Keep cycling safe near Red Rock Canyon

The front page article on July 9 about the separate bike path near Red Rock was truly interesting. As a long-time cyclist in Las Vegas I can remember that years ago there was just such a path in the Red Rock area. It was ridden by just a few people with their children. But even then, experienced cyclists would not use it because it was far more dangerous than the main road. Glass, rocks and debris made it extremely unsafe and there was no maintenance at all.

The comment by the president of the Las Vegas Valley Bike Club was right on the mark. Don’t spend money for something that is not a good idea. Instead, use some of the money to enforce a lower speed limit and truly enforce it. The cycling community has seen in past years attempts to “save” cyclists and we have continued to lose areas where we once rode in relatively safe conditions. We all know that we take a risk every time we go out for a ride but experienced riders know that and take every precaution possible.

Also maybe there is another plan being quietly considered by the people presenting this bike path idea. Once it is built they can ban us from riding on state Route 159, one of the best cycling areas in the Valley. Thereby “saving” us again. Can you imagine a group of serious riders riding the path at 20 mph to 40 mph and coming upon a family with small children riding at 4 mph? The prospect is scary for all.

We don’t need to be “saved.” Just give us good areas to ride in with smart planners making good decisions.

Cal Oliver

LAS VEGAS

Budget mess

To the editor:

Politicians don’t listen to the people. We are all being hit with job losses and pay freezes, yet the politicians cower at the idea of perhaps suspending the cost-of-living-adjustments for public employees or — gasp! — trimming the fat on non-essential personnel.

Also it was interesting that the teachers had to be lumped with everyone else when the COLAs were being examined. I suspect that is because Nevadans would have overwhelmingly supported the concept if it hadn’t affected our teachers.

The school districts decry “the children now have no text books” yet conveniently leave out that there is a warehouse full of fairly new textbooks that were retired prematurely. Teachers are not well paid, yet the union only goes after more funding as the solution rather than demanding less waste from the district.

Has anyone ever bothered asking why new roads cost the government millions more than private companies to build them? It is because they only use union contractors who have inflated wages and lack accountability. A competitive bid process that doesn’t depend on union influence would lower the cost dramatically.

I do not like the governor as a person but I do respect his willingness to do as he promised. The solution isn’t to raise taxes, as Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley and other politicians suggest. If they would run these systems like businesses than we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in right now.

Francisca Hakes

LAS VEGAS

Harry’s world

To the editor:

I found Jane Ann Morrison’s Monday column (“Fear factor might be clearing a political path for Harry Reid’s son”) very informative. Ms. Morrison obviously knows more about Sen. “Give ’em Hell” Harry Reid’s clout in Nevada than I do. I’ve lived in the state only five years. But I find Sen. Reid’s posturing and posing for the cameras in D.C. both amusing and maddening.

He’s quick to pound his chest and lash out at opponents (in 30-second sound bites). Yet when he’s confronted with a tough vote, like the Patriot Act or a FISA extension, he collapses like a house of cards. Does he really fear an override from a lame-duck president (emphasis on lame) with an approval rating of approximately 20 percent?

But Ms. Morrison informs us that Nevada Democrats don’t want to anger the pugnacious senator from Searchlight, much to the benefit of his son Rory.

And does anyone else find it interesting that Sen. Reid won’t utter a critical word about Sen. John “How’s My Hair” Ensign, but local Democrats fear him?

I guess it’s true: Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Terry Cox

HENDERSON

Home foreclosure

To the editor:

In response to the July 13 article, “Rone family of 14 faces foreclosure”:

I fully sympathize with this family’s difficult situation.However, this article, as so many similar ones before, portrays the family as a victim and the loan servicer as the heartless corporation.

But how did this family get a mortgage on the new house in the first place? They obviously could not afford both the new mortgage and the old one. Red flags are flying all over this loan, indicating possible mortgage fraud. With strict loan guidelines already in place by January of last year, a rental agreement almost surely was required to obtain a new mortgage.

Also, why did this family choose to not pay the mortgage on the house they were living in rather than the house that was vacant?

Finally, with a trustee sale date of July 30, they have known for months that foreclosure was looming. Why not sell the property and rent? Worst case is that they have to apply for a short sale. If they can afford the payment, they can afford the rent.

The real victim is the company who owns the loan. It is not getting paid what it is owed, and will lose tens of thousands of dollars because of questionable decisions by the borrower.

KURT GROSSE

LAS VEGAS

Border patrol

To the editor:

Geoff Schumacher’s July 13 column, “Conservative makes case for liberal immigration policies,” is written in such a way — intentionally or not — to actually discredit the cause of uncontrolled immigration. Just citing a supposedly conservative writer for The Wall Street Journal is not justification for the many mistaken beliefs expressed.

Of course American business likes millions of under-educated alien workers that can be underpaid and easily exploited. But it doesn’t automatically follow that this is good for society in general. Let’s take a closer look at some of the specific claims.

First of all, immigrant labor often does take jobs that would otherwise be performed by Americans. Having large numbers of unskilled or semi-skilled immigrants simply depresses the wage rate for certain types of jobs and puts many businesses that attempt to keep their employment practices legal at a competitive disadvantage.

And the idea that immigrant labor increases the nation’s productivity is only believable if basic economic principles are ignored. A large pool of cheap, disposable, easily exploited labor discourages and delays innovation and increases in efficiency (which is almost the textbook definition of a productivity increase).

Instead of promoting the proper use of capital investment in improving the production process, the overabundance of artificially cheap labor leads to its overuse (and abuse). And how in the world does any of this expand job opportunities for natives?

Mr. Schumacher, if you were writing satire, thanks for ridiculing the open borders argument. If you were serious, please take a course in basic economics.

James Moldenhauer

NORTH LAS VEGAS