the merits of the one plan and decide if this is indeed the one plan we want to put all of our redevelopment resources into. Or not.
Carson City candidate’s platform is puzzling
I read the election guide in your Tuesday edition.
You have done a good job in bringing out the candidates positions and I believe most are qualified for the offices they seek.
I take exception, however, with the platform of Philip K. Davies who is running for State Assembly District 40.
This is not an endorsement of Peter L. Livermore but rather an expression of concern about his opponent’s understanding of what security means. He is all for individual liberty. So am I and so states the Constitution. But how do we obtain and maintain that liberty? Through security. Security to defend our Constitutional liberties from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
We do this by providing for the best armed forces in the world. We have the most competent law enforcement people at all levels of government. We also have guards and citizen volunteers to protect our liberties from enemies. We have laws we obey to protect those liberties and they must be enforced.
Mr. Davies states, “I will never advocate the sacrifice of liberty for security.”
I don’t believe that is an either/or scenario. Some liberties must be addressed versus the need for security. I mentioned laws. They are most often limiting our freedoms in some respects mainly to maintain a safe and orderly society.
I like almost all our laws. Those that say you cannot kill or cannot take someone else’s property or cannot drive 70 mph in a school zone. Yeah, they “sacrifice our liberties.” So what?
Russel J Reaver