SN&R Letters 2012-04-12

Sacramento Grass Clippers

Re “Bring on the major leagues” by Nick Miller (SN&R Frontlines, April 5) and “Maloof moonwalk” by Nick Miller (SN&R Beats, April 5):

I’m getting whiplash from trying to follow the arena situation. Back and forth. Sometimes I think the Maloofs should just buy a tennis team, since that’s what they like, all that back-and-forth action.

But it’s really clear that the Maloofs don’t really want to be here in Sacramento. I think they want to go to [Los Angeles] so they can hang out with the stars like they do in [Las] Vegas, but they don’t have the money to buy the [Los Angeles] Clippers.

So maybe we could just swap. I’ll bet the Clippers would love to be in a town where the fans actually notice them, and they don’t have to be the second-tier choice if you can’t afford [L.A.] Lakers tickets. We could call ’em the Sacramento Grass Clippers, and save money by leasing them out to West Sac to trim Raley Field, which may need more frequent work if [Nick] Miller gets his way and the [Oakland] A’s move to town.

Rick Westfall
Citrus Heights

Pay the massage therapist

Re “Blue crush” by Joey Garcia (SN&R Ask Joey, April 5):

This was a good column, especially the advice to the massage therapist.

I’m a massage therapist and frequently have family friends say my rate is too high. When I did lower my rate, those friends usually didn’t book a massage anyway. My solution was to just charge $60 per hour and when they say that’s too much, I just offer to do a shorter session.

I do this because I don’t want to turn people away, and because lowering my rate for some clients isn’t fair to clients who will pay my standard fee.

Erica Wachs

Vote about money, not arena

Re “Full STOP” by Cosmo Garvin (SN&R Bites, March 29):

Cosmo Garvin apparently does not understand the purpose of the measure that [Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork] seeks to put on the ballot requiring approval from a majority of voters for public financing of an arena.

The purpose is not to oppose an arena. The purpose is to give the taxpayers, the people who would ultimately pay for the arena, a chance to vote on how their money should be spent. If private parties wish to develop an arena using private monies, they are free to do so.

Christine Hansen

Fast, skinny and addicted

Re “Crystal clear” by Amy Wong (SN&R Frontlines, March 29):

I read somewhere several years ago that users of meth or speed are more likely to be women. Why? Because it helps keep the weight off and your house clean.

Several years before that, I saw a drug-rehab discussion group on C-SPAN, and I’ll never forget the addict who said his gateway drug was eating sugar in his mom’s kitchen. But so much of our culture is about speed—driving on the freeway, getting around to everything that needs doing, drinking lots of caffeine, checking our email, etc.—that even a recession can’t seem to slow us down.

Muriel Strand

No ‘do-overs’

Re “Forgiveness” (SN&R Editorial, March 29):

I take issue with the premise that students who signed for student loans should now be given a sort of “do-over.” As someone who worked three crap jobs all the way through college and still had to take a loan when my ’64 [Volkwagen] blew up, I object, your honor. I had to pay off my own loans, and now you’re suggesting that I should pay off their loans?

If students are being saddled with too much debt, it must mean that they didn’t want to work while in college, or the payoff is not worth the investment, or the costs are inflated. Why not deal with those issues?

Is the average graduate debt-to-earning ratio higher today than in years past? I don’t know the answer. Maybe they’re getting a raw deal, but maybe they aren’t. If college tuition is bloated like the previous housing market, causing students to buy something they can’t afford to pay, what is causing this “education bubble”? Could it be too many people are making too much money off the system and are driving the prices up?

The legislative line of thinking this bill represents, this sort of 20-20 hindsight/retro-financing of societal “obligations” is not the way to go. Why propose to deal with the effect and not the cause?

If the issue is that education costs too much, then deal with that. If it is simply that kids today think they’re entitled to a free higher education, then they need to get a job and deal with reality.

Either way, if we don’t deal with the cause, the bill you’re advocating will just become another entitlement.

Benjamin Bannister

Permanent waives

Re “Forgiveness” (SN&R Editorial, March 29):

What some people may not realize is that they can get a temporary unemployment or disability deferment on their student loans. They still have to pay the interest portion of the loan, and none of that payment goes toward the principal. That means that whenever the deferment ends, they owe the same amount of principal as they did to start with, but at least interest hasn’t accumulated on the interest, and there haven’t been any negative reports to the credit agencies.

People on permanent disability (Social Security Disability and/or [Supplemental Security Income]) can get a permanent disability forgiveness of their student-loan debt, if they can find a doctor to fill out the paperwork. (Just showing that they are on SSD or SSI is not enough.)

With this they can start over with a clean slate; the loan is permanently waived with no negative effect on their credit rating.

Liz Purcell