Letters to the Editor (8/22)

Energy independence

Dear Editor:

Since the early ‘70s there have been attempts to make this country self-sufficient on our energy needs. President Richard Nixon submitted a plan to Congress, which was rejected and, even as of this writing, similar attempts have been rejected by most liberal self-serving congressional members with "not in my backyard" and/or "environmental issues" and, lately, "it would take 10 to 15 years to derive any benefits." In doing the math, it has been at least 34 years and we are hearing the politicians "parroting the same excuses."

Whether it be for natural gas, bio fuels, hydro-electric, nuclear plants, geo-thermal, solar, wind, etc., we are doing absolutely nothing. Imagine the new economy we could have established if we took the lead to become energy independent.

Recently, a former top executive at the state-owned oil company (Saudi Aramco) indicated that Saudi production has already reached a peak and will begin dropping in 15 years or less.

In addition, a more authoritative International Energy Agency, which advises 27 Industrial nations, believes we won't hit a peak until around 2040 when supply will be at 100 million barrels a day, citing the real problem could be "above ground hindrances" in the major oil producing nations.

Those hindrances are a threat of violence from armed militias severely hampering production in Iraq and Nigeria, the nationalist autocrats of Russia, Venezuela and Iran reluctant to let Western oil giants fully exploit their resources, and why should they? In the U.S. congressional members and environmentalists vehemently oppose efforts to expand offshore drilling or to allow exploration of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So why would the Saudis want to increase production and bring down oil prices?

I pose this question, what has been done in at least 34 years to make our country energy independent? If you are satisfied with the $4-plus and climbing gas prices stop your "whining" and pay the Middle East terrorists.

Rick Rivard

Some think rules are for everyone else but them

Dear Editor:

This is in response to the letter to the editor regarding unleashed dogs in a school playground ("There are dog parks for dogs," Aug. 1, AFN). The writer said she hopes the dog owner reads her letter and is embarrassed. I hope for the children's sake that maybe this one dog owner is different than most I've seen, but don't hold out any hope.

I have been in contact with the park ranger regarding the unleashed dogs at Desert Foothills Park numerous times; I've also been told to contact Maricopa Animal Control when we see unleashed dogs. Bottom line to all of my efforts; not a thing has changed and probably never will.

People are ignorant and think rules are for everyone else but them. I have been cursed at, ignored and, yes, given the middle finger, for just mentioning to dog owners that there is a leash law.

I was injured when an unleashed dog ran after my "leashed" dog, causing her to react. That owner never even stopped to see how badly I was hurt, just simply "leashed" his dog and left.

I was told by the ranger's office that they would increase patrols. I have given them the times we repeatedly see the same dogs and owners each day, hoping that someone would be there to enforce the law, and nothing has happened.

Gee, maybe these dog owners will see this letter and be embarrassed ... NOT!!

Judy Felicetti

No real economic benefit to Loop 202

Dear Editor:

Regarding the article on the economic benefits of the Loop 202 in the Aug. 15 edition of the AFN, the projected $5.9 billion economic benefit over 16 years is an extremely weak argument for construction of the road.

If you take into account the time value of money and assume an interest rate of 6.5 percent, the initial $2 billion-plus net cost compounded over 16 years would be equivalent to approximately $5.9 billion.

In effect, there is no real economic benefit.

If this is the best the Arizona Department of Transportation and its for-hire engineering company HDR can come up with, then it clearly is not in the best interest of Arizona's citizens.

Is it in the best interest of the construction companies and the TIME Coalition, who have spent millions on promoting it? Sure sounds like it!

Daniel Wishnatsky

Some think rules are for everyone else but them

Dear Editor:

This is in response to the letter to the editor regarding unleashed dogs in a school playground ("There are dog parks for dogs," Aug. 1, AFN). The writer said she hopes the dog owner reads her letter and is embarrassed. I hope for the children's sake that maybe this one dog owner is different than most I've seen, but don't hold out any hope.

I have been in contact with the park ranger regarding the unleashed dogs at Desert Foothills Park numerous times; I've also been told to contact Maricopa Animal Control when we see unleashed dogs. Bottom line to all of my efforts; not a thing has changed and probably never will.

People are ignorant and think rules are for everyone else but them. I have been cursed at, ignored and, yes, given the middle finger, for just mentioning to dog owners that there is a leash law.

I was injured when an unleashed dog ran after my "leashed" dog, causing her to react. That owner never even stopped to see how badly I was hurt, just simply "leashed" his dog and left.

I was told by the ranger's office that they would increase patrols. I have given them the times we repeatedly see the same dogs and owners each day, hoping that someone would be there to enforce the law, and nothing has happened.

Gee, maybe these dog owners will see this letter and be embarrassed ... NOT!!

Judy Felicetti

Real estate article lacks balanced perspective

Dear Editor:

Ben Sandoval's article titled "Buyer Beware" (AFN, Aug. 20) has left out a few key elements that real estate agents deal with when helping home buyers and sellers with their transactions.

A.R.S. 32-2156 does state: "Sellers, Lessors and Brokers are not obligated to disclose that a property is or has been: (1) the site of a natural death, suicide, homicide, or any crime classified as a felony; (2) owned or occupied by a person exposed to HIV, or diagnosed as having AIDS or any other disease not known to be transmitted through common occupancy of real estate; or (3) located in the vicinity of a sex offender.

What Sandoval neglected to mention in his article is a real estate agent's fiduciary duty to the client. One of the fiduciary duties of an agent is to protect the confidentiality of the client. If a seller asks his listing agent not to disclose that the property was the site of a death or felony, that agent cannot say anything on the matter to prospective buyers.

A buyer's agent is not bound by this same confidentiality to the seller because the buyer's agent is not representing the seller. A good buyer's agent will always help the client uncover any material fact that is important to that client.

In fact, if this issue never comes up in conversation there are still three points of reference in a real estate transaction where it's brought to the buyer's attention.

Three separate documents that are given to the buyer at the beginning of a purchase offer address these issues.

The first form is called the Real Estate Agency Disclosure and Election. Lines 25 through 28 of this form cite ARS 32-2156 to bring attention to this issue.

The second form is the Buyer Advisory. On page 5, under the heading Deaths and Felonies on the Property, it reads: "An Arizona law states that sellers and real estate licensees have no liability for failure to disclose to a buyer that the property was ever the site of a natural death, suicide, murder or felony."

It goes on to read that "this information is often difficult to uncover."

This may be why real estate agents can't be held liable. It's a huge responsibility to be held liable for something you are completely unaware of.

It finishes by giving suggestions on resources to turn to if that information is deemed important.

On the same page (5) under the heading Indoor Environmental Concerns, subheading Clandestine drug labs there is information on remediation and where to view a list of seized homes.

On page 7 of the Buyer Advisory there is information on links to search sex offenders.

Every buyer receives a copy of the Buyer Advisory and is required to read it and give an initialed and signed copy to their agent.

The third document is the Residential Resale Real Estate Purchase Contract, page 5, under heading 6 Due Diligence line 188 through line 190 states: "If the presence of sex offenders in the vicinity or the occurrence of a disease, natural death, suicide, homicide or other crime on or in the vicinity is a material matter to the Buyer, it must be investigated by the Buyer during the inspection period."

Here again is an opportunity for buyers' to investigate these issues and have an open dialogue with their agent about any concerns they may have.

As a hard-working real estate agent that is in this industry every day and always wants the best for my clients, I find Sandoval's article to be lacking a balanced perspective of what this topic really encompasses.

Jennifer Schaefer