Responsible voters should reject pool project
What reaction should an informed voter have if it was suggested $5,000 per person ($80 million, including long-term financing costs) be spent to support the discretionary recreational activities of, on average, 115 people a day? Based on 2018’s recorded admissions at the existing municipal swimming pool, this is the June ballot proposal.
For those who try to minimize the costs, steadily rising utility rates ostensibly cover considerable deferred maintenance, negatively impacting each of our 16,000 residents, plus businesses and tourists. We don’t yet know what the total repair bill will be to restore our municipal water, electric and sewer systems to a sound footing.
Wouldn’t prudence suggest shoring up gross deficiencies in our utilities, undeniably essential services for everyone, rather than building a massive new pool-focused recreation complex or extending utility service lines to support hoped-for massive growth?
Boulder City’s pro rata share of the county school district’s debt exceeding $2.4 billion, Clark County’s debt, the state debt and finally the enormous federal debt dwarf the reality of painless payback. Citing only Boulder City’s long-term debt paints an inaccurate picture of the full public debt burden each one of us shoulders beyond our own households.
It is equally troubling that many ignore consideration of a comprehensive repair job (no major embellishments) of our existing municipal pool to current building standards. Yes, let’s potentially spend $2 million to $7 million to properly fix (not expand) the existing pool rather than cavalierly throwing the entire existing facility away as though it is yesterday’s trash. Going forward, let’s ensure all city assets do not prematurely atrophy because of dismissive maintenance schedules.
Responsible parents build character in their children. Responsible voters and taxpayers reject frivolous public projects that benefit few in the community. If we have an intermittent need for grander swimming facilities, Henderson’s complexes beckon.
Police responded appropriately to suspicious activity
The angry and satirical letter from Michael R. Nix regarding his recent encounter with Boulder City Police is deserving of another perspective.
Nix relates he was doing some maintenance on his irrigation system, while crouched behind some shrubs in the dark. To a well-intentioned neighbor who may be observing a figure, crouched behind some bushes in the dark, this conduct represents not only suspicious behavior with possible malicious intent, but is also in conformance with everything police agencies try to convey to the communities they serve. Call immediately if you observe suspicious activity, even if it ultimately turns out to be a false alarm.
Officers responding to such a call have minimal information. They have to assume, and be prepared for, a wide range of circumstances ranging from a false alarm to a possible lethal encounter. Nix’s contention that he in his “own yard, clearly doing maintenance on his irrigation system” were factors the officers could not have known and the nature of his activities were not visible in the dark.
The “alleged smirk and laughter of the officers” was more likely prompted by relief that the call turned out to be harmless rather than an attempt to amuse themselves at Nix’s expense.
Most residents in Boulder City, including yours truly, appreciate the always-efficient service provided by our fine police department and realize that its members do not always possess all of the relevant information in situations to which they must respond.
What seems to be the problem?
Despite the Great Recession and the opening of the Interstate 11 bypass, Boulder City is thriving. We have not only survived, we have created a positive energy that is building every day.
This is no accident. Our leadership took the necessary steps to make it happen, and now we are benefiting from their foresight. You can feel it in the wonderful mix of tourists and locals downtown. New businesses and restaurants are opening buoyed by the new attitude and energy that has been building over the past few years.
I love this town and would hate to see this momentum come to a stop because of a rogue campaign based on unsubstantiated accusations, innuendo and outright lies. We are better than that. Ask yourself, do you want Boulder City leaders whose vision is positive, imaginative and exciting, or a dark vision of negativity and “no.”
Vote positive. Stay positive.
Police officers courteous, professional when on duty
I was sorry and disappointed to read of (Michael) Nix’s negative experience with the Boulder City Police.
In counterpoint, I would like to commend them for their response to my call. We, unfortunately, had a mentally ill relative in our home who refused to leave. Our call was answered immediately by male and female officers. They were courteous and kind to us all, including my mentally ill relative.
While the male officer stayed on the porch with her, keeping things calm, the female officer was in the house with us. As we gathered belongings, she packed the car. Being seniors, that was a huge help to us.
My experience with the Boulder City Police Department was very positive. They were courteous, kind and acted in a professional manner at all times.
I found them to be totally trustworthy.
Day devoted to preserving city’s history appreciated
Thank you to the city and the Historic Preservation Committee for another enjoyable day exploring and learning about Boulder City’s history on the local Historic Preservation Day. The event was well-planned and organized. Exploring the history of Boulder City was delightful.
As old-timers in Boulder City, we enjoyed the memories, which are everywhere in our community.
We need to recognize that many of our newer residents have not grown up with this rich history and need to be encouraged to learn more about our town. We are indeed a very special community in many ways.
Thank you all again for another unique day of exploring Boulder City’s history. We are looking forward to next year’s Historic Preservation Day in Boulder City.
Paul and Barbara Adams
Police behavior causes mistrust
I’m writing regarding Michael Nix’s concerns about our “out of control Boulder City Police Department behavior” from the Boulder City Review of May 9. First, I’m not really sure what the police said or did to Nix that got him so upset. His letter is poorly written, with few facts and too much drama.
Examples: “A row of 200,000 watt stadium spotlights.” Police vehicles do not use stadium lighting; they are large and expensive. Police cars do not “explode” onto the scene; they arrive just like every other vehicle. These officers arrived with “obvious intent” and what was that obvious intent? Nix did not enlighten us on that point.
Police vehicles arrive, they do not “surge” in at a 45-degree angle. Then the re-enactment of the World War II landing on Normandy where thousands of ships and landing craft took part. Boulder City Police Department had two cars at Nix’s location.
According to Nix, the officer may have been considering use of the PIT (Pursuit Intervention Technique) “to spin him out of control.” The PIT maneuver is vehicle on vehicle, not vehicle on person.
Nix talked about expecting to be commanded to his knees as weapons were drawn. That did not happen except in Nix’s mind. Then “the officer erupted out of the vehicle.” Police do not erupt out of cars; volcanoes erupt.
My last concern is that you felt you were treated with disdain by the police department. As I see this contact between you and BCPD, it was you who treated the officers with disdain in your letter. You really go off the rails when you talk about mistrust and resentment of our police officers.
My conclusion is that you are a drama queen and watch too many “Cops” reruns. The only good news for you is the BCPD will still respond to your call for help should you need them some day.
P.S. You should apologize to the officers of the Boulder City Police.
City Council has good checks, balances
Mayor Rod Woodbury certainly appears to be intelligent, articulate and well-respected throughout Southern Nevada, which is what you would expect of the spokesman for our city. My experience is that he is open to input from his constituents.
Councilman Kiernan McManus, who also seems to be bright and is narrowly focused on one or two issues, portrays himself as the conscience of the community. He does not seem to be as approachable.
McManus is supported by a group that almost looks like a cult, with its candidates and members acting in lockstep, while Woodbury’s supporters seem more diverse and less intense.
The two of them do not really differ much on growth and historic preservation, but we could benefit if both of them remain in office. Woodbury as the leader, consensus builder and spokesman, and McManus as the chief gadfly and naysayer on the city council. If we re-elect Woodbury as mayor, McManus will still be on the council. They check and balance one another nicely.