To the Editor:

It is that time of year when families are preparing for graduations, parties, simple family get tog ethers, BBq’s from pre-school to college. You are Celebrating your children. In this day and age there are many single parent, divorced/remarried step parents. Broken families. Children are sometimes so torn about the “new rules” and “boundaries”, they are emotionally hurt, but do not feel they can have a voice. Especially, if the divorce was a nasty one.

Divorced parents tend to forget that they stopped loving each other-BUT both parents created the child and neither have stopped LOVING the child. And BOTH have rights to the child. It’s not the child’s fault-reassurance of this is key—And is it “really” necessary to withhold the child from a spouse-use the child as a pawn? To get even because something didn’t go your way in the divorce? No-not unless of course there are special circumstances that should dictate the safety of the child.

I was a young divorced single parent- I always tried to include my children’s father in special events of my children’s lives-most of the time in a neutral location. Why should my child have to be punished and not able to enjoy a birthday party, sports event, graduation party, wedding, and to not have the opportunity to make and have those memories with both parents? I tried to show compassion and kindness, no matter how I felt about my ex even his girlfriend or wife was invited. Once again not about me and how I felt, it was for my child.

This also includes being an Aunt or Uncle or in some circumstances a grandparent- I know how it feels to be excluded from a milestone event of a niece or nephew, cousin- it is very hurtful- both psychologically and emotionally. Those are moments that will never be repeated in life. Why can I not be the Aunt or cousin to that family member, just because their parents divorced and remarried?-so the family became bigger-that just means there are more members to love that child.

I have seen and experienced the hurt of a family member because of a divorce and the exclusion from a child’s milestone event- even something so simple as Kindergarten Registration- these are events in a child’s life, that will never happen again- and deprived a loving, supportive parent of that memory. Why should a parent or other family members be robbed of those memories? Why should a child be deprived of their parent or other family members being present? As adults I believe that we forget or choose to ignore- the event is NOT about us- it is about our Child.

In our fast paced lives or social media & technology I think the term “family get-to-gether” have gone by the way side- sad but true.The intent of my words are just this.

Do NOT be selfish, DO NOT be the TOXIC parent- DO Not be Self-Centered-Do Not be mean- think of your CHILD of the memories you are “TAKING” or “STEALING” from your them.

BE KIND- invite the child’s parent & other family members-give them the opportunity to have those memories too- for once be in the mind of the child and try to understand the rollercoaster of unnecessary emotions you are placing on them-Have your party/BBQ/ picnic/ get together at a park, campground- let your child experience every ounce of LOVE that they deserve in this life!

After all, we only have one LIFE!

Carol Gardner


To the Editor:

Question 3 Would Be Bad for Rural Nevadans

By SENATOR PETE J. GOICOECHEA, Nevada State Senator, District 19

There’s been a lot of discussion across Nevada about Question 3, a Constitutional Amendment on our statewide ballot this November that would dismantle Nevada’s existing electricity system and replace it with a new, unknown system established by the legislature and the courts.

The reality is we don’t really know exactly what we are voting on with Question 3. The Amendment provides no details on how Nevada’s new electricity system would work, and the proponents have not offered any sort of plan of their own. Instead, the ballot measure would lock a risky and costly experiment into the state constitution and create an uncertain electric system that even the proponents admit would not guarantee the lower electric rates they’ve been promising.

What we do know is our existing energy providers would disappear if Question 3 were to pass. The rural electric co-ops that many of our communities participate in aren’t protected under Question 3. The state’s major providers would be forced to sell its power plants and cancel long-term energy agreements, many of which are for renewable energy projects built right here in Nevada.

Those costs would be in the billions and would be passed onto consumers in the form of higher bills. In fact, a recent independent investigation conducted by the Public Utilities Commission found that Question 3 would likely increase average residential electric bills for Nevadans for at least a decade. We have come a long way in the last 50 years, and if Question 3 were to pass it would be a major setback in the progress we have made, coupled with a whole lot of uncertainty. I personally don’t miss the days with the old Witte, or worse yet it not thumping out back. We must not forget the old times when we had small providers that gave consumers in rural areas low voltage in the afternoons and evenings, which meant we went without electricity for blocks of time.

Many of you recall we had energy choice over two decades ago and it failed. In the late 1990s, many states, including Nevada, tried to implement laws like Question 3. California’s attempt in the early 2000s led to skyrocketing rates and consumer complaints, rolling blackouts, the Enron scandal, and more than $40 billion in added costs for consumers and taxpayers.

Of the 24 states that originally attempted a scheme like Question 3, only 14 states still have deregulated electricity systems in place. In those states, average residential electricity rates are 30% higher than Nevada’s, and California’s overall electric rates are nearly double ours.

That’s why it’s been nearly 20 years since any state has taken the risk of implementing a system like that which Question 3 proposes. Given this history, Question 3 is especially risky for Nevada because it would be very difficult to repeal from our Constitution and take years to undo the damage it would cause.

As a Nevada native and public servant, I am deeply concerned that if Question 3 were to pass, the ramifications would be detrimental to the hard-working residents and small businesses in rural communities across the state. We do not need a constitutional mandate, the average ratepayer and majority of consumers will not benefit. Rather than implement a risky scheme that would dismantle our reliable electricity system and cost Nevadans billions, I’m urging my constituents to look into the facts and vote NO on Question 3.