To the editor:
In response to your Feb. 25 editorial, and a subsequent letter to the editor, opposing a proposed city ordinance requiring new homes be equipped with fire sprinklers:
First and foremost, we suspect plumbers will install many of the fire sprinkler systems not the fire sprinkler contractor. We also suspect those with the lowest price win. But key to our point is the fire sprinkler requirement is part of the national model code. The requirement is in the code because products used in new construction do not fare well in fires.
This, coupled with very flammable synthetic furnishings and great rooms, has led to significant concerns during fires.
If you want unbiased reasons for fire sprinklers in new homes, do an Internet search for "lightweight construction firefighter safety" and you will find more than 60,000 sites that dimension the fire safety problem in newly constructed homes which led to the fire sprinkler requirement. Your editorial in essence is saying it is acceptable to build new homes in non-compliance with national safety codes and sprinklers harm the housing market -- let's spend the money on granite countertops and kitchen islands.
And yes, my home is fire sprinkler protected -- has been for 20 years and the cost of maintaining this system has been zero.
The writer is vice president of the National Fire Sprinkler Association.
To the editor:
What a shock. Like many on the left, Steve Sebelius thinks it's time for some bipartisanship in Washington (Wednesday Review-Journal). Members of the left always repeat this refrain when they can't get their way.
They had zero issues with hyper-partisanship during their ramrodding of ObamaCare down our throats. But now that they can't get everything they want, it's time to get along. What hypocrites.
The left's idea of bipartisanship is for conservatives to throw away our principals and just give them their way.
Cowards and thugs
To the editor:
The decision by newly appointed District Attorney Steve Wolfson not to prosecute the police officers who kicked and beat a helpless man suffering a diabetic event is very bad news.
In a blatant example of conflict of interest, the previous district attorney, David Roger, abandoned the post with three years left in his four-year term to take a position as general counsel of the Police Protective Association. This action, after he failed to investigate several high-profile incidents involving killings by police officers, hints that Mr. Roger went to work for the PPA long before he left public office.
Now Mr. Wolfson is carrying on the tradition to which long-time residents of this valley have grown accustomed -- that of protecting police officers at the expense of ordinary citizens. His statement that too much time had passed since the videotaped beating in October 2010 is absurd, and proves that once again the top law-enforcement officer in Clark County has failed to protect the people he is sworn to serve.
The cowards and thugs who would kick and beat a defenseless man tarnish the respect that most police officers deserve, but that is beside the point. They are criminals. Assault and battery, when committed under the color of law, is even more damaging to society. If this is the way Mr. Wolfson is going to conduct his office, the citizens of Clark County must look elsewhere for protection.
John Henry Melancon