January 12, 2007
We had the issue of the 50 year coal-fired electric contract which was attempted to be pushed through under the wire of a new State law. Fortunately there was a huge community reaction to this, with many members commenting at the hearings. Some of the speakers were extremely knowledgeable regarding coal-fired electricity in general and also had studied the proposed contract in detail. Fortunately, our board of directors listened to the quantity and quality of concerns and voted against the staff proposal.
The PUD broadband proposal will once again be discussed at the upcoming PUD meeting, Wednesday, Jan. 17, when the results of the recent telephone poll will be presented. This issue has been on the books for years now. A staff manager was hired at the beginning of this at a substantial salary. Anywhere from $2 million to $4 million of our money has already been spent on this and to put it into operation will cost nearly $30 million. At this time there are a number of broadband alternatives already available to our community provided by private enterprise; which is as it should be. Most of us who want this type of service already have it. This is another idea whose time has come and gone. It needs to be put to rest permanently. Our board needs to be proactive in bringing this chapter to a close and stop pouring good money after bad. There are many more important issues to deal with. What is needed is a strong community response again. Please show up at the upcoming meeting and make your thoughts known.
To write a letter criticizing “corporate media”, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney for praising the service of President Ford is unbelievable (“Lawless legacy,” Sierra Sun Jan. 8). Simply unbelievable.
Except for the fact that this criticism comes once again from the mouth of a liberal who is twisting his opinion around the truth of history. Nowhere in all of the coverage of the president’s death did I hear any mention of praise for the pardon. The praise was due to the uniting power he brought to the office in a time of national need as well a huge measure of integrity, none of which the letter writer shares, to the office of the presidency. In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, as well as Watergate, he brought hope to our country.
Recommended Stories For You
The mentions of the pardons I have heard were either in the form of criticism and a reason he lost his re-election bid which led to one of our greatest national disasters, Jimmy Carter’s presidency, probably one of the writer’s heroes. Oh, and by the way, why didn’t he mention Jimmy Carter’s, Bill Clinton’s or a long list of liberals’ praise for the actions of Gerald Ford in his letter. Just an oversight, huh. Maybe they’re just afraid of being prosecuted for future “war crimes or other wrongdoings that may surface” also. What a bizarre thought process. Well, one of them got a free pass on perjury charges ” I guess that was Ford’s fault. The other got a free pass on just being inept.
A pardon for petty crimes that has the ability to bring a shattered nation together is a just thing. To continue to bring judgment on Ford over 30 years later in such a blatant partisan fashion is not only ridiculous but shows the shallowness of liberal thought as well as their skill at rewriting history. President Gerald Ford was a fine man and a uniter, not a divider like our letter writer. We all, from that generation, owe him a debt of gratitude.
[Editor’s note: The following letter was addressed to Tahoe Truckee Unified School District Superintendent Dennis Williams.]
Hi, my name is Rebecca Berelson, and I am a fifth-grade student at Glenshire Elementary School. I want to be able to talk to my teacher before or after school like usual, but I cant because they are only there at school hours. Can’t you please just let the teachers have contracts so they can stay after school? They can’t do regular good teaching when they don’t have time to prep things.
I hope you do this, so I can thank you for treating teachers with respect.
Last night I attended a TRPA-sponsored public workshop that presented the agency’s shorezone proposal allowing for an additional 230 private piers and 1,862 private buoys over the next 20 years. Listening to the presentation and ensuing discussion, I began to ponder the following question: Why do property owners who live on the shore of Lake Tahoe have a right to build piers and place buoys on public waters that belong to all citizens?
Does your proximity to public property allow you to use that property in a manner denied to others? Should homeowners who live next to a National Forest have a right to extend their decks 150 feet out over Forest Service land and then install one to three stakes (like buoys) to tether their horses (like boats) as far as 350 feet into public land? Isn’t this exactly what has happened and continues to happen at Lake Tahoe?
As is so often the case, we tend to accept situations that have always existed without really giving them much thought. This, coupled with the fact that the same situation exists on many lakes within the U.S. makes us complacent. However, despite the long history of private use of public waters here at Lake Tahoe, as well as elsewhere, it is still wrong.
So, should all private piers and buoys on the lake be eliminated? This obviously won’t happen, but by allowing an additional 230 private piers and 1,862 buoys on an already crowded, congested and an increasingly degraded shorezone, the TRPA is not only condoning, but encouraging, an injustice that benefits a select few at the expense of all others.