Letters to the Editor Sept. 26

Editor:

The board of the Carson Valley Swim Center decided to lock the handicap bathrooms to all but a select few. This was due to complaints relating to a couple of patrons that took over an hour to use these bathrooms. They decided that unless a person's disabilities require a wheelchair, walker, a quad cane, or an assistant, you did not qualify to use these special restrooms. The center's study suggests that there are about 13 people a day who are qualified to use them; however, they are never there at the same time.

The board stated that these rooms were built just for the chosen few. However, the previous board did not have locks on the doors nor did the previous board have such strict requirements.

This decision has been pushed through by one of the board members whose husband is in a wheelchair. Unfortunately this board member has used her influence to limit the use of public property specifically in the interests of her husband. Also, unfortunately, the board did not consider the people who had other disabilities such as handicap due to age, back, hip, knee, neck problems, arthritis, MS, or other debilitating handicaps of which do not fall into the board's chosen restrictions.

During the early hours of the day many handicapped people patronize the pool for physical therapy, extended therapy, ball exercise class, water aerobics, and lap swimming. Between 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. we have kept track of the restricted use of these bathrooms. In this time we are lucky if we see two or three people using them. So other handicapped people who need access to these bathrooms are locked out and forced to use facilities that do not accommodate our handicaps.

ADA Title 111: Public Accommodations states, "Public accommodations must comply with basic nondiscrimination requirements that prohibit exclusion, segregation, and unequal treatment. They also must comply with specific requirements related to architectural standards for new and altered buildings; reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures; effective communication with people with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities; and other access requirements. Additionally, public accommodations must remove barriers in existing buildings where it is easy to do so without much difficulty or expense, given the public accommodation's resources."

Instead of dealing with the people who abused the rooms the board chose to close, lock, and limit the use to just a specific few. The board used our tax dollars for these select few, there are over 1,200 to 1,300 people a day who use this facility during the busy season and 200 to 300 people a day in the slow season. This problem has been going on for six months, it has been discussed at every board meeting, and public concern has been voiced at every board meeting. This board has ignored basic nondiscrimination requirements and based their decision on the biased interest of one of their own.

Carmen Bowman

Minden

Editor:

It is interesting that the last school bond that passed in 1992 was for approximately $29 million and built two new elementary schools, a new middle school and made significant additions to Douglas High School. Now we have a new school bond proposal that is for approximately $40 million, which does not include the addition of one new school.

With declining enrollment, the district has lost approximately 600 students in the last eight years.

It really makes no sense to propose a $40 million bond issue that is dominated by maintenance projects.

That seems particularly true given the state of the economy where businesses and individuals are struggling to survive. This bond proposal should be defeated.

Lynn Michelle

Minden

Editor:

As the grant writer for Tahoe Youth & Family Services, I have the privilege of writing grants and working with foundations to support the health and wellness of Douglas County youth. We would like to thank the Kidview, Inc. Fund at the Community Foundation of Western Nevada for awarding Tahoe Youth & Family Services a $15,000 grant to support the Douglas County Drop-in Resource Center.

This grant supports the "out of the box" programs and services provided for youth in a safe, comfortable and youth-friendly environment. This facility is youth-driven and youth-led; meaning that teens give us input as to what their needs are and what activities they are interested in. We value the diverse and eclectic youth culture that is present today.

A strong partnership with the Kidview, Inc. Fund at the Community Foundation of Western Nevada will enable Tahoe Youth & Family Services to enhance programs and provide additional resources for teens accessing the drop-in center. Together we will create positive changes in attitudes and behaviors among youth in our community. The drop-in center is located at 791 Tillman in the Gardnerville Ranchos. Stop by 2-8 p.m. Wednesday-Sunday to find out about upcoming activities, events and services.

Cindy Schemenauer

Grant Development Coordinator

Tahoe Youth &Family Services

Gardnerville

Editor:

I've been thinking about the qualities women bring to the political table lately as there are six women running for various offices here in Douglas County, a number of others throughout the state and we just about had a female presidential nominee and have a vice presidential running mate.

We are all familiar with what today can only be labeled as a much skewed (with certainty there are far stronger descriptives ... try crazy) social psychology so embarrassingly and recently broken through in American history. Women are with certainty as intelligent as men and with today's array of male political participants that is an understatement. I don't believe it can be argued that the majority of women on the planet place a caring nature as their primary world view. Were that not true us guys would probably be far less in number. Can we contrast their nature with the general male countenance of competition and dominance? Which gender most naturally sustains and promotes the higher human qualities of love, respect, caring and peace that we all wish not only for ourselves and our families but for humanity in general? Think...your mom, your grandma or your loving wife. World history, as much as we can trust its view, since the victor always writes it, attests to a not-so-brilliant male-dominated path to the much vaunted common social goal of peace and tranquility.

I would also submit that when the human condition becomes crowded, chaotic, economically distraught and obviously confused, as describes much of what we are experiencing around us today, males begin speaking to "looking after, taking care of" and "nurturing" changes, new ideas and socially redeeming activities. Borrowing a bit of material maybe? What gender is most naturally equipped to bring insight and spontaneous response to these concepts? I submit that females, given the magic wand of power and influence are most inclined by their gifts from Mother Nature, and in mere reflex, to engender cooperation and a motivation towards healing our current deep and divisive human ills.

I do not propose a blanket vote for females by far, but what I do purport is that in these perilous times our society could use a huge dose of female intelligence and insight at all levels of government. Let's elect a bunch of them and begin a more peaceful in potential human experience.

Christopher Lunn

Minden

Editor:

I'm not an economist (I'm actually a retired nuclear scientist) and the reasons behind the events of the past few years escape me.

President Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. During the first six years, the economy was strong.

1. Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high, but we were importing more than we exported. The national debt was growing.

2. Regular gasoline sold for about $2.25 a gallon, but even then we were importing more oil than we produced.

3. The unemployment rate was a low 4.5 percent (in previous administrations, considered "full employment").

4. The Dow hit record highs.

5. Americans were living large and personal debt was growing.

In 2006, Americans wanted change, and they voted in a Democrat Congress. Other than an increase in the minimum wage, I am unaware that any of the other "significant goals for the first 100 days of the session" have been passed.

In the past year:

1. Consumer confidence has plummeted.

2. Gasoline soared to more than $4 a gallon and is still above $3.50. There is still no policy in place to address development of, and production increases in, all possible sources of domestic energy " adding jobs and reducing dependence on unreliable sources. Congress, with the fantastic retirement and medical plans they voted for themselves, took a vacation rather than working to solve this (Remember, the responsibility for developing and passing laws is vested in the legislative branch of government).

3. Americans have seen the equity in their homes drop by more than $10 trillion, caused in part by loans that could not be repaid -1 percent of American homes are in foreclosure.

4. Unemployment has increased 10 percent and still climbing.

5. As I write this, the Dow is probing another low (below 11,000) and more than $2.5 trillion have evaporated from stocks, bonds, and mutual funds investment portfolios.

As a registered and voting Republican, I ask:

1. Are the above-mentioned events a coincidence, or is there a cause and effect? If the latter, who/what is responsible for the cause and who is responsible to the American citizens to fix it?

2. Wherein lies the oversight responsibility for the home mortgage and other financial institutions? Why do CEOs of failed organizations receive millions of dollars in golden parachutes?

3. Why is President Bush still taking all the heat? There is plenty to go around. How can it still be Bush's fault when the "do nothing" Congress, not fulfilling its constitutionally-mandated responsibilities in a timely manner, has even a lower rating? What are the responsibilities of the "silent majority?"

4. Who is "minding the store?"

As voters, we should look carefully to ensure that the "change" we vote for does not plunge our country into deeper economic and/or national security problems.

Carleton "Bing" Bingham, Ph.D.

Gardnerville

Editor:

The words "free market" and "laissez-faire market" have been thrown around to justify any and all actions to deregulate by Alan Greenspan, Phil Gramm, George Bush and John McCain. We are now seeing the impact of deregulation with the collapse of our financial markets.

To no surprise the Republican leadership and the McCain campaign are trying to lay the blame for our financial crisis at the foot of the Democratic controlled Congress who have been the majority party in Congress since January of 2007. The facts are:

1. The Republican party is the party of deregulation not the Democratic party.

2. The current Democratic majority in Congress is not large enough to override a presidential veto (requires two-thirds vote) or to overcome a Senate filibuster (which requires 60 votes).

3. By the end of Bush's term the Republicans will have controlled the White House for 20 of the last 28 years.

4. Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress from 1995 through 2006 and the Senate from 1981 through 1986.

The McCain campaign is telling the American public that John McCain is best qualified to lead us out of this crisis. The same John McCain who:

1. Supported his party's platform of deregulation for 26 years.

2. Was a member of the Keating Five, a major scandal during the S&L Crisis.

3. Has been telling us that the "fundamentals of our economy are strong," similar words used by another Republican, Herbert Hoover before the Great Depression.

4. Economic advisor, Phil Gramm, who told us we were a country of whiners.

5. Supported Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. A plan that had Republicans been successful in passing would have potentially lost the American worker a quarter of our social security contributions in the failing markets.

We need to determine if we want to vote for a candidate who, with this party, created this crisis with their deregulation platforms, i.e. put the fox in charge of the hen house again or vote for a candidate who has the leadership and plan to lead us out of our economic crisis.

Irene Gutierrez

Gardnerville

Editor:

John O'Neill, I'm sure is a very nice person. I have to respond to his indignant "Swift Boaters Strike Again" letter in The R-C of Sept. 19. Fact: While Sen. Obama was a member of the Illinois State Legislature he voted yes on SB 99 which passed on March 6, 2003. This Comprehensive Sex Education Act was sponsored by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. The bill unequivocally contains a provision for sex education for Kindergarten children and then on up to grade 12. The entire bill can be viewed on the Internet. So draw your own conclusions regarding Sen. McCain's ad.

Dick Sigerist

Gardnerville

Editor:

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding Sen. Obama's tax proposals for individuals. Here in a nutshell from his Web site and the Los Angeles Times is what he is proposing if elected president:

Create a new "making work pay" tax credit of up t $500 per person or $1,000 per working family. The "making work pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans!

Eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year.

Provide a $500 "making work pay" tax credit for self-employed small business owners for each worker in their employ. Self-employed small business owners pay both the employee and employer side of the payroll tax and this measure will reduce the burdens of this double taxation.

As to the taxation of capital gains and dividends, he proposes the following;

Eliminate all capital gains taxes on start-up and small businesses to encourage innovation and job creation.

Families with incomes below $250,000 would pay current capital gains rates (a maximum tax of 15 percent on gains on assets held more than one year). Those earning more than $250,000 would face an increase to a top rate of 20 percent.

The top dividend rate would remain the current 15 percent for those earning less than $250,000, but would rise to 20 percent for those earning above $250,000.

For single persons, the tax increases above would apply to those earning more than $200,000.

Please go to http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/ for more details on the Obama/Biden tax plan.

Don't believe the McCain/Palin commercials claiming that Obama will raise your taxes. It is just not true for the vast majority of Americans.

Homer Boone

Gardnerville