• Double check incentive

    In the Jan. 20 story in the Los Alamos Monitor, it was finally revealed that one  of the Trinity Site options included a Walmart.
    However, the idea was discarded because Walmart wanted a “big incentive” to come into the community.
    Did anyone calculate what that incentive would be? Did anyone calculate the rise in gross receipts tax revenues that would be garnered from a Walmart as opposed to another Smith’s?
    Might the difference cover the “big incentive?”
    The people of Los Alamos already spend 70 percent of their money off the hill. Isn’t the idea behind  the Trinity Site to recapture some of that money?

  • A grand compromise

    I am encouraged by progress in the golf course redesign process, but as an open space advocate, I feel the revised designs still leave much to be desired.
    Alternative 1, with its limited appeal to golfers, seems like a short-term solution that will quickly lead us back to this very same discussion.
    On the other hand, Alternative 2 standing alone is a clear lose for open space: it destroys a substantial amount of ponderosa forest with trees up to 350 years old.
    However, I do see the core of a grand compromise, one that would end the slow erosion of our remarkable and unique interior wild land while also offering golfers the quality course they deserve.

  • Win-lose venture

    After the county signs a contract with NADG, Smith’s will control two-thirds of the shopping on the north side of Trinity Drive and all of the shopping on the south side of Trinity Drive and east of Knecht Street.
    That’s a pretty good deal for them but not a good deal for the community.  
    Competition is supposed to help a community thrive.  How can the county council and school board seriously consider a contract that gives one private company control of so much public property when it already controls a good-sized chunk of commercial property?

    Patricia Max
    Los Alamos

  • Add centennial events

    Thank you for the story on upcoming New Mexico Centennial events in the December “Diversions,” however, you missed an important one.   
    The Los Alamos County Council enthusiastically supported the creation of a Historic Homestead Tour in Los Alamos, outside of DOE property.
    In seven locations, 17 signs describing the history and extent of pre-Manhattan Project homesteads will be installed.  
    This tour was selected as a New Mexico Centennial project, appropriately so as homesteading was the principal activity during 1912 in the location we think of as Los Alamos .  
    A ceremony dedicating the tour, planned for May 18, is a New Mexico Centennial event.  

  • Trinity Site Options

    To the Los Alamos County Council and all concerned about Trinity Site options: Have Smith’s expand into the rest of the stores adjacent to them.
    Move Beall’s to the Trinity Site and bring in a Walgreens, a Wendy’s and Penney’s.
    Minimal rebuilding would be needed for Smith’s because they could put their pharmacy, florist and other non-food items in those adjacent spaces along with the other small furniture items they now crowd into the front of the store.
    If there’s no buyer for Brownell’s Hallmark store, maybe the enlarged non-food part of Smith’s would bring back the photo machines.

    Inez Ross
    Los Alamos


  • You, too can save the world

    When the disenfranchised (middle and lower classes) recognize that drugs, alcohol/unhealthy food and ignorance are the tools used by the greedy to control them, keeping them quiet and contained, then they must take remedying actions themselves — only then will real change unfold. “All you need is 20 seconds of insane courage.”
    If you truly want to stop the greedy from destroying America completely, then stop smoking, drinking, overeating, or doing drugs of any kind and diligently become the best “you” that you can imagine.  
    Doing so, taking control of your own life and your own world, will positively alter all the worlds around you.  Guaranteed.

  • Protect income for future generations

    The proposed Trinity Site lease makes no provision to protect Los Alamos Schools from inflation.
    It’s easy to understand how time will erode the value of our community’s income. The basic rent is $511,000 per year.
    First, from the terms of the lease, the best-case income after 25 years is $539,310. Second, what would the value of $511,000 be after 25 years of inflation?
    Call this X. We then take the ratio of 539,310.10/X to compute the fraction of $511,000 that our schools will earn in 25 years.
    Since we don’t know what inflation will do over the next 25 years, let’s consider historical data to get a range of possible outcomes.

  • Trinity Site is innovative

     As a mom and teacher, I believe in helping younger generations thrive and grow. I support my students and help them find ways to contribute in a world that welcomes them.  
    Just the same, I hope that long-time Los Alamos residents want to support young families and give us the chance to share our talents and add amenities so we can fully live in Los Alamos.  
    Unfortunately, improvements that might make life better for families often do not get backing — the recent swimming pool vote is a perfect example.  
    If the new golf course building had come to a vote, would it have failed, too? I don’t know. But what I do know is that Los Alamos needs to be more visionary for all interests.

  • It’s good to hear someone listened

    Thank you Robert Gibson for speaking the truth about the Trinity Site, which has been screaming itself hoarse thinking no one was listening!

    JJ Maier
    Los Alamos


  • Keep it civil - can the cutesy

    Without entering whether the currently planned Trinity Site development is desirable or not — it’s already been a lengthy and probably continuing slog — I do object to George Chandler’s divisions of opinions in his op- ed of Jan. 3.
    Classifying opinion holders as “nattering nabobs of negativity” as opposed to “positive visionaries” (does he consider himself one of those?) is about as useful a dividing  opinion holder as “fair representatives of the community” versus “the opinioned who think they know better.”
    That may be just as, if not, more accurate. But this kind of labeling just deepens a divide on a number of issues here.