LETTERS: Downtown master plan another poke at taxpayers

Far be it from me, a resident of Las Vegas and a taxpayer, to ask: Who decided to create this idea to look into a downtown master plan? ("Residents offer ideas at master plan meeting," Oct. 2 Review-Journal). Who hired consultant RTKL for more than $700,000? What experience does RTKL and its vice president, Nate Cherry, have in doing such a plan? And most importantly, who really needs this community master plan?

Did Mr. Cherry and his associates learn anything about Las Vegas or even ask the people who live here whether we want his plan? Probably not. Some people showed up at the master plan meeting who want better transportation (subsidized by taxpayers, of course), building preservation (such as the Huntridge Theater debacle) and more mid-range housing (another name for taxpayer-subsidized housing).

Mr. Cherry noted that at least 91 percent of trips to and from downtown are by car. Did he miss looking at both downtown and the surrounding communities? We are a society that moves around by automobile and some local bus transportation. We do not live in a geographically small city. Maybe Mr. Cherry should try looking at a map of the area. If there is a need for more public transportation, then why hasn't the Regional Transportation Commission recognized the need and fulfilled it?

Mid-range housing is often found in the outskirts of a community, not in the middle of the city. And for those who want to preserve buildings, I suggest that they raise the money to do so and get the job completed without asking for taxpayer funds and grants from our governments.

I really have to wonder how this all got started. Did City Council members vote on this master plan project, and if so, why? Maybe the people should wise up and in the next election and send all of these politicians packing, get some new blood into office. Remember, if you continue to elect the same politicians, you will continue to have the same bad results.

Stop this waste of money. Call your City Council members and let them know you have had enough. We stopped the soccer stadium, now it's time to stop this master plan idea.

Bob Dubin

Las Vegas

Democratic debate

I listened very carefully to Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary debate in Las Vegas. I came away with three very distinct impressions.

First, all five candidates cannot wait to spend all of the rich people's money in an effort to buy votes from the poor — which now includes the middle class. Margaret Thatcher once said, "The trouble with socialism (or as Sen. Bernie Sanders calls it, Democratic socialism) is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Second, all the problems in this country were caused by Republicans, going all the way back to George H.W. Bush. And third, Hillary Clinton thinks she should be elected because she is a woman.

Walter F. Wegst

Las Vegas

Obama on gun control

Charles Krauthammer's column on the Oregon shooting ("Another massacre, another political charade," Oct. 11 Review-Journal) correctly defines the intentions of the gun control crowd. Sadly, the Oregon shooting would have not have been prevented by any of the proposed gun control measures favored by President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Like a true demagogue, the president chooses to use the emotionally charged phrase "common-sense gun-safety laws" to press the issue. While President Obama makes reference to other countries that have enacted stricter gun control laws, what he dares not say is that these countries have generally engaged in gun confiscation. Such an honestly worded proposal would fly in the face of Second Amendment, this country's tradition and the majority of public sentiment.

The president has skirted his flawed Affordable Care Act, which does little to address improving psychiatric or psychological care in this country.

The most obvious flaw in President Obama's reaction thus far is that the U.S. criminal justice proceedings in this country are predicated on a crime actually being committed. This begs the question of pre-emptive law enforcement and treatment of those mentally ill or otherwise categorized as possible gun violence threats. Mr. Krauthammer notes the percentage of mentally disturbed persons likely to commit violent crimes — a fraction of our nation's schizophrenic population, which makes up 1 percent of the U.S. population. I applaud Mr. Krauthammer calling out the president's grandstanding and demonizing of the American people for not rolling over, for what would amount to abolishing the Second Amendment.

John Edward Jordan

Henderson