Letters to the Editor for May 10
Lyon crosswalk sting was unsafe
What I witnessed on April 20 on Dayton Valley Road in regards to the crosswalk sting by Lyon County and other police departments was borderline unethical and unsafe.
I picked up my daughter from an after-school dance at 4:15. Heading back home, we had to traverse the crosswalk sting once again. I say, traverse because there were police on both sides of the street with lights and sirens a-blazing.
So, I’m simply trying to drive home, and the police are flying around like they’re after a bank robber – very unsafe.
I saw one cop come out of the apartment complex and zig-zag in and out of traffic to catch up to a car.
I know two people who received a ticket. One actually got a ticket for doing 36 mph. That’s right, one mile over the posted speed limit.
Another good friend was nailed on the crosswalk sting. Sounds fair until you realize she was so distracted by the police flying by in both directions, she didn’t see the two officers standing on the sidewalk waiting to cross.
My friend told me the officer was quoted saying, “On any other day, I would let you go, but today we’re working on a grant and we’ve already written over 60 tickets.”
Well, I hope you get the grant and spend the money on a light to illuminate the apartment side of the crosswalk, and maybe a new sign posting the new 25 mph (speed limit).
Many questions surround Assembly Bill 257
If Assembly Bill 257 is passed, many questions will arise. If public comment is limited to a period at the start and a period at the finish of a meeting, the following questions need to be addressed.
During a public comment period at the start of a meeting:
Will public comment be limited to two minutes per agenda item? Per individual? Per individual, per agenda item?
Will board members be able to address the comments when they are made or will they have to hold any response until the agenda item is opened?
During a public comment period at the end of a meeting:
The first three above questions will need to be addressed.
If a public comment, on an agenda item, is made that could have been relevant in the decision-making of the board, can the agenda item be reopened for further discussion by the board? If so, how and when? By direction of the board chair/president? By a majority vote of the board members? Now, or later?
These are just a few of the questions which should be addressed and answered prior to the passage of AB257.
Personally, I feel if a board member has problems in hearing public comments they should resign from the board. They were elected, or appointed, to represent the people and listening to the good or bad comments is part of the job.
Sanford E. Deyo
Congratulate Bush on capture of bin Laden
The TROTUS (teleprompter reader of the United States) spoke to us the other night. He suffers from “I” strain: “I did this, I did that.” Because he is narcissistic, he didn’t have the grace to thank his predecessor for laying the groundwork to locate/capture/dispatch bin Laden. Congratulations to all the military and intelligence units who finally put the Bin Laden saga to rest. Congratulations President Bush.
Yesterday, in a related story, we learned that since 9/11, the U.S. has given Pakistan $20 billion in aid. Where are the tangibles from our generosity? What do we have to show for it? Nothing. Turns out that the Pakistanis trucked away the remains of our downed helicopter and will probably sell it to the Chinese government. How is that for gratitude?
We, as a nation, should be outraged and call for an immediate end to the waste of our tax dollars to Pakistan and every other country that receives foreign aid without tangible returns for the citizens of the United States who fund the largesse.
Watching Secretary of State Hillary Clinton state that the Pakistanis worked with us on the operation – an obvious lie – reminds me of what former Customs Commissioner William Von Rabb said about the State Department 20 years ago: “The mission of the State Department is to make the world safe for cocktail parties.”
Passing of Senate Bill 192 wrong for state
Senate Bill 192 is very close to passage, and the public needs to understand the serious consequences of such action. Tacked onto the end of this bill is a recommendation that state and local government use outside firms, rather than their own engineering personnel, to design and construct new public works projects costing more than $100,000.
This was proposed with the aim of creating more jobs for Nevadans, but has the potential to be a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. Additionally, this legislation will reduce the number of public works projects that can be undertaken, because the price of each project will be greatly increased.
This bill states that it is “in the best interest of the state for a public body to use private sector services for the performance of a public work” – but it’s not.
For instance, Carson City Public works just finished a design for five miles of 24-inch water transmission main, along with one mile of paved pedestrian pathway and 1-1/4 miles of new sewer mains and laterals, and several road pavement rehabs for $235,000.
In contrast, a private sector engineering company recently submitted a bid to design one mile of the same 24-inch water main only, and their price was $250,000. That was more money for less than 20 percent of the work.
I strongly encourage the public to protest the passage of this bill – write to your governor, senators and assemblymen.