Email letters, March 21, 2013
Liberal agenda dominates state legislative session
Congratulations to Gov. Hickenlooper. He finally outed himself for who he really is, the dyed-in-the wool Front Range Democrat that he always was and always will be.
The liberal agenda put forth by the Colorado Democratic Party has found nothing but a willing participant in him. He spends a lot of time touring the state and playing nice with the people on the West Slope, to include drinking fracking fluid to show he is one of the “good ol’ boys.” His heart, however, remains in Denver with all his liberal friends.
The liberal agenda of increased social spending, anti- oil, gas and gun, criminal coddling, unrestricted gay rights and the marijuana “smoke ‘em if you got ‘em” that was allowed on the legislative floor pretty well sums up the total agenda of the 2013 Colorado legislative session. Sentinel columnist Bill Grant must think he has died and gone to liberal heaven.
A liberal agenda, and, yes, even a far-right agenda, are what happen when the good people of Colorado allow one party of politics to completely control the legislature. Be it left or right, no party will represent the majority of the people if given unfettered access to make laws.
I urge all of you West Slope residents to remember that at election time. In the meantime businesses and county officials on the West Slope need to let the governor know that we would appreciate him staying in Denver and not polluting our air with his liberal vocalizations. Grant provides us a sufficient dose already.
Vote “No” on Measure A to attain vibrant riverfront
Here we sit in a beautiful valley with a few towns and a city with urban areas. Through our valley runs the lifeblood of thousands and millions more downstream. The Colorado River is this lifeblood.
End to end, the entire valley has worked tirelessly to turn toward this river, celebrate what it is and clean the dumps past folks created. There are many reasons, such as beauty, tourism and agriculture, among others.
This valley has been seduced by natural resource exploration a few times before, going bust and left high and dry. We never seem to learn this lesson. We think this time it’s going to be different, and it never is.
We want all that the big money brings. We want the high-paying jobs, which then entice our children from school, saying, “Why graduate when I can go make the big bucks driving trucks and working in the latest natural resource exploration adventure?”
We are losing sight of the real issues. We’re thinking we should once again allow our lifeblood resource to become re-industrialized. With the re-industrialization come more insults to our environment, such as air quality.
Think of the winter and our inversions, think of the 24/7 light pollution and think of the noise. Why? All because of a few jobs that pay above minimum wage. Really?
We are losing sight of quality of life, the dreams and labors and more than $100 million already spent to reach our vision of a vibrant riverfront. Would we abandon the riverfront again all because of a few jobs? Are we being seduced by natural resource exploration?
Industry belongs in the Grand Valley. There are several areas zoned industrial with land begging to be developed. These are the areas where industry belongs and not on our riverfront. Vote “No” on Referred Measure A.
New gun laws show importance of elections
Two new Democrat-majority-passed bills are now signed into state law. They regard private transfer background checks and registration fees and are now Colorado law and immediately in force.
So, anyone privately selling or transferring a firearm to anyone other than a close relative (per the terms of the law) must register both the seller and person receiving the firearm in accordance with the new law.
To many of our citizens I ask, “Do you still think elections don’t mean much?”
Imitating Front Range may also bring big-city problems
It’s a bit hard to express my frustration and disappointment with The Daily Sentinel editorial on March 20. While I am a subscriber, I don’t subscribe to the editorial’s analogy that, if we hope to become more prosperous here, we need to become more like Denver and the Front Range.
I did note that the editorial cleverly left out the pollution, traffic congestion, confusion, crime, violence, gangs, and their graffiti, etc. that make Denver such a desirable place to live. This is exactly why so many Denverites and others move here to get away from this very thing. And yet, when they arrive and open their suitcases, we find that they brought their California concepts and big-city ideas with them.
The Sentinel was correct, though, in pointing out that we. too, pay a price for living here. We are the red-headed stepchild of the Front Range, fighting over the scraps and the bones left for us. We have fairly clean air, clean water and beauty around us that one can’t put a price on. We have a close-knit community, small-town atmosphere, all the things that we seem to hold so dear. And yet, given any opportunity to sacrifice it for the almighty dollar, accommodate some special interest group’s ego or satisfy an insatiable greed, we’ll endanger it every time. Staying vigilant against this is the price we pay.
Throughout human history it has always taken the pain, suffering and loss of something we once held so dear for us to realize what we surrendered. So, perhaps the Sentinel editors and seemingly everyone else are right.
After all, our airport just couldn’t function without a name change, although it did so for 75 years. Our college couldn’t be located without a name change, when it functioned for decades without one. Our monument lacks attendance revenue, although last year’s numbers were up from any previous year, as we made the National Geographic magazine. But we still need an unnecessary change to a park.
And, of course, North Avenue just has to become a boulevard or else. The only remaining thing is to change the capital seat from Denver to here. Then, since we’re so astute at it, we only need to change our name to Denver West.
Then and only then, according to the Sentinel, can we hope to aspire to the greatness of the Front Range. However, having is not always as pleasant a thing as wanting. It’s not logical, but often it’s true.
Glad I, as a native-born Coloradan, live here instead.
Officials lack believability on Parachute Creek gas leak
Please, tell me this: If local officials working with gas industry crews continue to search for the source of nearly 166 barrels of “unidentified” hydrocarbon liquids that have leaked into the ground about four miles up Parachute Creek and have contaminated soils and groundwater in the area, how do they know that “It represents no immediate hazard to public health”?
They do not know what it is, and they do not know where it is coming from. They do, however, know that it is no immediate hazard to public health. I don’t believe anything they say.
Placing trucks in floodplain smarter than erecting buildings
I am urging a “Yes” vote on Referred Measure A regarding the zoning for Brady Trucking.
As someone who made my living in the private sector and not the public sector, I read with great interest the information presented by Bennet Boeschenstein in his letter in the March 20 edition of the paper. I have a very different take on the issues and the proposed solutions laid out in his letter.
There were also some confusing statements. For example, the council was not “deadlocked” when it voted to zone the Brady property. If it had been, the ordinance would not have been enacted in the first place. It takes a majority vote of the City Council to enact an ordinance.
I also take exception with his comment about supporting a riverfront that is free from industry and waste dumps. These are two very different uses, and to use them together in the same sentence is unfair to many job creators in this community.
We have multiple industry locations along the riverfront trail now, and I hope they continue to create and sustain good-paying jobs for the citizens of this community. The only waste dump we had on the river is now Los Colonias Park, which we still need to insure is no longer harmful to our citizens before developing, but I will save that discussion for another day.
Some, not all, of the Brady property is in the floodplain, but that is why this property is a good fit for Brady. No permanent structures will be built, and the trucks that are parked there can be moved if there are flood events. The assertion that Brady should just move shows how little regard there is for private property rights and the costs of doing business.
Make no mistake: A “No” vote is a slap in the face to a good employer in this valley and does nothing to support its expansion or its private property rights.
Vote “Yes” for jobs and for the extension of the trail system that Brady will provide.