Concerning grass and events on the Plaza, the best solution would be to pave the entire Plaza. Plazas in Mexico, Spain and Portugal usually consist of concrete, thereby inviting multitudes of people to meet, walk and spend time on them. There is no historical or cultural mandate for grass; in fact, grass is for parks, not plazas.

As Inez Russell suggested in her Aug. 15 column, "People more valuable than Plaza grass," people must always take precedence over grass — at least on our beloved Plaza.


New market space

How many of us have preferred to have our out-of-town guests see the Santa Fe Plaza for the first time when it's not obliterated by tents? So, as has been advanced, let's turn to our new Railyard as an alternative market site.

Let's think of that huge gaping space that was meant to be a new multiscreen movie theater complex that makes no financial sense and has little chance of happening. Why not turn that parcel into a quite sizable public space with art and greenery backdropped by a stage for social and entertainment uses, and thus create the area needed for vending tents and such annual events as the upcoming Indian Market?


Send them to college

The city of Santa Fe's relentless antiwildlife policy against our native prairie dog populations is disgraceful. In the 1990s, volunteers tried to save prairie dogs from bulldozers and never-ending, sprawling development. Volunteers worked endlessly "relocating" these intelligent, gentle animals to what we thought were safe havens. We realized this was not true.

We also deported prairie dogs for the city and the College of Santa Fe, believing these entities cared, but they were actively poisoning these native animals while we trustingly volunteered for them. The largest intact prairie dog ecosystem survives at the college campus, where another wasteful development is planned. Our natural ecosystem heritage is going fast. Why can't the city and state establish a prairie dog ecosystem preserve on this site? Is real estate development ($$) its only goal?


Just bad apples

A recent letter writer claimed that if the Forest Service does not implement specific off-road vehicle routes (in the Jemez Mountains), the off-road vehicle users will disobey the law and ride wherever they choose.

I have no reason to question this assessment. But it is important to realize that this activity represents the criminal behavior of a small group of off-roaders in a particular area. There will always be pocket zones with a higher than normal percentage of bad-apple individuals and bad-apple groups.

These people are often infected with a zealous sense of entitlement and consider themselves exempt from the law. It is absolutely essential to understand that these individuals do not represent the off-road community as a whole. I personally believe the majority of off-roaders in our state are responsible, law-abiding citizens.


Legal, but immoral

In the Aug. 15 letter, "Rate hike bad news in bad times," Cav Merchant asks if Blue Cross Blue Shield can legally raise his insurance rate by as much as 25 percent. It may be legal, but it's not morally or ethically right. Elderly on Social Security and individuals existing solely on pensions have not received a cost-of-living increase for the past two years, and news is that there will not be one for another couple of years.

So, let's get this straight: There is no money nor discount available to the taxpayer, but there are plenty to be had by the elected officials who are wildly spending taxpayer money and to the businesses that are subsidized by the government and are catering to and providing services to the taxpayer. During the French Revolution, heads rolled for less.


Trillions in debt

Does the war in Afghanistan seem like a political and financial quagmire?

On the political side, President Hamid Karzai is the product of what many claim was a rigged election and runs a corrupt regime with protection from the United States. The quality of Afghan troops is highly questionable, casualties are increasing on both sides, and civilian deaths will likely escalate now that Gen. David Petraeus is "reconsidering" the rules of engagement.

And how about the financial side? Congressman Dennis Kucinich says we cannot afford the war. He says we need the money for jobs, infrastructure, mortgage relief, etc. And the cost of U.S. troops will escalate. The Gen. Petreaus counterinsurgency manual gives a required ratio of combat personnel to civilian population that could mean more than 600,000 troops in Afghanistan. Are we going from a $3 trillion war in Iraq to a $3 trillion war in Afghanistan? Then there is Pakistan. Keep your hand on your wallet.