Regarding "Interlock advocate wants release from device" (July 8):

As a member of the Hondo Volunteer Fire Department since 1988, I have responded to more DUI car crashes than I can remember and dozens of DUI-caused fatalities. Hondo responded to both the Gonzales crash of a few years ago and the crash that killed four teenagers this month. (By the way, from that horrific scene, we were immediately paged to another suspected DUI crash on I-25 at 3:30 a.m. that morning).

But this letter is about the request of William J. Waggoner, who according to The New Mexican has been arrested four times for DUI and now is petitioning the court to remove his interlock device from his car. My response is: Are you kidding me? I don't care if this guy is a recovered alcoholic or not. Multiple DUI offenders, including Dana Papst and Scott Owens, are the problem.




"You drink, you drive, you lose": what a joke! Catchy slogans are not going to stop drunken drivers, most of whom are repeat offenders, from killing innocent people.

Until our elected officials find a way to stop repeat offenders, they should stop bragging about the amazing job they are doing in combating DWI.

But we can't lay all the responsibility on our elected offices; we are all responsible. We must not drink and drive. Take a cab, call a friend, walk or stay put, but don't drink and drive.

Lots of people have had something to say about Scott Owens, but if I drink and drive just once, I am not better than he is. I am selfishly risking innocent lives. Not being caught doesn't make me a better person or driver. My condolences and prayers go out to the loved ones of the victims of this senseless tragedy.




Regarding "In harm's way," Luis Martínez's July 8 letter: Mr. Martínez is completely clueless. How does he know the young people who died in the tragic accident were partying? These were good decent kids who had more sense than the adult driver who killed them did.

This adult was drunk. Drunks do not own the night. The kids were not drinking and there were no drugs found in their possession. The only things these kids should have been concerned about that night was whether their parents would be a little upset if they came in too late — the same things that we all worried about as teenagers. Nobody, absolutely nobody should ever have to curb their behavior worrying about being killed by a drunken driver.




I, like Ken Coleman, who wrote the July 1 letter, "Make first DWI offense count," am angry, but more than that, I am so saddened, beyond any words, that the fatal accident that killed four teenagers could have occurred — just two miles from an all-too-similar accident a couple of years ago.

Any lawmaker who has voted down strong legislation mandating severe penalties for first-time DUI offenses must share the blame for these deaths. Perhaps we all must assume, given the innocence-until-proven guilty premise, that no person we have ever elected has ever driven after drinking; that we have never elected an alcoholic, or drug-addicted public official. And certainly we must assume that no public official has ever used his/her influence to get a relative or friend off of a drug/alcohol offense.

My heart pours out to the far too many families who have lost innocent members because we don't have legislators who value enough the protection of all of our lives.




The DWI message is slow to take because we will not deal with the easy mix of gasoline and alcohol. Each time we pull up to the pump for gasoline we can, and many do, belly up to the counter for alcohol. And because we don't want to be found with the empty containers in our vehicle, we just toss them out the window.

With some effort, we can push back the liquor lobby. We can keep the roadways cleaner and stop making it so easy to make the deadly mix of gasoline and alcohol. To help stop the lethal mix of gasoline and alcohol, we must let our legislators know that the two should not be sold within a 100 yards of each other.




A consequence of drinking and driving could be to lose the right to buy liquor. New Mexico drivers' licenses could have a colored dot to indicate whether a person qualifies to buy. People without a driver's license could apply for a picture ID card. Anyone convicted of drunken driving would lose the right to buy for a period of time determined by a judge. It would, at least, eliminate offenders drinking publicly.



If the authorities want to use the teen car crash to discourage future incidents of this type, effort should be given to determine the legal driving status of all drivers in the "party train."

The parents of the crash victims may have contributed to their children's deaths by allowing them to drive in violation of the law at that hour and with the extra riders. I'll just guess that other "party train" drivers may have been in violation, too.

If we want to send a message, you have to go after every single violator remotely connected with that accident. And that may possibly include parents who allowed vehicle use in contravention of the law, even if those vehicles were not directly involved in the crash.

So yes, let's throw the book at the drunken guy, but for the message to truly resonate, go after all violators in the "party train" and their parents, as the law may allow the district attorney. The others must not be let off the hook.




More large vehicles? I must take issue with Jeffrey Kosberg's suggestion in his July 5 My View, "For teenage driver, car size does matter," that we should encourage more large vehicles on our roads and highways to reduce deaths and injuries. This is the same argument that the American auto industry has used for years to justify the monstrosities that they foisted on the public and is no doubt one consumer rationalization for buying a SUV or pickup truck.

His suggestion could lead to the battle of the monstrosities. The SUV and pickup truck are on the way out. Bigger is not better.

Why don't we hasten their demise by taxing gasoline at a much rate to maintain higher prices, sooner than later? This will definitely encourage the more rapid development and sale of better hybrids and electric cars, encourage public transportation and hasten removal of the monstrosities that some of us are driving.




The June 28 car accident that claimed the lives of four teenagers is beyond tragic. The drunken driver who allegedly ran into them is, yes, responsible for their deaths. But so, indirectly, are the parents of these teens for allowing their children to run around past midnight unchaparoned in a car driven by a 16-year-old girl who had a provisional license.

What were these parents thinking by allowing their teens to enter such a potentially dangerous situation? Wasn't there a curfew? Why were these kids on their way to a midnight party in Eldorado? These may sound like cruel words, but if what I say here causes a parent of a teen to enforce curfew, then these words may save a life. The teen may be angry, but they'll be angry and alive. Young people lack judgment. They are not adults yet. Parents must take responsibility.




The tragic loss of life of four teens in a traffic accident involving an inebriated driver has appropriately drawn wide community grief and attention. Many have suggested strategies to reduce drinking and driving, including more stringent DWI laws, improved enforcement, mandatory interlock systems, improved treatment and public education. Others have sought to explain "why" or to assign "fault" by noting that ultimately it is a matter of individual responsibility; the individual makes his/her own decisions on drinking and driving.

While there is merit in all of these strategies and explanations, let us not forget that we are social beings. We share relationships, values and responsibilities with one another. Whatever the state and the police might do in terms of laws, enforcement and interlock systems, we need to remember that we also have some responsibility for our brother's and sister's behavior and well-being.




As long as people in New Mexico defend drunken drivers as having made a "mistake," drunken driving will continue to be a problem. Driving drunk is the result of a personal choice, and it's a crime. People who make that choice are criminals, whether or not they kill someone.

That alcoholics are surrounded by enablers and apologists (some of whom write letters to the editor) is not surprising; these elements are part and parcel of an alcoholic's environment. I believe drunken drivers should lose their driving privileges forever — on their first offense. If they are caught driving afterward, drunk or not, they should go to prison. And for accidents in which anyone is injured or killed, a prison term should be mandatory. Maybe then people would get the message: Drunken driving is more than a mistake. It's a crime, and a serious one.



Reprieve for Sun Mountain

The Planning Commission met July 2 to consider Mirasol, a development at the base of Sun Mountain, and voted to postpone its decision until Aug. 20 to allow a site visit. Although the commission reached this decision for the purpose of gathering more information, it is a boon for some who are pursuing a greener alternative.

The group is raising funds to buy the parcel to preserve it as undeveloped, and are nearly halfway there. How can we help?

1. Climb Sun Mountain — trailhead is on Mountain Road, opposite South Spur.

2. Contact Trust for Public Lands for donation information at 988-5922.

3. Ask our city councilors to support efforts to preserve our open vistas.

4. Stay informed, and voice our support for open space at the Aug. 20 Planning Commission meeting.


Preserve city icon

What would Washington, D.C., be without its Mall? Or New York City without Central Park?

How would Santa Fe be with some 4,000-square-foot houses perched on Sun Mountain's foothills? Driving into the city from La Bajada Hill, would we see lights and sun reflections from windows?

The owners of the 22 acres have every right to receive fair value for their property at the base of Sun Mountain. But is this proposed development about a need for housing or is it about money? Since the symbol of "Museum Hill" is an important part of our city, isn't an unfettered Sun Mountain without houses dotting its slopes more valuable?

There are also deer, bears, bobcats, coyotes, mountain lions, and hummingbirds to respect as well. If we can raise the money for the Trust for Public Land to purchase these few acres on Sun Mountain, we will forever show our respect and care for our treasure and symbol of this city.



In a historic vote approving the American Clean Energy and Security Act, Congress has now taken the first step toward unleashing a true clean-energy revolution. President Barack Obama and tens of millions of environmentalists, union members, veterans, people of faith, small-business owners, corporate leaders, sportsmen, and concerned citizens have been calling on Congress to get America running on clean energy.

The House has finally answered that call. We should be proud that Rep. Ben Ray Luján helped pass this landmark bill. It is now of the utmost importance that the Senate improve several of its provisions. In particular, a mechanism for cleaning up the oldest and dirtiest coal plants must be included in a final bill. It's also vital that we ramp up investments in energy efficiency, hasten our transition toward clean-energy sources like wind and solar, and steer more of the bill's investments toward the public benefit.


Internecine strife

The New Mexico Center for Language Access program sounds wonderful, offering classes in Spanish, Arabic, Vietnamese, Chinese, Navajo and American sign language. How about including classes in English for all new arrivals so they can integrate into our country and become true United States citizens and learn the language of their adopted country? Because we are a wealthy state, our taxes will probably pay the cost for the illegals to attend (Oh excuse me, I mean "immigrants").




I appreciate reporter Sandra Baltazar Martínez's coverage of the recent shooting at the Sangre de Cristo Apartments. However, her statement that the root of the problem is the inexplicable tension between the native New Mexicans (Westsiders gang) and Mexicans (Southsiders gang) is a gross oversimplification. Uninformed statements like this merely perpetuate the myths that are intended to divide native New Mexican and Mexican immigrant communities. Instead let us join together as a community to dispel these myths and celebrate our commonalties in history, culture and politics.


CSF's fate at hand

There could be no better investment by this municipality than to secure, at last, a genuine arts college as the fundament for our continually vaunted "art capital" claims. I hope that the city not only makes this a reality, but that such a new, fine art college would also secure College of Santa Fe's excellent Clare and Eugene V. Thaw art history library, whose assemblage I oversaw many years ago, as both a college and community resource.

Many may not know that that collection of art history volumes is the finest such in the whole state: It would be a community black eye if the CSF Library, with its Thaw Collection, were never to re-open or, unthinkably, if it were surreptitiously dispersed.




Our city fathers (and all the mothers, except City Councilor Patty Bushee) think that we can spend our way out of our financial woes by buying the College of Santa Fe campus. But we can't print money like Washington! There's a hiring freeze for police and teachers; we've eliminated music, art, and sports in the schools; we can't fund our landfill. Yet we're willing to spend tens of millions to pay retail for the weed-choked campus of a defunct institution!

City government has no business doing business. Let the campus go into receivership. The creditors will sell the assets at pennies on the dollar to the Santa Fe Art Institute and to those who can actually make money from the sound stages. The free market will revive the viable arts-related parts of the college and spare us the pain of watching the city mismanage it out of existence.




I served the College of Santa Fe as director of Human Resources for eight years. In addition to being part of this administration, I am an alumnus of the college. I notified all employees of the college that we would be ceasing our operations on or shortly after May 22.

The economic impact of the release of 160-plus faculty and staff on Santa Fe frightens me, because I am one of them. These are not just positions; they are people who occupy those positions, and they are the families of those employees who lost their jobs This is not just an acquisition of an historic Santa Fe property, but the acquisition of a cultural asset that has served New Mexico as its first institution of higher learning and has served its population well for 150 years. 1859 to 2009 should not be our epitaph.