‘Community’ in Las Vegas? Hardly

To the editor:

As an individual whose current interests are almost entirely in the field of language, I find it intriguing that Geoff Schumacher's July 15 column states that the word "hero" is overused. He's undoubtedly right in his assertion. There are a plethora of words, such as "liberty" and "love," which have had their meanings dolled up and ground down to the detriment of communication and interaction.

But perhaps even more overused than the word "hero" is another word that appears in Mr. Schumacher's column: "community."

The word community is thrown around often within the pages of this publication as a term of endearment, as a term implying moral obligation, and as a term implying some sort of de facto togetherness. Apart from the first definition, which is more of an individual's subjective opinion, nothing could be further from the truth.

As a resident of Sunrise Manor, I feel no relation to Summerlin or Green Valley residents, and I suspect the same is true for the majority of the valley's boroughs in relation to each other. In fact, aside from school-related activities, I can't recall ever interacting socially for the sake of social interaction in these areas.

The divide is illustrated by the fight over the Federal Aviation Administration's "right turn" plan. No matter how you slice it, it makes sense for the city and its residents. Instead, we've all been subjected to complaints that, as far as I can tell, deem the life, liberty and property of Summerlin residents more important than the rest of ours. Never mind that Air Force jets have been flying over my home since I can remember, or that there are people who actually depend on the Strip's prosperity. Summerlin is legion.

Until the region manages the nerve to come together as a proper community, with, as Mr. Schumacher mentions, some sense of heroism, history and general presence, this city will be nothing more than an area where a large number of individuals just happened to make their home -- as the headline on Mr. Schumacher's column says -- a dark-hearted town.

JAMES BROOKS

LAS VEGAS

Association mess

To the editor:

I am curious why so many homeowners see their homeowners associations and boards of directors as enemies out to get them ("Decision changes HOA powers," Friday).

When a prospective resident goes to purchase a home within a neighborhood with covenants, conditions and restrictions, he is notified and given a copy of the rules. He is even given a time frame during which he can opt out of the purchase after having read the rules. Why are so many homeowners shocked when they are asked to follow the rules?

I've lived my whole life in residences bound by CC&Rs and am currently the president of an association in North Las Vegas. The board is made up of unpaid fellow homeowners, and none of us is out to get our neighbors. We merely follow our documents, as well as the city, county and state regulations, and ensure our neighbors do the same.

When the law was passed to require a fully funded reserve account to pay for future repairs, the legislators were doing a great justice to all homeowners, especially those in communities that had no reserves or devastatingly under-funded ones. A law passed by the state must be followed, and the Rancho Bel Air directors' intentions were good in trying to get their account up to par. Considering it is an older neighborhood, they are probably even overdue for many of the items the reserve account would cover. Although their documents require a vote, the Nevada law supersedes them.

Perhaps their documents also give them the ability to update their annual budget with new line items and raise their regular assessment as needed without a vote. Then they can just triple the amount normally due so that the neighbors realize they are also paying all the legal fees of the association to fight the arrogant attempt to get out of paying an extra $20 a month. I hope they think it is worth it -- since no matter which side wins, they will all still have to fund that reserve and pay those lawyers.

LEONIE MOWAT

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Never enough

To the editor:

After taking control of Congress less than a year ago, top Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have all come out in favor of raising taxes on the "rich." Their idea of who is "rich"? Anyone making more than $200,000 a year.

Although the federal government is taking in more revenue than at any other time in history -- and the "rich" are paying the vast majority of those taxes -- it isn't enough.

They say they want more tax revenue so they can help the "poor" and "middle class." This is the same old class warfare Democrats have relied on since their inception.

People have studied just about everything. The study I would love to see: Is it nature or nurture that makes liberals believe they are entitled to other people's money?

ROBERT GARDNER

HENDERSON