LETTERS: New legislation does harm to HOAs

To the editor:

I’ve have often thought that there should be a sign above the door as you enter the state Legislative Building in Carson City that reads, “Do no harm.” It was always my thinking that state legislators should be trying to make our lives better. Then I read Barbara Holland’s homeowners association column (“HOA law to impact community’s finances,” Saturday Review-Journal).

Ms. Holland’s column dealt with three bills that came out of this year’s legislative session. Two of those bills, Senate Bill 280 and Assembly Bill 273, will have a major impact on the costs of homeowners associations and their ability to do what they’re required to do by law.

There are more than 3,000 HOAs in Nevada, and more than 51 percent of Nevadans live under the influence an HOA. Both of these bills will increase costs to those homeowners who live in HOAs and pay their assessments in a timely manner. Most homeowners who live in HOAs just want to live in areas where there is a sense of community worth. Why do these elected officials feel the need to punish all HOAs because 12 of them were caught in a fraud scheme perpetrated by outsiders?

Up until last year, I was a member of the Democratic Party. It’s legislation like this, among other things, that chased me away. The Democrats have owned the Assembly for 20 years. Don’t they have better things to do? Like fix the funding for our schools or maybe revise the tax structure? HOAs protect the biggest investment that a family or person will make. They traditionally keep property values higher than surrounding areas.



Don’t lose the Sun

To the editor:

I don’t recall having the opinions of the Sun “forced down my throat” or “thrust in my face,” as I’ve seen printed in recent letters. It would appear, based on some of the writers’ apparent knowledge of the contents of the Sun, that they also read it, although they don’t have to if they so choose. They can merely discard it, just like they can change the television channel if they don’t care to watch a particular program.

Those writers also complain that they don’t like their subscription costs for the Review-Journal to include the cost of publishing the Sun, which they supposedly don’t read. Well, I subscribe to a television service provider, and my monthly bill includes the costs of providing more than 200 channels, even though I only watch approximately 10 percent of those channels.

Obviously, other people watch these other channels, and that’s why those channels are included in my viewing package. Whether or not I choose to watch them or agree with their content, I still help pay the cost of providing them. Perhaps one of those aforementioned writers can explain to me what the difference is.



Water conservation

To the editor:

I totally agree with letter writer Jackie MacFarlane’s suggestion that construction be based on water availability (“Water woes,” Saturday Review-Journal). Perhaps permits could be issued by an annual lottery.

More can be done in water conservation, however. Paying homeowners to remove grass is a good start, but the water authority could ask restaurants to only give patrons water when asked. In addition, Las Vegas has more than 150,000 hotel and motel rooms. Signs could be put up in showers asking guests to conserve. And athletic clubs could do the same during this extensive time of drought.