bad for Atlantic City
Regarding the Dec. 1 story, "Revel refutes reports of 'dire' situation":
State Senate President Stephen Sweeney made headlines for writing to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement and calling the Revel casino's finances "dire," saying he fears Atlantic City's newest resort could fail.
It remains uncertain what the end result will be for Revel's financial situation as well as its upcoming tax appeals. But it was alarming for an Atlantic City business owner, such as myself, to see one of the most influential people in New Jersey government publicly promote this kind of fear. Sweeney also described the serious consequences Revel's financial problems could have on the region and its economy, especially in light of the impact of superstorm Sandy.
Business owners, the Atlantic City Alliance, the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority and casinos have been working together under Gov. Chris Christie's leadership on revitalization efforts, including promoting tourism and enhancing the city's nongaming attractions. This is happening despite the recent legislation that Sweeney championed that calls for a 17 percent increase in the state minimum wage - which would give New Jersey the third-highest minimum wage in the nation - a move that threatens to gravely impact business owners who already are facing challenges brought on by Sandy.
As we continue navigating a tough economy, we must be resolute in our actions. It would be of far greater value if our leaders broadcast the positives of Atlantic City and joined us in promoting all the successes we have built as we work toward a strong revitalization.
ANTHONY T. CATANOSO
can help or hurt N.J.
We keep hearing how big government is the cause of our financial crisis. Is this the same big government that won't ask the richest people in our country to pay a little more to support the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan?
In the past when we have been involved in wars, we taxed the richest to help pay for the war effort. During Iraq and continuing in Afghanistan we have had tax breaks for the richest - which some in Congress insist we maintain.
Now we hear about attempts to strip away tax deductions for charitable donations. What will that do to the many charities here in New Jersey, especially in light of all they are doing to help people following Hurricane Sandy?
Added to that is the potential to lose deductions for mortgage interest. Again, with all the rebuilding that will take place and the slow but steady restart of the housing industry here, what will this do to the economic recovery?
Our elected representatives can either do what is best for our nation and our state, or they can follow the leadership of their political party. These party leaders were not elected by New Jersey residents. They do not represent our interests, and they do not consider how their actions will affect struggling residents and a struggling economy in New Jersey.
Recently we saw how our governor rose above politics to do the job for which he was elected. He has received praise from those who reside here in our great state for his actions on behalf of our unfortunate residents. That is the example we should expect from all of those who represent us in government. It is time we heard from those we send to Washington on these issues that have the potential to have such a negative impact on New Jersey.
ROBERT E. McNULTY SR.
Egg Harbor Township
are the intolerant ones
Regarding the Dec. 3 letter, "Stockton students right to reject Chick-fil-A":
In an interview, Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy was asked his personal belief on marriage. He gave his personal belief, and now he is considered intolerant about nontraditional unions. Really? He stood on his Christian principles and because of that, he is called intolerant.
Are not those who oppose him intolerant of his belief? I struggle with the idea that if I don't agree with someone else or if I have a different belief, that I am considered intolerant.
This issue has nothing to do with intolerance. It is because of one's faith and belief system that people take a stand.
Some people didn't like what Cathy said or what he believes, so now he is called a bigot. I am expected to accept everyone's view, yet mine is considered intolerant.
The real question is whether, by giving his personal view, Cathy violated any laws in his hiring practices. Has the corporation not hired anyone because of these views? Has someone not been served because of race, gender or sexual orientation?
Just because I do not agree with everyone's views, that does not make me intolerant. It just means we have a difference of opinion or belief.
I really am getting tired of the intolerance people have because of my faith and because of what I believe marriage is. So who really are the intolerant ones?