Leadership lacking in discussion of National Monument name change

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*

Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Opinions are like certain unnamed body parts: everybody has one.
I don’t really have a dog in the monument vs. park hunt, although I thought Dave Poling’s letter was pretty close to the mark. It seems to me there either are, or ought to be, well-established official criteria for the naming of such resources as Colorado National Monument. I’m OK with handling the matter accordingly.
The reason I decided to comment is to share of couple of things I dislike.
It’s a bit like the so-called “Global Warming” nonissue. I am extremely interested in knowing the actual facts, but whatever they are, I don’t want a bunch of politically cutesy-pie jerks, er “leaders”, trying to get rich off of abusing the taxing power of the government by coming up with a cockamamy plan to tax everybody into a hypothetically cooler Earth.
In the case of the CNM, I’m not emotionally invested in either the park or monument denomination. I just can’t stand the idea that come political cutesy pies who lack the marble count and/or intellectual honesty to function as my “leaders” want to change the name as a mere marketing ploy to try to put more money into their pockets and those of their cronies. I have always had what I consider to be a certain amount of healthy antipathy toward marketing/developer types who like to make their money by screwing up the quality of life in rural areas where land is affordable, then take their loot to a new area where land is still cheaper and “Californicate” (aka “develop”) that.
I have also always despised the elitist leftist notion that there are no such things as the natural laws of economics, and that if the marketing cheerleaders can only think up a clever enough lie that it will persuade the lower-form-of-life yokel citizenry to go along with it, then the narrative and agenda of that deception actually becomes the new reality through the magic of political manipulation. I say, “Bah humbug!” to that sort of cheerleading. I’m allergic to it.
Lastly, regarding the “whims of the courts” vs the whims of Congress, I trust the permanent injunction of the U.S. District Court recognizing nonrecreational access to Glade Park more than I do Congress to write that permanent access adequately into law.

Wow, un-forseen by me was the Spehar bus coming around the corner….....
A couple items of note for you to consider, Jim:
The committee was not charged to be a proponent for park status.
The charge of the committee was to gauge community support, and then report our findings to the congressional delegation. The results simply showed that less than half, or 42-45% of people polled by several different methods, supported the change in status, just to promote tourism.
The co-chairs in particular, took great pains to remain neutral, while all available information was gathered.
As I stated in a television interview locally, in order for an idea like this to gain traction, it needs to have a little broader support than 40 some percent of the locals affected by the change.
I guess by not pounding the ‘park’ drum a little louder for those in support, we are not ‘leaders’, guilty as charged.
Your assessment of solving the complicated issues surrounding a park status bill, were more accurate, but we were not asked to make a recommendation on those issues, let alone craft any type of language for a potential bill.
I think this just demonstrates the political deadlock we see at all levels of govt., where we need to start finding solutions in the middle of the road somewhere, and quit calling people out from the far left, or far right.
Warren Gore, co-chair, citizens committee

Well said Warren.  I normally do not comment on anything I see in the Sentinel but I totally support your statements and want others to know that.. I also think there is a bit of inaccuracy in Jim’s article regarding that meeting with several hundred people in attendance…I sat in that audience…and even there people were divided.  To assert that everyone was in support who attended that meeting is an overstatement and a reach.  Opinions were just a divided there as they were during subsequent open houses and polling done by the Committee.

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Subscribe to print edition
Sign in to your account

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy