Letters to the Editor
Renting a home is nothing short of instability. A person over the age of 18 has to pay for a credit check. This seems OK, but when it’s a family of four and all are over 18, it’s $45 per person, each time a credit check is done. After the credit check has passed, then it’s deposits: First, last, pet and any other amount the homeowner requires. After that is paid, then it’s utility deposits, and the list goes on. It easily can cost $3,000 per move just to get into a home.
With that being said, you have settled in and think it is stable. Now summer is here and this is when the real estate market starts in with, “it’s a hot market to sell.” The homeowner then slaps a for sale sign on the house and the whole cycle begins again.
This cycle is repeated every summer and at some point you run out of money and end up homeless and living in the street. Who can afford over $3,000 every year to move? Homeowners just turn a blind eye to this problem and won’t even read this because they are just after the money.
Teresa D. Higgins
Cause and effect
I quote from the Friday Free Form editorial, “Oregon in for a tax hike”:
“We have written at length about the negative impacts of tax increases ...”
“We agree that roads and bridges need to improve, but why was maintenance put off for so long?”
Can the editorial board possibly see any connection there?
This morning (Tuesday, July 18) the Area News read “Ballots in the mail.” I received my county ballot with three names, with no idea of what these people want to do on the school board.
Feeling women do a better job politically (except my ex-wife), should I vote for the woman? Knowing better than to vote blind, I phoned a friend on the school board and asked her recommendation. She only knew about the men so I’m asking TDN:
For better community service, why not have open debate among candidates for offices? It appears that once they get into office, their only public meeting is electronically, not actual public meetings where we can raise our hand and ask questions (and maybe during that open debate have them promise to have open meetings, not phone or internet).
Or maybe have each candidate write to TDN with a word maximum, of what they hoped to accomplish if they’re elected.
Using “letters to the editor” written by some friend, does not appear a good recommendation. Even some people had good things to say about Joseph Stalin during his terrorism of the world, and if they didn’t send a letter ... maybe prison or worse.
David R. Westerlund
On April 27, President Trump announced he had decided to renegotiate NAFTA rather than withdraw. Unfortunately, he ran into one of the internationalist establishment’s most important stepping stones towards world government, the North American Union (NAU). The NAFTA agreement represents the foundation of the eventual NAU, a supranational governmental entity that would be comprised of the three formerly sovereign nations, the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
What’s needed to counteract these plans for a North American Union is for the U.S. to withdraw from NAFTA. However, It is not clear whether the president can terminate our membership in NAFTA by himself, or whether Congress must also act.
Just as the U.K. is restoring its national independence with its “Brexit” from the European Union, we need to restore U.S. independence with an “Amexit” from NAFTA, the foundation of the developing NAU.