Should Town Portrait have been on Sunday?
To the editor:
I think taking a picture of Truckee’s residents of year 2000 was a great idea. I was somewhat disappointed, however, that the organizers of the Truckee Town photo chose noon on Sunday to take the picture.
I know there was no perfect time for something like this, and people would be left out whenever it was scheduled. It just seems sad to me that it was scheduled at the time when so many God-fearing members of our community would be unable to attend because they were gathering together to worship the living God; the very One from whom all blessings flow. I have lived in Truckee for 25 years, and raised my family here. I would have loved to have been there for the picture. There were a couple of hundred or so people in our congregation, many of whom may have liked to have been in the picture also; and that’s just one church of many in our town.
I doubt seriously that the picture taken in 1900 was shot at noon on a Sunday. If it was taken on a Sunday, I bet it was after everyone got out of church.
Pastor Brian Larson
Calvary Chapel of Truckee
Jesus would have come to Town Portrait
To the editor:
The following is a response to criticism by a section of religious people in Truckee who felt that the Town Photo should not have been held on Sunday.
Jesus on many occasions took the opportunity of public gatherings to address the crowds and add to his disciples. Many of those gatherings were held on religious Jewish holidays (holy days) i.e.: Passover, Purim, Festival of Booths etc. God Himself chose the Jewish festival of Pentecost to baptize his believers with the Holy Spirit (the beginning of the Christian Church). Most, if not all of these, opportunities that Jesus took were protested and condemned by the Pharisees. These Pharisees were “practicing” Jews who spent their lives reading, studying, and interpreting the Biblical Laws to their advantage.
Jesus Christ taught us, by example, that making disciples was far more important than locking himself in a building on the Sabbath and interpreting laws. Jesus Christ would have been at the Town Photo. There is no way that He would have passed up the opportunity to mingle with and minister to the 7,000 people gathered there. I am sorry for and disturbed that so many “practicing” Christians chose not to follow the lead of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Town of Truckee
Truckee is no longer a quiet little town
To the Editor:
I read Katie Shaffer’s column “Life in our Mountain Town” (Sun, 9/21) with interest, and a great deal of regret as well, because life in “our mountain town” is changed.
In the good old days, the time before stoplights in Truckee, I really enjoyed going to the post office, or the grocery store. I would purposely allow an extra half hour or so just to socialize with friends and neighbors.
Now, I have to allow an extra half hour just to get to my destination, find a place to park, and wait in lines with hordes of people I’ve never seen before.
I’m sorry to sound like an old curmudgeon who is stuck in the past, but many of the endearing qualities which brought me to Truckee are quickly fading away. Still, there are many joys to treasure here. I will cherish my gifts, be more sociable, and try to adapt to the times…. So, dude, how’s your portfolio doing? Where do you take your Lexus for service? Hey, is that the new palm pilot from…..
Changes for area counseling service staff
To the Editor:
Truckee Group Individual and Family Counseling (T.G.I.F.) would like to thank Suzanne Prouty for her five years of service to T.G.I.F. Counseling Center. She has resigned as Executive Director at T.G.I.F. to attend graduate school at Pacific University. Her dedication and direction has enabled T.G.I.F. to experience growth and success in the community.
Suzanne’s energy, enthusiasm and skills has provided T.G.I.F. with grant moneys from state and county agencies as well as local service clubs. Her ability to network with community and human services agencies has allowed T.G.I.F. to become an invaluable resource in the community. Suzanne’s ability to provide creative program development and implementation of needed mental health and substance abuse services has enabled T.G.I.F. to fill in the gaps in services.
Suzanne: Thank you for your time, energy and commitment to T.G.I.F. Your dedication to a healthier community, families and children is appreciated and valued. You will be missed. Good luck!
Jennifer Cannell has replaced Suzanne Prouty as Executive Director. Jennifer has been providing social services in the community through her work at Tahoe Women’s Services and Nevada County Child Protective Services. Jennifer looks forward to being a part of T.G.I.F. Counseling Center’s continued success.
The primary purpose of Truckee Group Individual and Family counseling Center is to provide quality, low cost counseling and substance abuse services to the community. T.G.I.F. is here to help children, adults, and families deal more effectively with the many problems and stresses that occur at school, home and work.
T.G.I.F. is located at 10977 Spring Lane, Truckee, Calif., 96161.
Feel free to contact us at 582-4616.
An inclusive Airport Board is needed
To the editor:
I read with interest the front page article “Airport Noise” by Darin Olde and the letter by Bob Marshall, Airport District Director (Sun, 9/14). The reason I am volunteering to help get “three community at large” new board members elected is precisely because I believe the Truckee Airport is a wonderful asset to this community.
Over the last two years the airport’s response to my questions, suggestions for noise abatement efforts, and complaints, including two face-to-face meetings with the then-Airport Manager, Mr. Soderquist, left me feeling we had a community airport unable, or unwilling to look for, proactive solutions to the increasing airport use issues, including noise.
I believe we need an inclusive Airport Board who looks at us residents of Truckee (who have been willing to come forward with information, suggestions) as partners in this community versus “complainers,” and I’m wondering how many of the residents who feel impacted by the airport noise are on the Noise Abatement Committee.
Allison Pratt Shelling
Negative tactics used by Airport candidates
To the editor:
The three candidates for the airport board that have banded together, besides being non-pilots and lacking knowledge of how important an airport is to a community, have also been the principal complainers of what they call, “airplane noise.” By his own words, the husband of one of the candidates, at a recent board meeting, ended his conversation with, “Well I guess we will have to close the airport.”
Let us for a minute talk about the benefits of an airport. The economic impact of added value, has been established to be around $21 million a year, both directly and indirectly. The board has asked Dr. Lee McFedders of the University of Arizona College of Business to qualify this, because we believe it to be even greater. Then there are the taxes it generates, the payroll it provides to employees, the fees and rents it collects and the businesses it attracts.
The services it provides to the community for police, fire prevention and ambulance are well-documented. When the Truckee River flooded and our community and Reno Airport were underwater, all emergencies were taken care of through our airport. Finally, nationwide it is a known fact that communities that have an airport
have greater appreciation in real estate values that those who do not. The brochure handed down by the three candidates is so full of misrepresentation and misinformation, that if it were not damaging to a community that has had a fine quality facility for 50 years, it would be laughable.
We, as citizens of this country, have grown old hearing candidates throw mud at each other in the misguided belief that in making the other person look bad, they in turn would look good.
The voting public is tired of these tactics and if these candidates have anything against the airport except their fear of flying or their anger at themselves for purchasing property close to an airport, then their campaign is personal and not beneficial to our community. By the way, “bad” noise is bad, and to this effect we have organized a committee that has addressed the issue and has given recommendations to the board, so that they in turn can recommend to all local and visiting pilots, procedures that will make them fly quieter and friendlier.
Finally in an editorial they ask, “Why should the board be composed of pilots?” This is at best ludicrous. The five current members of the board are very accomplished in their own professions. When administrators make decisions for our children, instead of our qualified teachers; when business people administer HMOs and decide on health for you instead of your doctor; when politicians butt-in with the real defenders of our country, we inevitably get bad results.
An airport should be run by knowledgeable people, who have taken their time and money to become informed and educated, and not by a trio of educated individuals who, unfortunately, do not know the difference between one airplane and another.
Airport impact may be inflated
To the editor:
As a Truckee resident who has had family members fly into the local airport for weekend visits, I can certainly appreciate the convenience of having such a facility nearby. The airport’s current directors need to realize, however, that airport operations – especially take-offs – indeed have noise impacts on nearby residential areas, and they should add Olympic Heights (and, soon, the residential component of PC-2) to the list of neighborhoods pilots routinely fly over at low altitude.
As for the airport representing a “tremendous regional asset,” as stated by a recent letter-writer, such an assessment is clearly open for debate. Given the proximity of the Reno airport, and given the relatively small number of flights served at Truckee, my professional hunch is that a methodologically rigorous analysis of the Truckee facility’s economic and fiscal benefits will find that these are modest at best, perhaps even insignificant, to both the town and the surrounding service area.
Frankly, I am disappointed with the overly-defensive attitude taken by airport supporters in their letters to the editor of this paper. Opposing letters indicate residents have legitimate complaints regarding noise. Unfortunately, I for one have paid insufficient attention to the airport debate, and this is probably true for a number of other voters.
It’d be a service to all of us if the airport’s management could describe the substantive steps it is taking to identify and reduce significant noise impacts now experienced by the community.
Airport fees not comparable to other areas
To the editor:
Every time I travel on a major airline I pay a $10 fee for the airport tax. I do not know how this money is used. Nevertheless, I pay it every time I fly.
Michael Golden asserted in his letter that since he pays property tax on his plane he is entitled to free landing, parking and $4 overnight stay at the Truckee airport. Our son pays property tax for his home in the Bay Area. That has not entitled us to park for free in the streets of San Francisco.
I wonder why Mr. Golden, a knowledgeable pilot and owner of a plane, did not compare Truckee to Telluride in Colorado. Had he done that he would have known that Telluride charges a landing fee of $1 per 1,000 pounds of aircraft, has a tie-down fee of $8 for single engine, $16 for multi-engine and $20+ for jets. In addition there is a charge of $50 per night for single engine, $75 a night for multi-engine planes and $150 a night for jets.
Mr. Golden, please let’s compare apples with apples and not apples with oranges. I may be a female, but not that nave as you assert.
Incumbents are insulting and rude to voters
To the editor:
It is amazing that Robert Marshall of the Truckee Tahoe Airport District was able to make so many foolish statements in one edition of the paper. In the article (Sun, 9/14) “Airport Noise,” Mr. Marshall says “It seems obvious, but sometimes people don’t understand that planes have to be low to land.”
Was that meant to be an insult to those of us that feel we shouldn’t have to endure the abusive noise and activity of a few individuals?
Or better yet, “Complainers and bad pilots are never going to go away, that’s a fact of life.” So we’re just complaining to hear ourselves talk? And guess what, “bad pilots” should go away! Why should the residents put up with incompetent pilots?
Before Mr. Marshall feels cause to respond, let me explain. The landing field directed toward Glenshire makes a direct line approach over the residential area above the cliff. While our local glider pilots have the skill and good conscience to approach out over Airport Flat and turn 30 degrees when they get lined up, the rest of the “incompetent” pilots strafe the homes, children, and residents in an effort to take a direct path and not be forced to actually fly and turn.
Then Mr. Marshall had the opportunity to take a sarcastic shot at Parvin Darabi in the editorial section in response to a suggestion that pilots pay for the expenses of the airport. In response to a landing tax, Mr. Marshall said it would take two persons to count the planes landing on two runways, a billing clerk, and office support. There are two points here. One, unless we are hiring the incompetent pilots to use their fingers and toes to count, and then require back up staff to help, one person could easily do that job. Two, the requirement alone suggests that the airport keeps no records at all as to who is using our airport.
Note that the two “Letters to the editor” [supporting the airport] were from weekenders, not residents. Finally, to your suggestion that we pave the airport for a Wal-Mart, how about turning the airport into a baseball/soccer park so that parents with more than one child don’t have to drive all over the town to see more than one game? But that’s another story.
Drug testing will not solve problems
To the editor:
In the Sept. 14 article concerning drug testing for athletes, some incorrect views were expressed. It is not true that, “coaches and players are in favor (of drug testing).” Has anyone asked the players their views?
Subjecting athletes to testing isn’t going to solve any of the problems that parents and administrators are so concerned about. It’s been shown that kids who are more involved in extracurricular activities are less likely to get in trouble. After you drug test all the athletes and get rid of all the drug users,
what will you do then? What will have been solved? Parents who are so concerned about their kids using drugs need to stop depending on the school to do things for them. The school provides us with an education; you teach us morals.
The theory in our country is that someone is innocent until proven guilty, but in our situation it is the complete opposite. The administrators and some parents are making the assumption that athletes are the students who are causing problems. Not only is the drug testing an infringement on our personal rights, it’s a prejudice towards only a portion of the student body.
Another point the article made was that the Supreme Court ruled only athletes could be tested because participating in sports while under the influence could be dangerous to our health. My contention however is that, kicking a soccer ball under the influence is no more dangerous than a student using a saw in woodshop.
I want to add that many of the opinions expressed in this letter show the feelings of many of my peers. I give much of the credit to them.
Coming from a student and an athlete, if the school wants to solve a problem, this isn’t the way to do it.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User