Letters to the editor 6-17

Let voters decide

on livestock ordinance

Bureaucracy at its finest.

Here we go again. We have five people making a decision that will affect the entire community.

The latest is a proposal to update the health department's ordinance which bans livestock on residential properties under one acre.

I have two questions:

First, the ordinance was passed in 1977. Has Carson City become a more rural community during the past 32 years?

Second, under the proposed change, everyone would be allowed to own four female chickens or ducks. When you purchase baby chicks or ducks, you have no idea of their gender. Once they are grown and one or more of them end up being male, who is going to enforce the "all female rule?"

Would animal control have to find suitable homes or destroy these birds?

I say "Let the voters decide."

STEVE MCCLUNG

Carson City

Road project will

at least provide jobs

Your article on the I-580 project through Pleasant Valley in the June 14 edition of the Appeal was the best I have seen. Congratulations.

The sentence that really caught my eye read: "While NDOT favored the routes through Callaghan Ranch, there was pressure politically from those who wanted that area to become housing ..." So, politics won out over professional engineering expertise.

The existing 395 corridor could have been brought up to freeway standards at a fraction of the projected $444 million cost by the use of frontage roads and occasional overpasses. The best thing that can be said about the project is that it provides jobs and it will "cut at least five minutes" off the trip to Reno.

OSCAR W. FORD

Carson City

Columns better suited

as letters to editor

I am writing to comment on the content of your commentaries. In the past the Appeal has had some very good contributors - some covering a wide spectrum from conservative to liberal with very thought-provoking messages. The Appeal has recently devoted much space to commentary by Dr. Eugene T. Paslov. I and many others find his content to be offensive.

His background in education is very complete, and justifies his commentary regarding education. I do not think it in any way justifies his diatribes on health care, the economy, or national defense issues, warrant commentary space. They are just his opinions and belong in the Letter to the Editor section.

Please use commentaries by Guy W. Farmer, Randi Thompson and many others who either researched the facts for their commentary, or have a broad background to draw on.

Dr. Paslov can thank the actions taken to prevent further terrorist attacks for his ability to be free of further 9/11-type attacks. I hope the current administration will wake up. There are many terrorists here and abroad who are capable of attacks. He might keep in mind that many good men have been tortured and beheaded by the terrorists. I bet they would have preferred the water board. I doubt they were even read their rights, as our president has ordered for the terrorists.

HARRY L. FOWLER

Carson City