Discussion: 2 comments so far…

1. By OldEnvironmentalLawyer

   6/29/08 at 6:10 p.m.

   Suggest removal

   Proving my point about The Sun's hidden political agenda, as the mouth piece of a large development company, are the carefully worded choices for answers to the following question: What tack should Las Vegas take to meet its future water needs?

   Only one potential answer was legitimately WORDED: "Acquire water from the Great Basin to accommodate growth". I may not agree with the answer, but at least it's a straight answer.

   Second answer, showing how devious The Sun is editorially: "Control the city's business and population growth by putting more restrictions on water usage". That question is devious in that it assumes that restricting water USAGE will somehow restrict the city's growth. What if it doesn't? In places with legitimate environmentally based growth control, as exists in parts of California, the controls are placed on home building itself. Controlling water usage is well known to be a secondary, pretextual means of controlling growth, which generally doesn't work unless it simply says "No water for new buildings". So The Sun proposes a half-a**ed solution, and suckers 46% of its readers to support the proposition. I bet that if you asked people who chose that alternative think they voted to "control growth" DIRECTLY. Big difference.

   Finally, making my point about those with hidden agendas like The Sun, as well as the naive environmentalists, the third answer proposes a not-achievable solution to Las Vegas water supply problem: "Pay for a desalination plant along the Pacific Ocean in order to get more water". The results chart shows The Sun has suckered 43% of the readers into supporting a proposal which is legally impractical and politically impossible. The Sun offers this non-solution for what purpose?

   To prevent use of north east Nevada ground water owned by the people of Nevada, and at the same time allow continued, uncontrolled development in Las Vegas. It's hard to tell whose side The Sun's owners are on, other than their own.

   I especially like the part of this 5 part saga, where The Sun's owners sucker their own hard working reporters into "believing" The Sun is editorially on the good side of the fight.

   Having an editorially dishonest "liberal" newspaper is like having no newspaper at all. My advice: Put The Sun in the bottom of the bird cage, unread.

2. By rawaccess

   6/29/08 at 11:40 p.m.

   Suggest removal

   then create a new, example poll for us so we can see and what our real options are.

   the study completed last year by the SNWA outlined 12 potential alternative water sources, including towing icebergs and tapping the Columbia River.

   I am sure you are familiar with that study (news report about it here http://www.lvrj.com/news/17150881.html). what are your thoughts on it and are any of the options viable?

« Previous TenNext Ten »