Dear Editor,

I am a Patriot Guard rider along with several others that came from Fallon and  other places to participate in your parade. Iron Nation; Freedom Riders; Ghost Soldiers and Confederation of Riders were among those we joined. We were told to stage on a back street, so we did. Then all of a sudden we were back at the first staging area. I asked what was going on, to be told we were told to be in the middle of parade instead of the back. 

Motorcycles have to keep moving so as to keep our bikes from overheating. Needless to say, we wasted a whole day standing around watching instead of riding . A lot of us were very upset along with a lot of spectators who came to us and asked why we weren›t in parade. So I would like to let the town of Hawthorne know that we will not be back next year. You have alienated a large class of people that have supported this parade for many years. By you I mean the coordinator of the parade. Sorry towns folk.  

Lisa DeVall


Dear Editor,

We would like to address our comments to the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance. 

We have lived here almost all of our lives and have seen junk yards become good homes and yards.  This includes the lots that we built our home on.  When we did this we did not buy into a home owner’s association.  This Ordinance would put us into one without us agreeing to it in advance.  I’ve had people who bought into these thinking it would be great.  One was a nurse in Reno who bought a house, was told that they allowed for her husband’s work truck to be parked in their driveway.  A neighbor kept complaining until they had to do something about it.  They were forced to move.  

We do not believe that the government has the right to control our private property if it doesn’t endanger or cause health problems.  The reason America has been more economically successful than other countries is the right to own and control private property.  The over reach of government has been addressed in the Constitution in limiting what it can and can’t do.  Why do we want to invite government control?

Most everyone wants to clean up the town.  When we start an ordinance with such vague language, high fines, some short time limits, etc. that’s where we have trouble.  I looked up the word aesthetics in the dictionary it referred me to another word esthete. There are several words related to it with meaning such as:” one who is very responsive to and deeply appreciative of beauty, art, nature, etc.  One who habitually cultivates and displays an extravagant, usually artificial admiration for beauty and art. Related word estheticism: a particular theory or outlook relating to the nature and forms of beauty.  The assumption that esthetic values outweigh other considerations in importance. “ I love beauty  but my opinion will surely be different than many others.  As has been said, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” So who’s going to decide these things?  Are those who can’t comply be forced out of their homes because they are no longer able to do the work or hire others to do it?   Are you now saying to us that these vague descriptions supersedes our right to control our private property and we are now going to become a town/ county of a Homeowner’s Association like it or not?

Why is it so wrong to have this Ordinance up for scrutiny so that We The People can decide how it will affect us now and in the future. The main concerns that everyone has of safety and health are already addressed in the previous Ordinance and Bill 245, it just needs to be enforced.  Why add this kind of vague language that will erode the unity of this community and create distrust between neighbors.


Bob and Arlene Hoferer


Dear Editor,

Far too many times I have heard people state their thinking that the Petition to place the Nuisance Abatement ordinance on the ballot is for the purpose of NOT cleaning up Mineral County.  This is far from the truth and it amazes me that those who are stating this will not take the time to learn further.

Prior to the current ordinance in question, Mineral County had an ordinance in place regarding cleaning up properties.  It was ordinance #179A Bill 195 and a copy can be obtained at the clerk’s office.  If one would stop to read the proposal on the current petition, they would learn that the Mineral County PAC for Limited Government is proposing to drop back to the prior ordinance which does contain wording regarding clean up.  We completely agree that if a property is a health or safety problem it should be cleaned up.  We agree that people should not have  unregistered vehicles lined up on the public streets (but on private property is a different story).  And we agree that there are properties within the county that really could look better.  But we disagree with the current ordinance in that ‘due process’ was removed from it (due process was in the prior one).  We disagree with the wording used that can effect being ‘grand-fathered in’. And we disagree with the fines imposed in the current ordinance.

We have far too many low income, fixed income, elderly, and disabled to handle the types of fines in this ordinance.  At a max of $500.00 per day fine, many of our residents could possibly be fined right out of their home.  We do not see this as an effective way to deal with a problem.  Then there is the fact that the wording in the current ordinance could be used to require an entire community to come up to a ‘par’ that many people in the county cannot financially handle and/or sustain.  And this is all at the discretion of one person, the building inspector.  Further, wording in this ordinance leaves it wide open for the building inspector to fine someone for whatever he deems as a nuisance!  This is not saying that the current inspector would do these things, but he lawfully could under this ordinance.  And what about the next person that holds that job, and the next?

Then we have those that think we are working to stop an ordinance from being put in place.  That’s incorrect also.  The ordinance in question was put in place June of 2013.

We realize that there are those that wish for the entire county to look as ‘good’ as their place does.  And we also realize that there are those who couldn’t care less what their place looks like.  Neither of those options are fair as a whole to our county.  

We feel it is also wrong for the county to put in place ordinances of these types without a vote of the people that will be under it.  That is what this petition is working for, to put the current Nuisance Abatement Ordinance question on the ballot and allow the people of the county to say yes or no to keeping it as it currently stands.  If the people vote to remove the current ordinance, that vote would mandate the county to drop back to the last ordinance (#179A Bill 195).  But it most certainly would NOT leave the county without a clean-up ordinance.

So as far as the assumption that we want nothing to do with cleaning up, that is completely false.  As far as the assumption that we like junk and clutter on  private property, well that’s a ‘to each his own’ thing.

Many have suggested groups to help the poor.  What does this ordinance or petition have to do with that?  There is absolutely nothing stopping people from getting together and cleaning up properties belonging to those that cannot.  

But then again, why should anyone be subjected to a law that potentially could force them out of their home and have to depend on other people’s good nature to prevent that?

Jean Inlow – Secretary

Mineral County PAC for Limited