Readers write | SierraSun.com

Readers write

I would like to go on record against the proposed High Sierra Crossing Museum because of its excessive $6 million cost (which we all know will be much more expensive when finished) and because of the project’s environmental impact on Donner Lake and our bald eagle and osprey population.

My primary reason however to oppose this project is that no taxpayer has asked for it. It does not enhance our lives, it does not improve air or water quality, it does not solve local traffic problems and most important, no one wants it.

Where is the need for the High Sierra Crossings Museum? We visit the current museum often when entertaining out-of-town guests and each time there are just a handful of other visitors. There must be more important ways to spend the $6 million.

This is not a case of “we will build it and they will come.” The $6 million dollar question is “why build it at all?”

Peter E. Kautz

Truckee

Undisturbed nature is very precious. It is becoming more and more difficult to find. The lakeside forest at Donner Memorial State Park is such a place. It is enjoyed and utilized in many ways by both visitors and local residents year-round. It is perfect.

The proposed lakeside location for a new 10,000-square-foot museum and 56,000-square-foot parking lot is a very bad idea. Please relocate the new structure and parking lot to the portion of the park that is already developed, and leave the undeveloped areas undisturbed. It would be a travesty to decimate this beautiful natural forest in the interest of “progress.”

With deep respect for this land.

Bob Edwards

Truckee

The My Turn guest column (“Where has all the education money gone?” March 11 Sierra Sun) complains about us spending too much on public education. The writer claims that we spend more per student on public education than almost anybody in the world.

However, by looking at the total expenditures on education as a percentage of each country’s gross domestic product, we find that more than half of the European countries spend more than the U.S.A.

The writer also states that 80 percent of European kids are in the workforce by age 18. This is not true. Most of the European countries have more than 50 percent of their kids going on to tertiary education. This includes all of the biggest countries (France, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Poland) except Germany, which is at 46 percent. Finland has the highest percentage at 84.

The writer complains that kids in the U.S.A. are going to college with plenty of help from the taxpayers. In Europe the tuition at universities is traditionally very low or non-existent, and public funding is usually available as stipends or loans.

Spending $98 extra on the schools doesn’t bother me at all. What does worry me is the embarrassing statistic that we may be borrowing $300 million per day from communist China. That probably defines the difference between the writer and me.

Halvdan Saethre

Truckee