LETTERS: Ride Genie falls far short of Uber

To the editor:

The Nevada Taxicab Authority is now introducing Ride Genie, an answer to using Uber (“More expensive than Uber but legal, Ride Genie comes to Las Vegas,” March 16 Review-Journal). Well, the Taxi Authority is still far from being Uber, and Nevadans need Uber just as much as the authority needs competition.

I cannot stand the taxi drivers who will fret if the tip isn’t large enough, or if the call is for someone in a distant residential area, or if a customer questions why a certain route is being taken. Let’s face it, cabdrivers’ bread and butter is the airport, the Strip and the strip clubs, period. Let them concentrate on those areas.

I’ve used Uber in the San Francisco Bay Area and have had nothing but great and economical service. Ride Genie will add a $3 service charge, plus a $3 credit card use fee, then tack on an extra 20 percent tip as a default setting. A $25 fare will cost $37. How slick.

Wake up, Las Vegas. Using Uber will only cost you the actual fare. No tip and no service fees. I’ve waited three to six minutes on average for an Uber car and have had pleasant conversations with the variety of drivers I’ve encountered. In Las Vegas, I have waited more than an hour for a cab — if one shows up at all. Plus, there’s the extra money the average citizen can make on his own terms, driving for Uber.

The Taxi Authority is trying to instill fear in the public about safety issues — that Uber drivers are illegal, criminal, uninsured, untrained, etc. Come on, the majority of cabdrivers in Las Vegas aren’t even from this country, and I can’t even understand the English of some of them. Should we fear that? It’s time to remove the monopoly these companies have in our great city.

RICK RIO

HENDERSON

Stadium spending

To the editor:

The next time the city of Las Vegas has a plan for the development of the 13-acre parcel near Symphony Park, and is prepared to spend a bucket of money on would-be developers and public relations and economic development consultants, I have an idea that will save them a bundle (“Failed stadium costs city,” March 19 Review-Journal). Instead of employing the same bunch as on the soccer stadium project, they can hire me. I will do it for a lot less than the $2.5 million spent on the stadium, and I am confident I can deliver the same result.

JOE BILETT

LAS VEGAS

U.S.-Iran deal

To the editor:

The negotiations between the U.S. and Iran on Iran’s nuclear program all center on the repeated “fact” that Iran says it has no intention of developing a nuclear weapon. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, even issued a fatwa against such development. Why am I not as trusting as President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry seem to be on the integrity and intentions of the Ayatollah, who just recently issued another “death to America” speech?

Why is it that 42 other nations have nuclear power generating facilities, and not one of them has felt the need to enrich uranium for “peaceful” purposes?

But if you really want to look into the obvious reason behind Iran’s nuclear program, then look no further than its nonnegotiable insistence that there be no restriction on Iran’s ability to continue with the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Such missiles are capable of delivering a payload anywhere in the world (including the U.S.), are extremely expensive and not particularly effective in delivering a conventional weapon of any magnitude. They are primarily designed for one thing — to deliver a weapon of mass destruction on populated areas (for example, a nuclear weapon).

If a final “agreement” allows unfettered development of an Iranian ballistic missile, then I guess we can ask ourselves whether this president and secretary of state are that naive, or are they merely counting on the American public being that stupid? Better yet, ask your children. They’ll likely bear the brunt of this buffoonery.

J.J. SCHRADER

HENDERSON

Unemployment insurance

To the editor:

I disagree with Jeff Bell’s commentary that ending extended unemployment insurance payouts is what led to the job rebound (“Republicans deserve credit for rebound,” March 20 Review-Journal). I first say that the entire premise centers around not facts, but arguments by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative group.

There isn’t one fact to support the idea that when you take away benefits from the unemployed, they will then go out and get a job. There’s no mention that the jobs and the economy — which creates jobs in the first place — needs to want the employees. None of Mr. Bell’s argument centers around how many people are collecting benefits. Ending my benefits did not make a job miraculously appear.

This goes back to the Mitt Romney view about the dependent 47 percent. It is false and insulting. Most people want to work, if for no other reason than that you can’t survive on unemployment benefits. So the notion we are sitting home being lazy while collecting benefits is silly.

A do-nothing Congress did not make the job scene better, and for the Review-Journal to print a commentary of opinions presented as facts is only serving the newspaper’s editorial view, not reality.

HARVEY HIRSCH

LAS VEGAS