Police apathy doesn’t help auto theft rate
To the editor:
I am not a psychic — although when Las Vegas was ranked No. 2 in car thefts last year, I predicted that the next time they did a count, we would be No. 1. The headline in Tuesday’s Review-Journal proved me right.
Exactly one year ago, I had my car stolen from valet parking at a Strip hotel. And even though I dealt with law enforcement personnel who supposedly do nothing but handle stolen car cases, they did very little to assist me.
I was lied to by police on more than one occasion. I was told that police search for stolen cars, and yet one month after it disappeared, it was a citizen who reported my car parked illegally about a mile from where it was stolen. The licence plates had been removed, all the locks (doors, trunk and ignition) had been “punched out,” and the car was filthy. It should have been obvious that the vehicle was “out of place” and abandoned.
It was also on a well-traveled street but never noticed by the police. There were clues inside the car that might have led to the thief. The police were not interested in following up on any of them.
I believe that “Las Vegas’ finest” consider car theft to be a nuisance crime and something to be handled between the victim and her insurance company. That is one reason why insurance rates are so high in Las Vegas.
And because so few of the criminals are tracked down and prosecuted, the rate of stolen cars in this area is high. Things will not improve here until these types of crimes are investigated and the criminals found and prosecuted. Planting “bait cars” may help but they will not solve the problem. Prison time might.
Esther Lynn
LAS VEGAS
More informed
To the editor:
Richard Nocilla’s Monday letter proposes that we continue to elect our judges, and that we shouldn’t change to a judicial appointment process. OK, but the sample election ballot should include various legal/judicial performance parameters for each of the candidates, which is not now the case.
This would permit the voters to make a much better-informed decision.
Ken Reim
LAS VEGAS
Liquid gold
To the editor:
Between planned and current construction, Las Vegas is expected to gain an additional 45,000 hotel rooms in the next few years.
The city and the county have seen fit to approve this construction despite a looming water shortage.
Meanwhile, we are given dire predictions of shortages, even with the prospect of acquiring more water from rural Nevada. A further graphic indication of the problem is to watch the shoreline of Lake Mead, which is at a historic low.
Las Vegas residents are being pressed to use less water, even after water rates have increased and many of us have taken conservation measures, such as removing our lawns.
How can local government justify this incredible expansion of water-consuming commercial development when we can’t even be assured that current residents and business entities will continue to have adequate water resources?
Eric Stefik
LAS VEGAS
Light duty
To the editor:
Memo to Las Vegas Valley traffic control engineers: Who is in charge of regulating the traffic signals at Las Vegas intersections?
There is absolutely no logic in our traffic control. Go to any other city and the left-turn arrows work simultaneously, i.e., both lanes of oncoming traffic go left at the same time for the same amount of time. Green arrow off, all other lanes move at the same time. But at every red light in the valley, it’s a crap shoot on when green arrows or red lights come on and for how long.
Why not make left-turn and red-light times all standard?
Greg Tischhauser
LAS VEGAS
In public
To the editor:
The examples of potentially illegal acts you cited in your Monday editorial opposing Sen. Barbara Cegavske’s video voyeurism bill were really quite ridiculous.
One was Marilyn Monroe’s picture atop the air grate. That picture was a still from the movie “The Seven Year Itch” — and was, in fact, the principal publicity item for the film.
As for Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction,” it occurred during the Super Bowl, the most widely viewed national television event of the year.
In neither case could it remotely be thought that Ms. Monroe or Ms. Jackson had a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Clearly, the exact opposite was the case: Maximum publicity was being actively sought, so nothing relating to privacy could be anticipated.
BOB LEBENSON
LAS VEGAS
