Saturday, June 19, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
LETTERS: Casino merger will create many losers
To the editor:
The merger of MGM Mirage and Mandalay Resorts should be of great concern to visitors, as well as casino workers in Las Vegas.
Visitors should be concerned that concentration inhibits price wars. Why should these resorts lower their rates to compete with one another when they are owned by the same corporation? The same can be said about amenities from players' cards (slot clubs). No need to offer the best deal in town because they are the only deal in town, or at least have limited competition.
Translation? Las Vegas will cede it's "best value for the buck" status.
Casino employees should be concerned in that, upon completion of said merger, consolidation will likely occur. Translation? Job loss. The mega -corporation will merge and consolidate departments, eliminating jobs along the way.
And don't anger one of the many casinos within the block, as you will be blacklisted from working in any of the casinos within the entire corporation which would bar you from half of the major resorts.
Winners and losers? Customers would end up paying more and employees would lose jobs and those lucky enough to remain employed would be burdened with extra work with little or no pay increase. The only winners would be upper management and the stockholders. The executives would grant themselves mega-bonuses for the fine job they did in eliminating jobs and squeezing more from those employees that are left.
DAVID HUNTINGTON
LAS VEGAS
Slow pokes
To the editor:
I read with humor the June 16 Road Warrior column about "driving in the left lane on expressways." You have a Metro police lieutenant saying that if you are doing the speed limit in the left lane, you can still be pulled over and "gently" reminded to move to the center or right lane to avoid impeding traffic.
Maybe Metro should spend its time pulling over the impatient drivers who want to do 90 mph in the left lane and give them a "gentle" summons.
R.J. LIEPINS
HENDERSON
Reagan tribute
To the editor:
After reading Paul Lavell's comments on Ronald Reagan (June 14 letter, "The worst"), I have to wonder if he actually believes his supposed facts -- or is this another attempt to rewrite history?
He talks about the worst recession in history. Actually the period from 1982 to 2000 is regarded as the greatest growth period in our history, sparked by Mr. Reagan's tax cuts. The deficits of that time disappeared with the economic growth. That is a fact.
Mr. Reagan did not turn his back on AIDS. He chose not to speak publicly about this newly discovered disease, but he did authorize money for research.
As for firing the air traffic controllers, that showed these people they could not violate the law and get away with it. It is also the reason Iran released our hostages after 444 days during Mr. Carter's tenure. They did not wish to face the options Mr. Reagan might have exercised.
All in all, President Reagan created 21 million jobs. So who were the farmers and steel workers Mr. Lavell complained about?
Mr. Lavell also neglected to mention Mr. Reagan ending the Cold War, and bringing down the Berlin wall -- no mean feats.
The outpouring of love for this man who revolutionized history and did so much for America was a sincere tribute he richly deserved. It came from the heart of America and no shallow attempts can change this.
ROBERT MANGINI
LAS VEGAS
Faulty advice
To the editor:
It appears that the advice given by the attorney for the Board of Regents is once again "erroneous." Instead of spending time figuring out how to fire community college officials without violating the Open Meeting Law, the regents should spend time reviewing how many times their legal counsel has ill-advised the board on the open meeting law.
If the advice has been faulty more than twice, then the regents should put their legal counsel on the chopping block. Otherwise, if they continue down the road of firing, demoting and degrading the community college officials they spent time investigating and harming last fall and winter, they should step down themselves and fast.
They can't be forgiven for continued ignorance at this point.
URSULA SINDLINGER
ELKO
Front-runner?
To the editor:
Your newspaper proves once again how the press can throw a wrench into the engine of democracy, even at a municipal level.
In reports on a community forum for candidates in the Ward 2 City Council election, reporter Erin Neff twice refers to "front-runners," and once uses the expression "perceived front-runners."
Oh? And exactly how are these people perceived to be front-runners? This inquiring mind wants to know.
It would appear it is Ms. Neff's perception that dubs the two candidates as front-runners.
Surely it is not the job of the press to handicap runners in any race, let alone one as important as an election.
As a long-time journalist and editor, now retired, I do not subscribe to the notion that the media is totally responsible for molding people's thoughts. But I do believe the press should take more responsibly for its role in illuminating our world. This includes not taking stands in favor of issues or candidates in news articles.
The Review-Journal needs to pay closer attention to this stuff. It is at variance with your usual clear-headed and sensible editorial policies.
BERNARD HUNT
LAS VEGAS
Land use
To the editor:
Your recent editorial about the U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding Utah and land use was actually pretty well balanced. But it did miss a few salient points.
Yes, of course environmentalists should be petitioning their representatives to protect their public lands. Believe me, they are. But the Bureau of Land Management has responsibilities to wilderness study areas. Off-road use is out of control in many parts of the West, and this is no less true in Utah's proposed wilderness areas. Until the final status of these areas is worked out by elected officials and public comment, they should be left intact. Any responsible person who has seen the damage inflicted by irresponsible off-road use should be able to agree with that.
The BLM is currently revising planning documents that will determine where off-road vehicles can and cannot drive. Many of Utah's districts are going through Resource Management Plan revisions, which will set policy for at least the next decade. With the Bush administration pushing oil and gas development as its No. 1 priority, it is important to remind the Department of the Interior, under whose direction the BLM operates, that their management plans not be dominated by resource extraction and off-road vehicle use.
The BLM has a multiple-use mandate, and that includes primitive recreation and wilderness. There is and should be room enough out there for everyone.
Lawsuits are very much a last-ditch effort, when all other avenues have been exhausted -- and not just for environmental groups. They are costly, and many organizations out there cannot even afford to bring cases to court.
Much has been written recently about activist judges. That blade cuts both ways. The Bush administration is making a push for the most conservative judiciary this country may have ever seen. Four more years of its appointees and the anti-environmental brigades won't have to worry so much about lawsuits because cases like this one will never make it that far.
BILL HUGGINS
LAS VEGAS
Water use
To the editor:
Regarding our deepening drought, which seems to worsen every day, there are several salient points that bear consideration.
-- There is not enough water to sustain Clark County's current population.
-- The drought may only be half over.
-- We add thousands of new residents per month.
-- Projections place our population at 2 million by next year.
-- We need water to live. (Drinking, bathing, flushing -- which would you give up?)
Perhaps our growth task force ought to start considering a growth moratorium. One fine day, when plentiful water for all -- and then some -- can be guaranteed, then once more we can open the floodgates to Las Vegas growth. Until that time, I'd like to be sure those of us who already live here continue to have running water.
BRANDI HARRINGTON
HENDERSON
Nice ride
To the editor:
I can't believe the outrageous explanation offered by Carlos Garcia about the luxury items for his new vehicle ("School candidate files ethics complaint," June 18). Mr. Garcia got turned down for extra funds for administrative personnel so he turns around and buys an expensive SUV to sulk in.
If Mr. Garcia needs to get to off-site areas in the desert, let him walk. Whoever OK'd this purchase should be fired along with Mr. Garcia.
ROSEMARIE BROBECK
LAS VEGAS
