Commissioners just looking out for constituents

To the editor:

In response to Sunday's editorial on the subject of Clark County denying North Las Vegas the use of the Sloan Channel for wastewater: This is not a turf war, it's about representative government.

County Commissioners Tom Collins and Chris Giunchigliani are advocating on behalf of the residents who live along the Sloan Channel. While North Las Vegas was able to give reasonable assurances about the health hazards of treated wastewater, it could not guarantee that it wouldn't smell, so residents cried foul.

What is truly foul about this whole sordid affair is North Las Vegas officials' complete lack of planning and logic. First, who decided it would be better to spend $300 million in order to avoid paying out $30,000 a day? If those numbers are correct, it would be 27 years before they realize any savings -- and this doesn't even factor in the cost of the lease.

Second, the city claims that it had prior approval from the county, which is disingenuous at best. The approval was not based on the flow going down an open channel.

Using the logic of North Las Vegas officials, if I visit their office and ask to use the bathroom, I can just pee on the carpet because, after all, I had been given permission to "use the bathroom."

If North Las Vegas officials truly believed they had approval, why did they ask the County Commission for permission they already had?

At the end of the day, North Las Vegas officials only have themselves to blame. There was no great outrage from taxpayers about city sewer rates, yet they constructed a building without having all the needed permits in place and they arrogantly assumed they could flush the problem in East Las Vegas' back yard when it all hit the fan.

Tom Grossmann

Las Vegas

Needed resources

To the editor:

Social Security is successful precisely because it's not bound by the rules of private retirement funds. The failure of these funds is the very reason Social Security was created and has become a necessary component of American life.

Far from being a pyramid scheme whose function is to victimize its participants, Social Security's purpose is to provide needed resources to American citizens that private retirement plans cannot.

That everyone is required to participate is not a negative but a positive feature. Most successful human endeavors are the result of joint effort and the pooling of resources. It's fine to celebrate individual effort, but it's dumb to ignore what cooperation can achieve.

Nevada Rep. Joe Heck's condemnation of Social Security was uncalled for and causes one to suspect whether any changes he has in mind will destroy its effectiveness in the name of outdated ideology.

Edward Hayes

Las Vegas

Missing something?

To the editor:

Your Saturday editorial ("Judicial scrutiny") regarding the appellate court review of ObamaCare quotes 11th Circuit Chief Judge Joel Dubina as follows: "I can't find any case like this. If we uphold this, are there any limits on the power of the federal government?"

Then Judge Stanley Marcus chimed in: "I can't find any case" in the past where the courts upheld "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market."

This is quite frightening. Where have they been? Are they unaware of the laws that vehicle owners must comply with? Apparently these judges do not own and operate automobiles.

So is it only the federal government mandating insurance coverage to prevent those uninsured from causing financial harm to the rest of the insured population that is the issue? Seems that it is quite legal for the states to mandate insurance coverage, requiring vehicle owners and drivers (private individuals) to be covered by an insurance policy (a product) purchased on the open market.

Where is the difference? Am I missing something?

Sharon Kerber

Las Vegas