Feb. 24 meeting is important

The citizens of Pahrump should be made aware of the fact that the town board is considering a town ordinance (Amended Ordinance 43) that would require each business and household in Pahrump to pay a fee to Pahrump Valley Disposal (PVD) whether they need the company's services or not.

There is compelling documentary evidence that this amended ordinance was written by PVD's attorney in 2007.

I note that the proposed ordinance has no specification for an orderly, public and rational method to determine whether the amount of such fees is fair, reasonable and necessary.

Since, by this ordinance, the town board is depriving residents of the usual weighing of costs vs. benefits when they spend their money, it is the board's obligation to undertake such an evaluation on their behalf.

If these determinations are to be made, the town board must first determine what costs are to be allowed as fair, reasonable and necessary, and what costs are not allowable.

The board must also establish the proper distribution of costs among mandatory revenue sources and non-mandatory revenue sources and the allowable profit on mandatory sources of revenue.

In other words, the town board must serve in lieu of the Public Utilities Commission in setting permissible rates.

The fair, reasonable and necessary rates to be collected by PVD for its mandatory services should be set by the town board after a comprehensive audit of PVD's revenues, expenses and capital needs determined in compliance with standards set by the town board and specified in Amended Ordinance 43 as aforesaid. Rates should not be set by PVD.

The town's auditor examines only the correctness of PVD's calculation of the franchise fee payable to the town. As written, the ordinance imposes no obligation on the board whatsoever in regard to determining the value of fair, reasonable and necessary mandatory service charges. The PVD's attorney and his obligation are to benefit PVD, not the citizens of Pahrump.

I urge the town board to reject this ordinance as grossly inadequate to protect the businesses and households of Pahrump from unfair, unreasonable and unnecessary charges, and I urge the citizens of Pahrump to attend the town board meeting of Feb. 24 at 7 p.m., at the Rudd Center and insist their interest take precedence over any benefit to PVD.

JOHN T. MCDONALD

Have we had enough?

I have spent my career in the mortgage banking industry. And let me tell you. I have never seen anything quite as ludicrous as the fico system.

Are you tired of being denied over and over again or being approved but subject to paying higher interest rates because of your fico number? Do you know how it actually works?

Most of you know that any derogatory information reported against you through the three credit bureaus will lower your fico score. What people do not understand is if they do not have any derogatory items reported, why they have such a low fico score. Here are some of the major factors contributing to your low fico score.

The bureaus have determined that you must establish a certain number of credit lines. Of those credit lines, some should be revolving and the others installment contracts. Regardless of your payment record, you should not have too many open accounts. Half should be open and the others paid in full.

If you are at your credit limit; or the account is paid in full monthly; they are less than 24 months; if you have too many inquiries, all result in a low fico score.

Now, let's move on to incorrect reporting of your credit history.

Many times through my career a number of people were not aware of any derogatory information until I pulled their credit report. Obviously, the issue has to be corrected. When you contact the bureaus and declare with appropriate documentation that their reporting is incorrect, the item still stays on your report with a statement "consumer dispute" or "reported in error," and you still have a low score. In a rare occasion the issue may be deleted from your report but the fico score remains. Why?

Why should my homeowner's insurance quote be based on my fico score? If I don't pay, it gets canceled. Ironically, most homeowner insurance payments are incorporated with the total monthly mortgage payment, so how can it not be paid? If I don't pay my car insurance, it gets canceled. So why is it based on my fico score?

If the banks had actually reviewed the credit of applicants looking to refinance or correct their financial situations instead of using a point system, maybe we wouldn't have the number of foreclosures we have today and maybe these banks would still be in business.

When are we going to ban together and have this system abolished to put our lives back in order?

During this recession, we need to regain control. The very least the government can do is abolish this system and let us all be judged for who we are, not what number we are, they way it used to be.

KYMBERLI PATTERSON

Argument poorly grounded

Mr. Skinner"s attempt to make a point against firearms at public meetings by reciting a very few cases where they were misused is indeed very poorly grounded.

First and foremost, firearms and freedom are hand in hand as nothing else is. Our freedom in this country was bought for us by millions of very brave men who bore arms when the need was present. Many of those men did not come home but rather paid the ultimate price to keep your right to express your dislike for arms free for you to state. In the end, it was defended by arms.

For every case you wish to bring to print where "arms" were misused, I can bring 10 or 100 where arms were successful in keeping us free. If you want an example of what happens when you take away arms, I suggest you study German history (not propaganda, but factual history) to see what happens when arms are denied citizens

Freedom to keep and bear arms is freedom for all and always will be.

WAYNE FRITSEN

Thanks to reading ambassadors

Sincere thanks to the reading ambassadors from Rosemary Clarke Middle School who read to my first grade class at Hafen Elementary.

My students were very excited to have the middle school students read several books to them and thoroughly enjoyed the interaction. It was a most enjoyable and rewarding experience for everyone.

Special thanks to Nate, R.J. and Ryan for making our day very special.

CRYSTAL FARINELLA

First grade teacher, Hafen Elementary

Anywhere else, I'd laugh

If I didn't live in Pahrump, I would laugh at the article about residents protesting the proposed government building gun ban ordinance. The reason I didn't laugh is because the people protesting own guns and live here. Let's review some history and ask a few questions to shed some logic/humor (rather than paranoia) on the subject of gun control.

The "right to bear arms" was essential when it was placed in our Bill of Rights because in 1776 we had no police departments, no military, and there were wild animals and hostile forces (including Native Americans and the British) threatening our ancestors. Now unless I missed over 200 years of progress, we have police departments and a military, the wild animals are being pushed to extinction and the most recent British Invasion was a bunch of musicians carrying guitars.

So do these gun owners believe they are going to be attacked by bears, Indians or the Brits? If so, can we please get these people 1) a history book and 2) a mental health professional?

Times change and needs change, but perhaps these folks haven't noticed. Do these folks believe that their gun could prevent a 9/11 incident?

I can see it now -- 65-year-old white male saves U.S. from a Boeing 727 with his Saturday Night Special (I did say get these folks a mental health professional, didn't I?).

The police and military must go through rigorous training to handle their weapons, including when to use deadly force. These groups also must renew that training at regular intervals. Now the ordinary citizen who buys a gun typically applies for a license, may pass a background check depending on where they live, may or may not get training, and do not have to routinely undergo retraining and certification even when they renew the license. Does this make them qualified at defending anyone or more of a hazard, as if they flew an airplane without training?

With background checks, etc., the "bad guys" have a tougher time getting a gun legally. So where do they get guns? They get their guns when they break into your home and take your gun to either use or sell to another bad guy.

My elderly neighbor was a good example of these gun owners. When teens tried to break into my home, my dogs deterred them completely. But those teens did break into my neighbor's home, and guess what? They took his gun, some cash and anything that was easy to sell. So which of us is safer, the single woman with a couple of big dogs or the old guy with the gun in the bedside drawer?

Your own gun can be used against you if someone takes it or hurts you before you can get to it. If you keep the gun readily accessible, children could accidentally get to it and hurt themselves or others (we've seen that a lot lately, haven't we?).

No one can turn my dogs against me (they would die for me and have proven their loyalty many times). Ask any police officer and they will tell you that a big dog is much better protection than a gun for most of us.

I'm from Ohio and guns are not allowed in government buildings in my hometown. No one sees it as a problem but just good sense. Why would you need to carry one into a government building anyway? Do these people think a robber is going to attack one of the Nye County offices? Or maybe they think someone is going to go to a county meeting and threaten a commissioner (actually, considering their behavior, that might happen), but again the sheriff/deputy is there.

Do they think the court judge is going to pull a gun out of his/her robes to dispense justice?

So maybe these folks just don't get it. Maybe they are like the aging, balding guy who has to buy an expensive sports car and keep a trophy female attached to prove he's not getting old, so the gun is a prop to make them feel safer when in reality it makes them a target and a danger to others. Unfortunately, my concern now is that I will be in a public place and one of these paranoid gun owners will decide to "save us" from a misunderstood incident by intervening and using that gun. And so far, I haven't met anyone who owns a gun that I would trust to "protect" me.

BELINDA HENDRICKSON