Why don’t we just stop building new homes?
To the editor:
In response to the Saturday article about Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman wanting to stop banks from selling foreclosed homes, I think he's got it all wrong.
What the city really needs is a moratorium on home building permits for the next few years.
We are in a major drought -- there isn't enough water to keep adding more houses and more people. And most obvious is the fact that without any more subdivisions being built, there will be a greater demand for the existing supply of homes on the market.
The prices of all existing homes here would start to increase immediately by creating a shortage of inventory. This would help with the next round of foreclosures that are sure to come soon.
I can't believe local governments keep allowing more new homes to be built. A moratorium is the answer.
Or does everyone down there at City Hall answer to the builders?
Wendy cicerelle
Las Vegas
Real enemy
To the editor:
I just finished reading the Sunday story, "Angle campaign takes delight in Reid statements." In it were several comments about how GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle wants to dismantle Social Security.
I just received my Social Security statement last week. This statement comes directly from the Social Security Administration. I'm pretty sure anybody working and paying into the fund gets them.
I want to quote directly from the front page a statement by Michael J. Astrue, the commissioner of the Social Security Administration:
"Social Security is a compact between generations. Since 1935, America has kept the promise of security for its workers and their families. Now, however, the Social Security system is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound when today's younger workers are ready for retirement. In 2016 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2037 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been in a position to "fix" Social Security for how long now? How much longer does he need? All he can do is mock, twist and bend any solutions offered by his opponent.
As far as I know, Ms. Angle has never been in a position to influence Social Security one way or the other. Sen. Reid has had more than 20 years.
My statement tells me all I need to know about who is the real enemy of Social Security.
Frank Thompson
Henderson
Tax burden
To the editor:
Reading Saturday's story, "Clark County tax bills going down," I thought I was reading some good news. But then the piece devolved into a sob story about three dog walkers at Myron Leavitt Park who bemoaned the lack of a shade canopy and faster dog urine cleanup.
If the three chipped in 33 cents apiece and got a jug of bleach from a 99-cent store, they could have gotten past the months-old dog urine stain at the foot of the one bench.
No, it isn't their responsibility, but that's a problem today -- nobody wants to take responsibility. Rather than endure foul-smelling urine for months, spend the 99 cents.
Another woman quoted was remodeling her house, so presumably she has a yard in which to walk her dog. So why "bake" in the 8 a.m. heat she bemoaned because there's no shade canopy?
Whatever happened to parasols or umbrellas?
Lastly, what does the county owe people who choose to have dogs and choose to use parks to run them and who vote against tax increases unless they target visitors?
I love dogs. I love parks. People? Not so much.
Richard OMalley
Las Vegas
Government force
To the editor:
In his Saturday letter to the editor, Bart Atwell says that, "In my country, when a child is hungry, we give her food."
His sense of charity in providing for the less fortunate is commendable. I believe he is wrong, however, to assume that the government should somehow be empowered to provide this food and, through taxation and associated penalties for non-compliance, force this opinion on everyone -- even those who strongly disagree that the government has a constitutional obligation to assume the role of "Master of Charities."
The place of voluntary charitable action is very different from that of the government having the power to remove the "voluntary" aspect from such benevolent decisions.
David C. Hemphill
Boulder City
Whose payroll?
To the editor:
After reading John L. Smith's columns for the past few months, I am beginning to wonder whether he still works for the Review-Journal or if he is now on the DNC/Harry Reid/Dina Titus payroll.
I find he has become so partisan that he has lost credibility.
I suggest that he examine the issues and the candidates involved with an open mind. He may be shocked to learn that Sen. Reid, Rep. Titus, and Rep. Shelley Berkley, et al, are part of the problem, not the solution.
Martin Shainen
Las Vegas
