Keep ‘natural quiet’ in the Grand Canyon
To the editor:
In response to the Saturday story, “Call for quiet raises racket”:
The Grand Canyon is one of the most awe-inspiring places on the face of the Earth. With its gigantic size, the inexplicable processes that created it, the diversity of the plants, animals and people who thrive in the extreme surroundings, the vaulted sky overhead, the colors that soothe, the canyon touches us deeply.
Imagine: Wopp-wopp-wopp, whoosh, droooooone — all at decibels that prevent conversations on the ground — multiplied hundreds of times in one day.
That’s not what we want as our experience of the Grand Canyon.
Environmentalists were thrilled in 1987 when the courts ruled that natural quiet must be restored in the Grand Canyon. A plan was directed to be finished within three years.
Say what? The draft plan released this past week was 20 years overdue.
We aren’t even sure that the draft plan will actually restore the quiet that it is supposed to restore, but we are ready and willing to roll up our sleeves and work with this draft plan.
Las Vegas is taking the claim to being the “Gateway to the Grand Canyon.” We need to cherish this natural resource for all of our visitors, touring by air, ground or water, both now and in the future. There is a long way to go to make sure that the Grand Canyon is treated with the care and respect that it deserves. Environmentalists are eager to engage with the draft plan in a public process with all the players involved.
Jane Feldman
Las Vegas
The writer is conservation chair of the Southern Nevada group of the Sierra Club.
Public responsibilities
To the editor:
Does Nevada’s new governor have any solutions for the elderly, the needy people we see on our streets, and thousands of other people living on the edge in Nevada?
When times get tough, do we make the effort to help the needy, or do we hunker down and lock our doors? What kind of a community are we today?
And while Gov. Brian Sandoval has made no decisions yet, early statements from his aides indicate that services in Nevada will take a mighty hit, especially for older people who live in tiny homes or apartments, existing on meager Social Security payments without cost-of-living adjustments in 2010 and 2011, surviving on senior center low-cost meals.
But what options does the governor have? He faces an excruciating task. But in his choices, people must be central. Nevada must address its budget in an orderly manner and find the political guts to reform our tax system so that we can deal with the responsibilities of government such as Medicaid, education, child care, etc.
GERALD A. SANCHEZ SR.
LAS VEGAS
HOA role
To the editor:
Before the Nevada Legislature goes off the deep end because some homeowners are voicing their dislikes and disdain for the thousands of homeowner associations here in Nevada, please stop and think (“Association rules lead to homeowner march,” Tuesday Review-Journal). Homeowners who bought into HOAs agreed to abide by that community’s rules and regulations. Most HOA boards do understand that they have an obligation to enforce these rules and regulations fairly, equitably and in a timely fashion.
That being said, remember it was the idea of lawmakers, local governments, developers, attorneys and property management companies to establish self-governing HOAs. Ostensibly, this was to better preserve neighborhoods from rapid deterioration, keep property values up and to allow for dispute resolution.
I have lived in many different HOAs for the past 40 years. I’ve been president of two and treasurer in one. Some are well-run and a few are not. There will always be issues, such as how far an HOA executive board can go to enforce property maintenance and parking or what fines can or cannot be assessed. Then there are just plain excessive oversight issues.
Let’s not have the Legislature careen around like lemmings trying to constantly find which cliff to jump off next. There is a huge variation in the size of HOAs, and many times a one-size solution does not fit all. The Legislature needs to strike a balance and also hear from the side of executive board members as to what needs fixing and why.
There is a lot to like and dislike about the current condition of our statutes and some community CC&Rs. They need some housekeeping. But if it were my only choice, I would begin by putting more resources and clout into the ombudsman’s office.
In most instances, very costly dispute resolution should never be elevated to District Court. There should be more focus upon mandatory dispute resolution and the addition of administrative law judges. All this can be paid for by increasing the current $3 per house annual fee to $6. In order to obtain a modicum of sanity, this is a small price to pay for rapid access to more concrete dispute resolution by all those concerned.
Richard Rychtarik
Las Vegas
Not legal
To the editor:
Fernando Romero, president of Hispanics in Politics, has me confused. He recently stated, “We support getting rid of the criminal element, not law-abiding citizens who fall into the net.” Could he please explain how someone who is in the country illegally can be law-abiding. I get it: Only the laws that they want to obey?
If they are here illegally and get arrested, why aren’t they deported?
BRYCE LEE
LAS VEGAS
