Email letters, March 22, 2012

Facts were left out of airport story

Amy Hamilton did an outstanding job at presenting many facts and opinions pertaining to the controversial airport fence. However, there are two facts that were not presented:

The TSA never informed the Grand Junction Airport (GJRA) that its previous security and layout did not meet TSA guidelines. It was Rex Tippett’s unsubstantiated opinion that a new fence was needed, he acquired funding, then moved the fence lines after funds were approved, and he proceeded without openly discussing these plans with the many affected tenants.

In April of 2010, his plans were discovered after the grant request was submitted, but any alternative security plans were subsequently dismissed. There was no formal tenant association back then, but many tenants attended board meetings and voiced their objections to a non-listening board of directors. It is only now with a more unified voice that any notice has been given.

The Montrose airport has the same TSA requirements due its scheduled airline services. It has the same TSA representative, Rene Dhenin. It has similar fence, then building, then fence layout surrounding its Aircraft Operating Areas as did GJRA originally. They chose not to build a fence and their TSA approved security plan addresses all TSA guidelines. There are many other airport examples like this across the USA. In fact, Montrose has gained from those leaving GJRA.

Admittedly the number of people affected by the new fence is small compared to the number of airline passengers, but that does not make it right. It just makes them yet another oppressed minority, some of whose livelihood was cut off for no good reason. Anybody who has walked the full distance from the airport area to the even more secure airline parking area would wonder about the reality check of what are we protecting against, and why?

Perhaps that is exactly what the Montrose airport administrators said to themselves and thus avoided such a huge waste of taxpayer money and anger among the very tenants they are appointed to listen to, serve, and protect.

ROBERT DUNCAN
Crawford

Mill detractors are resorting to low-brow tactics

In reference to the story on March 15 regarding the latest developments in the Pinon Ridge Mill issue, the entire saga is evident of how ludicrous society is getting. The Sheep Mountain Alliance and its allies in Telluride are suing the state over the issuance of a license for Energy Fuel’s Pinon Ridge Uranium Mill on the grounds that there was not enough public comment allowed, because the comments offered by local residents were not the ones that the they wanted to hear.

Now, in face of the facts that multiple public hearings took place, and umpteen hours of public comment offered, they fear their chances in court, and so have turned to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — which has no authority in the matter — to intervene on their behalf in a state issue that is currently before the courts.

Never mind the facts of the issue; that the mill will create at least 85 jobs directly, hundreds indirectly and generate millions in tax revenue; or that the people who live where the mill is to be built overwhelmingly support it; or that they have done so over several months of public testimony. The simple fact that the fringe opponents of the project are resorting to such low-brow tactics is clear evidence of the contempt that these groups hold for the citizens and the political and legal process in this nation.

LINDA GREGORY
Grand Junction

Gene Taylor will be missed

The passing of Gene Taylor marks another generational loss to our community. Gene was a great citizen and merchant and was involved with and did many fine things for Grand Junction and the surrounding area. He was a good man.

He will be missed by those of us who knew him.

JIM SHULTS
Grand Junction

King’s driving-while-high legislation should not be supported

I can’t agree with Sen. Steve King in his Feb. 26 Daily Sentinel commentary: “Legislation is needed for driving while under the influence of pot.” Protection is needed for everyone involved, particularly patients legally using medical marijuana for treating approved diseases.

As a person afflicted with such an approved disease, I certainly can’t agree with King’s overzealous misleading statements. King spins cases to reinforce his beliefs, not facts. Why not finance studies to solve, rather than create more problems with a 1 percent surcharge on medical marijuana sales? 1 penny per dollar. Afraid of facts?

King cites cases and implies drivers are impaired, but his bill doesn’t support his presumptions. Two drivers with 4 nanograms, one with five, involved in vehicular homicide or assault. King mentions one was found innocent of similar charges in 2009, apparently to prove how laws don’t work, when under his new bill, two of his three examples wouldn’t be guilty of DUI. He contradicts himself, 5 nanograms and above is under the influence in the bill King’s pushing now.

That lack of facts, knowledge and consistency shows precisely why we need an honest scientific study to provide facts and evidence so a fair law can be written.

You don’t have to be DUI to commit vehicular homicide or assault and King’s examples prove only that the drivers had residual THC and broke that law. It doesn’t prove any drivers were impaired, only they had certain THC levels in their systems. THC stays in the system after impairment, but two drivers, in King’s example, wouldn’t be charged with DUI. The only cases he found are from 2006, 2009 and 2010. Doesn’t seem as though there is such a pressing issue to hurry and pass laws based on suppositions and no facts.
 
RALPH HICKS
Grand Junction

Obama administration focusing on wrong issue

At a time when the economy, jobs, energy independence and defense should be our high priority issues why is the focus of the mainstream media on whether we should sanctify gay unions with marriage or whether the Catholic Church be forced to provide contraception against the teachings of its faith? While each of these is important in that we should push back against Obama socialism. Aren’t there really much more important things to worry about at this time?

The deficit is over $15 trillion headed for 16 and this year’s budget is $1.2 trillion to the red. Why does the Obama regime continue to act as if taxing the rich is going to solve the problem? We’ve pumped over a trillion dollars into the economy (TARP) and we have 2 million more people out of work and 12 million more on food stamps than when he took office.

Why does the Obama regime continue to say the economy is getting better? The Senate (including our Sens. Udall and Bennett) has not passed a budget in over 1,000 days, why? Bernie Madoff and here locally Phillip Lochmiller are in jail for doing the very same thing that our government is doing to our younger generations with Social Security and Medicare. The president and the Senate don’t want to address the problem, why?

Obamacare, which went through against the will of the people, which practically everything the president promised from the cost, to who will be able to keep their coverage, to what will and won’t be covered, has been a lie and our Sens. Udall and Bennett voted for it.

In a time when we need jobs and energy independence why does President Obama, along with Udall and Bennett, vote to stop the Keystone pipeline? Gas prices aren’t high enough for them yet I guess. At a time when China and Russia are growing their armies and with the unrest in the Middle East, why are we cutting our defense budget? We pay these people? Why?

MICHAEL HIGGINS
Grand Junction



COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.




Search More Jobs






THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

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