Check Out Our Sports Photo Galleries Contact Us
Letters to the Editor
Mar 20, 2011 | 742 views | 0 0 comments | 4 4 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Dear Editor,

Lady Justice must be shedding tears with the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court giving the right to protest to a small group of hate mongers from Kansas. What about the rights of the families who are burying their dead? Don’t they have rights, too?

The Supreme Court could have made an exception to the First Amendment by simply stating that protests could be allowed, except at funerals, memorial services or ceremonies. Instead, they sided with this church which has been spewing such hatred to anyone they do not approve of. Only one Supreme Court justice had the courage to stand up for what is right.

I urge all citizens to take a stand and write, e-mail or call these justices and also to voice your concern to our Legislature in Carson City. I have called all from northern Nevada and asked them to support Assembly Bill 27. I have called the local TV stations and asked them to plead with their listeners to call them also. Pictures and phone numbers of all these legislators are available online at www.leg.state.nv.us. Please protect the families who want to bury their loved ones with dignity.

Shirley Bertschinger

Sparks

Dear Editor,

Good job, Sparks City Council! You’ve corrected a previous bad — illegal — decision. On Feb. 28, the council voted to detach (deannex) two parcels in the East Truckee River Canyon, noncontiguous (nonadjoining) to the city of Sparks that the city had annexed in 2009.

The city of Sparks staff and the Sparks Planning Commission had recommended against annexation back in 2009 because a land use plan was not completed and adopted, and the appropriate infrastructure (city facilities and services) was not in place.

NRS 268.6255 states that land annexed by a city must be contiguous unless “… the services and facilities required for the development of the land … will be provided upon annexation.” The developer admitted that this provision of the law had not been met. Additionally, a city of Sparks staff report in November 2009 considering the second annexation states that “the requirements of the (Truckee Meadows) Regional Plan regarding concurrency (of infrastructure) have not been satisfied.”

A fiscal analysis, after the annexation, concludes that “The city (of Sparks) runs the risk of a negative fiscal impact” and “it will be difficult to achieve revenue neutrality” with development of developable acres in the Canyon.

City Council: What were you thinking?

Robbin Palmer

Reno
Comments
(0)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet
Featured Businesses