No need to bad-mouth Desert Shores area

To the editor:

John L. Smith's recent commentary and analysis of the mortgage fraud arrests and their terrible toll on the community has been insightful and informative. But his unfortunate use of Desert Shores as an example to illustrate the broken dreams of home buyers who have been burned in part because of these schemes must be addressed.

Mr. Smith stated Sunday that Desert Shores looked like the ideal place to raise a family and put down roots. This was an erroneous statement in that it still is among the best family neighborhoods in Southern Nevada, if not the entire state. He used this community as an example and continues that "once-handsome neighborhoods took on a Dust Bowl feel." I don't know when the last time was that Mr. Smith visited this community, but it is a far from a dust bowl as you can get.

While no neighborhood has been untouched by the housing bubble, Desert Shores is a stable neighborhood that belies the transient stereotype that is pervasive in Las Vegas. My neighborhood was developed in the early '90s and is inhabited primarily by original or second owners. There are fewer than two dozen single-family homes for sale in the entire community, the majority of which are not foreclosures.

Further, the Desert Shores Homeowner Association is efficiently managed, as evidenced by the low homeowner association fees and the beauty of the common grounds and recreational facilities.

Dust Bowl? I suggest that Mr. Smith get away from his word processor and revisit this beautiful, unique community.

John Matsis

Las Vegas

Border laws

To the editor:

One of the major problems with immigration law has been the reluctance on the part of local law enforcement to enforce federal law in their communities. Such jurisdictions became known as "sanctuary cities."

I was a law enforcement officer from 1961 to 1973 in Southern California and frequently came upon illegal immigrants and arrested them and held them for federal officials to pick up. Arizona's new law simply instructs all law enforcement officers to enforce immigration law. The problem with the Arizona law is that it actually spells out its own immigration law, mirroring the federal law.

It seems to me the easiest solution would be for each state to simply adopt a law requiring all law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law. This way, the local city councils, boards of supervisors, county commissioners, sheriffs, chiefs of police, or other governing bodies would not be able to determine as a matter of policy that federal immigration law will not be enforced in their jurisdiction.

One of the penalties for not enforcing the federal immigration law would be that the individual officer would lose his or her law enforcement certification in the state.

Edward J. Cooper

Laughlin

Wage laws

To the editor:

Faced with the highest unemployment rate among the 50 states, Nevada is about to make it worse yet with a minimum wage increase. Or at least no better.

Basic economics will tell you that any increase in costs to employers will force them to do two things. First they will try to forward that extra cost to their customers by increasing the price for their products or services. Then, if that is not enough, they will try to recover the extra cost by slashing their spending wherever they can.

They will cut back on their spending regardless of the source of that extra cost. That extra cost can come in many forms, such as an increase in the cost from their suppliers. It can also come from the government as well, such as an increase in taxes or, as is about to happen in July, an increase in the minimum wage.

Faced with an increase in their labor costs, employers will probably have to cut back on hours or employees. They will not just sit there and absorb it. In this economy, they are not likely to forward it all to their customers. Cutting will be their primary way out.

What makes this worse? We are going to do this to ourselves every July, like clockwork.

Thomas J. Stansfield

Las Vegas

Pending demise

To the editor:

There are ads from Sen. Harry Reid stating that GOP challenger Sharron Angle wants to eliminate Social Security. This is a fraudulent attempt to imply that seniors dependent on the program would be cut off. In fact, Ms. Angle is actually trying to save it from its pending demise.

Sen. Reid's fix is a "head in the sand" approach, and is no solution at all. We really need to begin phasing in some kind of privatization for today's younger workers.

Go, Sharron!

R.A. Salter

Henderson

Drawing board

To the editor:

I laughed out loud when I read the Saturday letter complaining about cartoonist Jim Day's recent drawing that was unflattering to Senate candidate Sharron Angle. Criticizing a rather benign caricature when we have all been beaten to death with such horrible depictions of our president as the devil?

If the rest of Ms. Angle's supporters are this thin-skinned, then writer C. Thomas Gott is probably correct when he states that this "visual sabotage" is just what Sen. Harry Reid needs to win re-election.

Don Bright

Las Vegas