Candidate throwing mud in City Council race

To the editor:

Having read political mailers here in the valley for more than 40 years, I was recently appalled at the vicious and deceitful attack on former state Sen. Bob Coffin by Adriana Martinez. (Both are seeking the Las Vegas City Council seat in Ward 3.)

I personally attended the debate in which Ms. Martinez suggested that in spite of the fact that we have a Constitution, men who are near playgrounds or schools should be profiled by police to see if they have a prior record (as pedophiles).

In response, Bob Coffin noted that we do have a Constitution and people have rights, even pedophiles have certain rights, and people can’t just be picked up off the streets and arrested.

I would think that most good citizens would agree that we can’t go around arresting people just because they look suspicious.

She also accused Mr. Coffin of being pro-prostitute because he said as a public official he must open the door to all kinds of conversations, even to those people who want to discuss brothels. He then commented that they are illegal in Clark County and he didn’t see that being changed.

Ms. Martinez has twisted those comments around in those mailers in a vulgar suggestion that Mr. Coffin takes pedophilia lightly and is in favor of brothels in our neighborhoods. Those are vicious lies, misconstruing his words on purpose.

KERIN RODGERS

LAS VEGAS

On the hook

To the editor:

Those behind the various arena proposals keep saying that they would not require any public money for their projects. But now they are telling legislators in Carson City that if enough revenue is not generated by the stadium to pay the bills, they would need public money to pay expenses.

All money required for the construction and maintenance of the arenas should be secured and put in a trust before any building can proceed.

They tout how many jobs will be generated if the arena is built, but what happens if the goose never lays the “golden egg”? It becomes another burden on the taxpayer.

Paul Slaughter

Las Vegas

Union interests

To the editor:

Your Thursday editorial, “Governor didn’t get much on education,” highlights for Nevada voters the need to let state legislators know they have finished letting teacher union interests, as opposed to the interests of schoolchildren, hold sway over education reform in the state.

As your editorial points out, teachers receive tenure after one year of teaching, and it is extraordinarily difficult to fire bad teachers afterward. Very few other professions offer this sort of job security, and it hurts the interests of kids because they are then stuck with whatever teachers manage to make it past one year rather than the best teachers keeping their jobs through several years of proven excellence.

Gov. Brian Sandoval can’t do it alone. He has a lot of power, but it’s rightfully checked by the other branches of Nevada government. Voters and parents need to start paying attention to which policies will create the best and brightest future for Nevada’s kids, and electing representatives who will join the governor in working toward that goal.

Joy Pullmann

Washington, D.C.

The writer is an education policy research fellow with the Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit research and education organization that promotes free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

School savings

To the editor:

In response to the recent letter, “School reform”:

The writer argues that to reduce education spending we should: eliminate all school busing; eliminate all “special” language classes, except Chinese, German, French, etc.; eliminate all “free or subsidized” food programs, unless you can prove you are homeless; and get rid of the school police.

First, there are many students who have no other means of getting to school than riding a school bus. If we eliminate transportation, that will save money, as they will no longer be able to attend school.

Second, by all means continue secondary languages other than Spanish. Then the children who need this class wouldn’t come to school — another great budget saver. I wonder at whom this “elimination” is directed?

Third, we certainly wouldn’t want to feed any child who is hungry … unless he can prove he is living in the streets! The meals provided at schools are possibly the only food the child gets that day. But they all could drop out of school and find jobs to feed themselves … another way to save taxpayer money.

Finally, yes we must definitely eliminate the school police. Then those who are harmed by the violence in today’s school enviroment, or those who feel schools are no longer safe, will not attend school — another great savings to the taxpayer.

As usual, those who are in need the most are the ones continually asked to sacrifice, when they are ones who have the least to sacrifice. Most of the best solutions come from people who are not hungry, have a home and are employed.

Melody Pink

Las Vegas