Take the canopy off Fremont Street
To the editor:
According to the Monday Review-Journal article "Neonopolis hopes rise again," the beleaguered Neonopolis is getting a Denny's restaurant and anticipates the opening of other stores to sell jewelry, artwork, fast food, etc.
I think Rohit Joshi, the owner of the building, may be on to something. It's called "Back to square one."
The Fremont Experience may actually pick itself up by going back to the original concept of Fremont Street, selling economically minded tourists kitsch merchandise and convenience fare. All that is missing is a log cabin-fronted Traded Horn shop selling souvenirs and T-shirts and we're there.
Tear off the canopy and 15 years of wasted funding can come to an end, and the City Council can find some other use for the tax revenues, like hiring more workers or maybe beginning to pay off the debts they have run up during that time.
Just a thought.
KENT RISCHLING
LAS VEGAS
Road worries
To the editor:
State Sen. Joe Hardy's legislation allowing a toll road around Boulder City may lead to a perilous path.
Indiana sold its portion of a federal highway to bankers. The contract the governor signed is for 75 years. That contract prevents Indiana from improving any roads near the toll road or having high-speed rail service. Indiana must reimburse the investors for loss of tolls due to floods, etc., and the state must maintain the toll road.
Today, the tolls have increased obscenely and will continue to increase.
Is this the future of Boulder City?
The Nevada Department of Transportation will not be allowed to maintain U.S. Highway 93/95, or Nevada Way, which is the main thoroughfare through Boulder City, if the contract with investors is similar to Indiana's.
I feel that any contract with investors should be approved by the voters of Clark County to safeguard our rights.
MAUREEN FAHLBERG
BOULDER CITY
Rich plan
To the editor:
In his Tuesday letter, "Let the rich cover Social Security gap," Paul Carman says the "artificial cap" should be removed from Social Security withholdings. This turns what Mr. Carman calls an insurance program into another welfare program.
Mr. Carman says, "You make your $10 million on the backs of the middle class, but are too 'special' to contribute to the possible future needs of this country?"
Well, Mr. Carman, those 5 percent you claim are un-American already pay about 70 percent of all federal income taxes. More than 50 percent of working Americans pay no income taxes, and in some cases they get a "refund" on top of that from those very people Mr. Carman so hates.
Now he wants the "rich" to cover their Social Security benefits, also? How compassionate he is with other people's money.
But why stop there? Why not make the "rich" pay for your mortgage, grocery bills, cell phone, satellite TV, vehicles, insurance, your children's education -- and while they're at it, let's force them to give you a job with six months of vacation and health care.
Many nations have tried to do it Mr. Carman's way. But "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" has never worked anywhere.
Robert Gardner
Henderson
Film subsidies
To the editor:
Assembly Bill 506 would have created hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs for our state by giving tax incentives to the film productions that come to our state to film, as do 46 of the other states.
The state would not only benefit from the employment during the filming but from the tax revenue paid by the filmmakers.
The main argument against the bill was that we can't afford to give tax incentives, and AB506 was voted down.
In other words, Assemblywoman Marilyn Kirkpatrick, D-North Las Vegas, and the Legislature reasoned that the state of Nevada would prefer having 100 percent of no income than having a reduced percentage of some income.
MARILEE LEAR
LAS VEGAS
Smoking mad
To the editor:
I would like to know the names of the legislators who voted to overturn the anti-smoking law we passed. When they tell the voters of Nevada that we did not know what we were voting for two years ago, that is offensive to me. I'm 75, and I know what I voted for.
How can they vote for a business that will give people lung cancer?
Ray Bales
Las Vegas
Worker rights
To the editor:
The proposed rule issued by the National Labor Relations Board on Tuesday ensures that workers have a right to vote -- a right all Americans cherish. By cutting back on needless, bureaucratic delays and costly litigation, the rule removes unfair obstacles to workers making their own choices about whether to form a union.
So why is this modest step toward fairness being attacked ("Fixed for the union," Wednesday Review-Journal editorial)?
Unsurprisingly, those protesting the rule are the same corporate lobbyists and right-wing politicians rolling back workers' rights in states across the country. Now they're defending an outdated election system in another attempt to stack the deck in favor of their wealthy corporate donors and CEOs.
The reality is that this rule change gives workers a fair chance to vote for a voice on the job -- a common-sense measure that can help restore balance in our economy and rebuild the middle class.
Kimberly Freeman Brown
Washington, D.C.
The writer is executive director of American Rights at Work, a nonprofit advocacy organization that supports workers' right to join a union.
