Laughlin incorporation? A bad deal all around
To the editor:
There has been some discussion about comparing Laughlin to Mesquite or Boulder City in respect to whether residents should vote for incorporation this year. But the first thing that comes to mind is that we are not like any other community in Nevada.
Compared to Mesquite and Boulder City, our location is pretty remote – we are not really on the way to anywhere. While it is true that we are located in an area that makes commuting an easy, one-hour drive to lots of other cities, most of us have chosen Laughlin for that reason – we live in a quiet, if not secluded area, and we can choose to go out or stay put in our peace and quiet. We may have several river events, but by and large we are a quiet town.
Laughlin is a town of only about 3,000 registered voters. The snow birds who come here during the winter months do not add to our economy from late April until November. We permanent residents are mostly retirees on fixed incomes. We are not prepared to change our financial status by adding another layer of government through higher taxes. Do not allow anyone to fool you. Uninformed people think we can get more services for less money. We will all pay higher taxes for the “privilege” of choosing our future.
Who wants incorporation for Laughlin? People who want to be empowered to tax and spend, while they tell us what is best for us and our future.
Some have been told that the solar plant is a done deal. They say that the increase in our population, due to the new jobs created, will be a boom to our economy. Don’t believe it. ENN Mojave Energy Corp. has until 2013 to decide to purchase land in Laughlin, based upon the company’s market research. Solar has been around for many years. It’s a huge investment into a product that brings very slow returns.
In short, I don’t believe that most of us want a tourist-type community like Mesquite or Boulder City. We can’t afford an increase in any taxes – real estate or use taxes. We don’t want a reduction in existing public services. We don’t want more government. And we can all see that our current overblown government does not really “serve the people” that it is supposed to represent.
These are not negative statements, they are positive comments about why we have chosen to come to Laughlin. Why let some people create havoc with their own agendas for the quiet community that we are today? Just say no to incorporation.
Margot Anderson
Laughlin
Subject mastery
To the editor:
Monday’s editorial (“Rating teachers”) perhaps inadvertently hit half the nail on the head with the comment, “For secondary school teachers, a degree in an academic subject rather than ‘education’ was also found to correlate well with teacher effectiveness.”
When I retired from the Air Force, there were many well-trained retirees with extensive backgrounds in science, mathematics, languages, accounting and business who were anxious to teach as a second career. But thanks to the teacher union closing the ranks to protect their education school graduates, most of these highly qualified applicants were lost to other endeavors that actually coveted their advanced degrees and on-the-job work experience.
On the one hand, the teacher union would have you pay for advanced degrees with raises for those without real-life experience, while on the other hand the school district could make it easier to hire teachers with real-life experience, at no additional cost to the taxpayers. Which alternative would you pick?
Pedagogy – the art, science and profession of teaching – on its own, will never trump real-life experience in the subject being taught.
Finally, the art of teaching a subject you know inside-out is relatively easy and doesn’t take a long period of time to master – unless the teacher union has a say so.
John J. Erlanger
Las Vegas
Fine point
To the editor:
I agree that having animals out in the heat is not a good thing (“Take that cat and scat? We can’t, homeless say,” Monday Review-Journal). And that dogs can cause a problem with biting. But why are the fines for these infractions more than the fine for talking on a cellphone or texting while driving?
The danger posed by talking or texting is far greater than having an animal on the Strip. The fines should be commiserate for the deed.
E. Hileman
Las Vegas
Cat fancier
To the editor:
I read with disgust your coverage of the homeless lady who pulls in $200 on a good day by having tourists take pictures of her cat (Monday Review-Journal). Cry me a river.
I have a master’s degree and earn $90 a day as a substitute teacher. When school is out for the summer and I am unemployed, I think I’ll buy a cat.
William D. Cuff
Henderson
Casual approach
To the editor:
In his May 4 letter, Joseph Schillmoeller shows the casual approach of conservatives to war and their desire to minimize President Barack Obama’s achievements.
Mr. Schillmoeller says he would gladly have given the order to take out Osama bin Laden. Contrast this with the agonizing concern that President Obama clearly showed on camera when he ordered our people into harm’s way. He reminded me of the way Gen. Dwight Eisenhower has been described on the eve of the Normandy invasion.
To a good commander, the size of the operation does not matter when he knows that there is a great risk involved. I’ll bet Jimmy Carter must have looked like these men when he ordered the mission to free the hostages in Iran.
And to compare a military mission where lives can be lost to a football game – as Mr. Schillmoeller did – is, in a word, stupid.
NADIA ROMEO
LAS VEGAS
