Letters to the editor for May 6
On April 23 at the Soroptimist meeting, I spoke in opposition to Measure A, the school district ballot proposition that would create an $87 million bond debt. The debt would have a life of 35 to 40 years, an obligation which would tie the hands of the school district and community. There would be fewer options in the future.
Measure A is flawed because, according to text of the measure, under the heading “Tax Rate Statement,” voters are directed “… to the fact that the foregoing information is based upon the District’s projections and estimates only, which are not binding upon the District.”
Under the heading “Bond Project List,” the text says that “approval of this bond measure does not guarantee that the proposed project or projects in the District that are the subject of bonds under the measure will be funded beyond the local revenues generated by the measure.” Thus, there may not be state funds to support the measure.
Also, the text says, “repair, renovate and expand existing facilities within the district, including but not limited to, some or all of the following … .” It appears that Measure A is open-ended, vague and very elastic. If there is approval of the measure, we should concisely and exactly know what the $87 million will be spent on. As it stands, Measure A is a pig in a poke.
And there is an absurdity attached to Measure A. The district’s “argument in favor of Measure A” is signed by Ed McCarthy, who lives in Nevada. The argument lists five signatures. It appears that the district couldn’t get the fifth signature from a registered voter who lives in the district.
Finally, the basic question: Will Measure A produce better public education? Considering the past performance of the district, it is doubtful. And for the dreamers on the school board, the vision is in the details. We need clear details, not James Tarwater’s smorgasbord.
South Lake Tahoe
I am writing in support of Janis Brand’s letter to the editor on April 25, entitled “Thoughts on Bush, war, more.” Her critique covered issues important to all voters. It was concise, yet comprehensive. I applaud her excellent effort.
Her point-by-point examination and retort to Charles Jensen echoes mine. Her facts are indisputable, and her analysis deserves close scrutiny by everyone. I urge all readers to take a second look and assume an objective stance on these otherwise divisive issues. In doing so, you will better grasp the meaning of Janis Brand’s well-crafted views.
It’s time to recognize that the path of the elitist left (Barack Obama included) is to trash our sovereignty and absorb us into a socialized world. Socialism, as defined by Marxism, is considered to be a transitional step to communism. To think otherwise is “head in the sand.”
South Lake Tahoe
I don’t understand the gas prices. When crude oil goes up in price per barrel, our gas prices increase immediately at the pumps. The gas station didn’t pay that extra price when they bought the gas, but we have to pay as if they did. Then, when the price of crude oil goes down (this hasn’t happened in a while), we don’t see the lower price at the pumps. Now, I am reading that profits for oil companies are at record highs again.
Since the American economy is doing so poorly, I would think that nobody’s profit should be setting record highs! How can our government allow this to happen? Record profits!
South Lake Tahoe