Letters to the editor: On a public bank in New Mexico
These letters published in the Aug. 21, 2022 print edition of the Las Cruces Sun-News.
Response to public bank discussion
On Aug. 7 Jay Jenkins had a column about the proposed New Mexico public bank. First, let me say that community banks and credit unions are very important to our communities! Mr. Jenkins writes about the public bank of North Dakota. If we look at North Dakota, we note the population is less than half of our state but the number of community banks is almost double. North Dakota is a good example of the benefits of a public bank.
Some of Mr. Jenkin’s statements are disappointing — many incorrect and countered repeatedly over the last few years. Some community bankers routinely state that a public bank in New Mexico would compete with existing banks. Not true. The proposed public bank will not compete with community banks and credit unions. Not ever. Mr. Jenkins’ comments remind me of Bill Maher’s Real Time show on HBO where he occasionally does a comedy routine called “I don’t know it for a fact, I just know it is true,” poking fun at people who defy the facts. Why deliberately and persistently make false statements?
Let’s honestly discuss the New Mexico public bank proposal. Mr. Jenkins’ comments show that he doesn’t understand the proposed bill. Interestingly, he points out that the public bank in North Dakota “routes it lending programs through community banks and cooperates rather than competes with local banks.” Absolutely right, Mr. Jenkins! That would be the case for the New Mexico public bank. I could take issue with other comments such as the costs quoted from a study for the city of San Francisco, which are wildly beyond that of the New Mexico public bank but, for now, my question is “Why make statements that aren’t true?” How does that advance frank discussion and understanding?
Jennifer Kreie, professor emeritus at NMSU, Alliance for Local Economic Prosperity board member
Protect property owners' rights
Its never been a secret that our city council does not like business owners. Their policies have always demonstrated this and continue to result in Las Cruces being in the economic conditions it is currently in.
Now the council's attitude toward landlords further demonstrates they just don't like anyone who is trying to earn a living or protect their investments. The council is now considering putting more restrictions on landlords is just another jab at small business owners or property owners who just want to earn a return on their investments. They are considering a resolution supporting state legislation that has not even been written or considered. They want to tell the Legislature they support any legislation that has not even been proposed. How can a council act this irresponsibly?
How can a council even consider a resolution that could potentially cripple a property owner's right to protect their investment by assuring that renters have verifiable income capabilities or a strong rental history? The council again paints property owners the same way as they do business owners in our community which is always in a negative light. They treat business owners like criminals and love to imply that business people don't care for the less fortunate; they use the word discrimination. It's a broken record and its time for it to stop already.
If the council continues to pass legislation against property owners this will only result in more property owners selling their property thus creating an even worse housing shortage we are in which will result in even tougher economic conditions in Las Cruces. Property owners have a right to protect their investment.
Steve Montanez, Las Cruces
Grad student workers shouldn't have to pay
This past week, thousands of students returned to New Mexico State University (NMSU) Campus, and thanks to expansion of the New Mexico Opportunity Scholarship many undergrads will now be attending tuition free. However, many of their instructors are paying thousands in tuition as a condition of employment.
Graduate student workers at NMSU teach thousands of Aggies every semester, but unlike most peer institutions, including University of New Mexico, NMSU does not offer graduate workers any guaranteed tuition coverage. This means graduate workers are essentially paying to work and hold on to their full-time enrollment and graduate assistantships.
After paying at least $6,189 in tuition, the average graduate worker’s annual stipend of $18,435 is reduced to $12,246 – well below the federal poverty line of $13,590 for one single adult, and far less than the Las Cruces base living wage of $31,860.
For the academic year 2020-2021, peer institutions paid grad assistants $17,816 to $24,024, plus paid tuition and a great percentage paid for health insurance. NMSU provides neither.
For graduate workers with children, and international graduates whose visas prohibit off-campus employment, this crisis is even more extreme.
While calls for unionization and tuition coverage are nothing new, the financial situation for graduate employees is worse than ever. Covering tuition for graduate employees was a top recommendation of an external report in 2018, as well as the subject of a widely circulated open letter by the 2020/2021 Graduate Student Council task force.
NMSU graduate workers cannot afford to go another year without tuition coverage. NMSU leadership would do well to embrace collective bargaining as an opportunity to respect their hard-working graduate employees, and the undergraduates they serve by negotiating a fair first contract and ending the tuition crisis once and for all.
Rep. Angelica Rubio, District 35; Rep. Joanne Ferrary, District 37; and Sen. Carrie Hamblen, District 38 are state legislators.
Council needs to explain judge appointment
I voted for Judge Goldbaum to preside over the Las Cruces Municipal Court because her ideas for court reform made sense and offered a genuine improvement in the administration of justice. The presiding judge at the time of her election, Kieran Ryan, did not support these proposed reforms. Since election, Judge Goldbaum has faced successful resistance to making reforms, and it began with the failure to provide an assistant judge. The latest actions by the mayor and city council reported in Wednesday, Aug. 17 edition of the Sun-News are too much for me to accept without comment.
Denying a proper full time assistant has seriously hampered court improvements for almost three years. Appointing, as her assistant, an individual who opposed Judge Goldbaum’s reforms is an insult to me and all the voters who elected her to office. The mayor, city council, and city attorney owe us a much better explanation of why they believe the Ryan appointment was appropriate and why they are now standing in the way of the voters' determination to see municipal court reform.
Grant Price, Las Cruces
Biased rag
This morning (Aug. 16), I got up and opened the Sun-News and the first thing I saw was a story on Ronchetti. I'm sick and tired of reading about everything the Republicans are doing. We happen to be a blue state. And we would like to see what our great president is accomplishing. All the great things President Biden is doing for our country go by the wayside. Which by the way benefit all our citizens. When it comes to Biden, crickets! He deserves recognition.
I can't remember when you put him on the front page, signing bills that benefit all of us. Herrell has voted against her constituents every time. I wonder if she refused the stimulus money, I bet not. She didn't vote for it. When are people going to wake up and vote for their interest and not the party. We are seriously thinking of cancelling our subscription to this biased rag after 22 years. The only thing worth reading is the puzzles, comics and Dear Abby.
Mary Castro, Las Cruces
More letters:
This article originally appeared on Las Cruces Sun-News: Letters to the editor: On a public bank in New Mexico
