St. Louisans get to decide on electing a county assessor

On Aug. 3, St. Louis County residents will go the polls to vote on an elected assessor. What is at stake? Actually, two things.

The subject of the referendum is whether the St. Louis County assessor should be elected rather than appointed. The assessor determines the value of each home and property in St. Louis County. An elected assessor is the norm across the state, but Missouri's largest jurisdictions and plenty of counties across the country have appointed ones.

There is an important reason this issue will be on the St. Louis County ballot this summer. I placed this issue on the August ballot so that St. Louis County voters could determine the issue for themselves. Lawmakers in Jefferson City have called for a statewide vote on this issue in November. I believe it is wrong to allow voters in cities and towns across Missouri to decide an issue that only affects St. Louis County residents and businesses.

Some people have predicted that St. Louis County residents won't turn out in August to vote on this issue. I disagree. I strongly believe voters will make their voices heard when home rule is at stake.

Should St. Louis County voters disagree with statewide voters, I will take actions to ensure that St. Louis County voters prevail.

St. Louis County is filled with the best and the brightest citizens in our state. I believe that we are more than capable of making this decision on our own — and that our decision, whatever it is, will be more acceptable because we made it.

Charlie A. Dooley • Clayton St. Louis County Executive

Missing coverage

The Post-Dispatch published in-depth coverage of the Republican state Senate primary in St. Charles County ("GOP rivals clash in primary," July 21). But it did not cover the four candidates in the 26th district, which covers all of Franklin and Warren counties and a portion of western St. Louis County?

Surely, the top issue facing the citizens of our state is the tragic underfunding of public education. I have proposed five ways to raise the necessary revenue, none of which would increase income taxes.

Voters deserve to know about this important contest. The Post-Dispatch should cover it.

Donald D. Meyer • Labadie

Dodge City

A man waiting in line to pay for his gas accidentally was shot through the wrist by a man with a permit to carry a concealed weapon but with no clue about how to handle a gun safely ("Stray bullet hits lifeguard, 16, at pool," July 27).

The victim may well face a life with loss of function in his hand and a permanent disability. His immediate future probably will include surgeries, physical therapy, time lost from work and pain and suffering.

No charges are expected because the shooter had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This is outrageous, given the seriousness of the victim's injuries and the criminal recklessness of the shooter. I am stunned to learn that in Missouri a gun owner can go his merry way with impunity after discharging his firearm anywhere and anytime, maiming an innocent person, turning a quiet suburban town into Dodge City 1880. All the shooter has to do is produce his concealed weapons permit, and he can continue walking among us with his deadly weapon.

Pam Jeannot • Foristell

Nuclear plants are safe

Contrary to the speculation in Bob Herbert's column "We're not ready for a nuclear power plant problem" (July 21), the nation's nuclear energy facilities are well prepared to protect public health and safety. The nuclear energy industry operates under the premise that things can go wrong; it designs its plants and trains personnel to respond safely and effectively to unlikely scenarios, suhc as major system malfunctions and security threats.

Additionally, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires the industry to be prepared to protect public health and safety during worst-case events. Every U.S. nuclear plant is required to have emergency plans, procedures and notification systems at the ready 24 hours a day, seven days a week should an emergency occur. Every plant also is required to regularly perform emergency and security drills that the NRC grades.

The column ignored the "defense-in-depth" safety design built into nuclear plant structures and operating systems, which protected public health even when the Three Mile Island accident occurred. Likewise, the many subsequent improvements in personnel training and operational practices that have made nuclear energy a reliable contributor to the nation's economic well-being were not mentioned.

The hundreds of companies engaged in the industry stake their success and reputation on each other's commitment to safety.

Marvin Fertel • Washington, D.C. President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute

Liberal inefficiencies

I agree with Bob Herbert's conclusions about our economy and large-scale losses for previously middle-class families ("Grim trend worsens," July 28). We are looking at the ultimate result of rampant liberal policies that we were able to afford in the decades after World War II when the rest of the world was rebuilding but whose bill now is coming due.

One of the most basic laws of economics is that money seeks its most efficient use. But that has been flouted for a few decades in laws and regulations that can be traced in many cases to environmental activists. The fact that we haven't started a new nuclear power plant in decades is one example, and the recent shut down of drilling in the Gulf is another. But the devastation of farming in California's central valley to save a fish may be the most egregious.

Through regulations that limit the way we can use our resources, Americans have been forced to be less efficient with our assets. Now we are paying for it. A few years ago, the price of corn skyrocketed when our government deemed that it was better than oil for fueling cars. Congress decreed that we should no longer use Edison's incandescent bulb, favoring fluorescent ones. Is that decision best made on Capitol Hill or by me as I consider my purchase at the hardware store? It is a "liberal tax," and it's killing this country.

Gary Duff • Granite City

Protecting rights

The controversy over the pending immigration bill in Arizona is not about protecting the rights of illegal immigrants, it is about the protecting the rights of American citizens. As it stands, the clause that directs police to demand proof of citizenship from anyone they stop for other reasons and whom they suspect might be an illegal immigrant opens American citizens with Latino (and likely African and Native American) heritage to discrimination from police.

The solution to this is to remove the "reasonable suspicion" clause and demand proof of citizenship from everyone who is stopped by police. The critics who point out police selection will fall unduly on minorities will have that argument removed if it applies equally to all.

And the supporters who claim that real American citizens will not be burdened by the requirement to provide proof of citizenship will be able to share in the responsibility to carry their "papers" at all times or risk jail, just like their fellow brown citizens. All citizens would share in the benefits of controlling illegal immigration, and all citizens would share in the burden of having to prove their citizenship or risk jail anytime they are stopped by police.

Mike Geries • Smithton

Simply awful

Why is it that deficits didn't matter when the Republicans were in power but, now that the baton has passed to the Democrats, deficits are simply awful?

Beatrice Jensen • Eureka