Because the Weekly is welcome at all levels of Las Vegas society—among tweaking skate-punks and the regal matrons of the charity-ball circuit alike—we present the following letter for our senior-citizen readership:
We are for SB109 and AB45. We are noncustodial paternal grandparents.
We believe that in child custody cases, equal joint legal and physical custody of the children should be presumed.
Only when clear and convincing evidence has been presented regarding physical, mental, emotional or sexual abuse of the children, should sole physical custody be awarded to one parent.
We believe that both parents should be required to present a written, detailed parenting plan regarding time spent with each parent, education goals, medical goals, etc.
We believe that the grandparents should be able to have visitation with their grandchildren.
Only if it has been proven that it is not in the best interest of the children that the grandparents have visitation with their grandchildren, should visitation be denied.
A detailed visitation schedule should be presented to the court agreed upon by both the parents and grandparents.
If the parents and/or the grandparents can't decide on a visitation or parenting plan, they should be required to go to mediation to resolve their differences.
The court should only enforce orders when both the parents and grandparents cannot resolve their differences in an amicable forum, mediation, family counseling, etc.
Although at one time I was a rocket scientist, let me tell you that property tax reform is not rocket science! I've done both in my professional career, and property tax reform is easier!
The Legislature is treating the state constitution like it was the original tablets containing the Ten Commandments, cast in stone and subject to absolute religious observance. Interpreting or changing the constitution will not result in bolts of lighting from the heavens or bushes bursting into flames. It seems like our legislators are hung up on some aspects of the constitution that prevent them from solving a crisis problem. Could it be political timing? That same concern did not exist in the last session of the Legislature, when they and the state Supreme Court rammed through tax increases without a vote of the people.
Let's deal with the two constitutional items which seem to be problems for our legislators in coming up with property tax reform.
The phrase "uniform and equal" relative to equalization of how property taxes are determined and applied can be interpreted in a number of ways. Can you say "uniform and equal" among different classes like residential and nonresidential; owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied; public-use or private-use; utility-owned; educational institution or nursery school; religious or nonreligious-owned; purchased price-based or value-based; ability to own; property age; current market land value, etc.
The list of constitutional property tax exemptions contains many exceptions to the "uniform and equal" treatment in the taxation of property. There are different interpretations that can be applied, and by the time the courts adjudicate the matter it could be years. It's also difficult to imagine "who," under these circumstances, would challenge the interpretation. California's Prop 13 was passed in 1978 and the case was resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992, almost 15 years later.
The second apparent obstacle is the requirement for the Legislature to have two affirmative votes on the amendment, accomplished in two sessions of the Legislature and then voted upon by the people at a general election. What is the problem with an amendment being drafted and approved during this session, then voted upon next year at a special legislative session, and put to a public vote at the November 2006 general election?
Well, there, I've done it, we applied a little "outside of the box" thinking and solved the constitution's 2008 property tax reform amendment problem.
It was a lot harder to get two astronauts safely in orbit on the Gemini program!
A few weeks ago, an editor's note chided a letter-writer for his reflexive anti-corporate disdain regarding Starbucks. This reader has a suggestion for that editor, who is clearly a gibbering stooge for the exploiting class:
Regarding your editor's benign take on predatory corporations like Starbucks: He might want to visit the website www.starbucked.com for insight into the insidiousness of Starbucks and other corporate monoliths.
Once and for all, the Terri Schiavo case shows the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Republicans vote for life, the Democrats for death.
When Terri understood her fate and saw that her feeding tube was about to be removed, she screamed. Does that sound like somebody that wants to die?
The Democrats reasons for death are that Terri doesn't understand anything, that she has only 20 percent brain function, that she doesn't want to be a burden on society. Most of all, they take her husband's word for her desire to have her tube removed. What proof it that? Have the Devilcrats ever heard of something called "the lie?"
People die every day, but this is the first time I have heard of the U.S. government torturing someone to death in the name of mercy. Slow and agonizing starvation. No food, no water, nothing. Hateful, evil.
If Jesus was here today and healed Terri Schiavo, he would be arrested for practicing medicine without a license.
The only good thing to come out of this madness, is that people will not forget where the Democrats stood on this issue. The Democratic party continues to marginalize itself by embracing every contrary idea, every deviate notion. The sick-minded pseudo-intellectual liberal is destined for the carnival freak show.