Email Letters: March 30, 2017

Our money should be spent on citizen’s needs, not event center

Doug Lucks makes good points in favor of an events center, but the dissension is not about the economics of an events center, but about how the citizen’s money is spent. Government should not be in business, but in governing. The citizen’s money should be spent on improving schools, roads, parks, police, fire, etc. He says “success in not guaranteed,” then sell non-recourse municipal bonds and let those who support an events center fund it and maybe make a profit. “Maybe making a profit” is for businesses, not for government.

I love living in Grand Junction. I enjoy the outdoors, the lack of crowds, going downtown, mixing with the locals – the small town feel. Yes, raise the sales tax, but spend the money directly on the citizen’s needs and leave business to the private sector and those who want to invest in it.

Grand Junction

We need to budget for action against human caused climate change

Re: Mr. Sean Goodbody’s column, Climate change, what’s the worst that can happen?

It’s almost laughable how skeptics turn their face away from empirically gathered facts and look at this world in a very short-term perspective. Human caused climate change (HCCC) can be interpreted in another analogy where the HCCC represents a possible disease that your body may now host. As the doctor is unsure if the operation is completely necessary, there is a risk that surgery is unnecessary and the money is wasted. However, the money that was spent for the surgery is not actually as wasteful as one may think because the money bought reassurance, comfort, and a sense of relief.

There is panic occurring now regarding HCCC, and nations are starting to slowly take action. The nations that face the greatest threats from HCCC will see the effects first-hand as well as react first. The U.S. doesn’t see this threat as plausible yet and we have people like Mulvaney, who was appointed by President Trump, saying things like, “we’re not spending money on that anymore, we consider that to be a waste of money.” In my mind I’m asking, what good is money if we’re all dead? Intuitively, money should be worthless compared to human security.

According to NASA, global climate change, the average carbon dioxide levels have increased nearly 100 parts per millions since 1950. Additionally, an article from the department of biological science of Stanford University stated that Greenland lost nearly 100-250 cubic kilometers of ice. Humans caused both of these two events. Through a skeptic’s eyes, it would seem as if money was more valuable than human existence. If HCCC becomes uncontrollable and it becomes too late, the only reason it would not have been stopped, and that is where humanity ended, would be due to the lack of budgeting to a very basic need.

The citizens of this country appreciate people like you are informing others over national need to be addressed.


Chazen is honest and accountable to oversee how tax money is spent

Grand Junction residents need to pay close attention to their own interests in this City Council election.

Ask yourself; do you want a council member who is actually accountable to you, the taxpayer? Do you want a leader who bothers to personally check up on each department to see if you’re getting the best services for your hard-earned tax dollars?

If you want a true public servant who has experience as a financial officer and understands operating within a budget, then Marty Chazen is your best choice in this election. Chazen’s kind of honesty and leadership is how local government spending and over-reach can be contained.

I don’t have to tell you that there are tight economic times for all Western Colorado cities and counties. Until the economic engines that have been stalled in the last few years are restored, we can’t pretend that theaters, parks and cultural niceties are going to generate wealth to keep us all going and fund government.

Marty Chazen understands that efficient, well-equipped police and fire departments and quality water, roads, sewer and trash services are the highest priorities to ensure your health, safety and quality of life. His careful attention to the budget has earned him some enemies among the free spenders and those who profit most from extravagant projects. Hard working families and the elderly are already struggling financially and can’t be expected to shoulder more of the load for projects that are nice to have but unnecessary at this point in time.

Marty Chazen has already proven that he is honest and accountable to oversee how your tax money is spent to make city government function for the benefit of all the residents. This kind if integrity deserves your vote.


Columns about Bears Ears cited an accurate but misleading figure

In the past week, two columnists (Robin Brown and Sean Goodbody) wrote columns about the Bears Ears Monument designation. They were from opposing points of view and both were for the most part fairly written. But both columnists cited a figure that, while technically accurate, is misleading without the presence of more context.

That figure is the total amount of acreage designated by President Obama, approximately 550 million acres. What was not stated was that about 99 percent of this number is actually contained in two Marine National Monuments – in other words, they are made up of ocean water, not land. President George W. Bush originally designated both of these marine monuments. Mr. Obama extended these monument boundaries based on scientific evidence that greater coverage was needed to protect endangered wildlife and fish stocks.

Whether these designations are wise policy (as well as whether they should be done via the Antiquities Act) are fair issues for debate. My point here is that both columns implied that the 550 million acres were made up of parcels of land – Mr. Goodbody actually used the phrase “548 million acres of land” in his piece. If Mr. Obama had actually designated land parcels equal to “five times the size of California,” that would have been alarming indeed. But that’s not the case. The total land acreage designated is about 5 million acres, not 550 million.

Grand Junction

Bears Ears Monument establishes a point of unification for local tribes

Robin Brown’s column Sunday addressing the controversy around Utah’s Bears Ears National Monument inaccurately claims that there is no local tribal support for the monument, and that the local Navajo chapter was in opposition. In fact, seven of the eight tribes in Utah have endorsed the monument, and most of the Navajo chapter councils in Utah have as well (there are more than one in Utah). None have voted to oppose the monument. While outside environmental groups have helped drum up support for the designation, furthering the lively local movement, it began, and is being hailed as, a victory for local tribes.

Another argument Brown makes is that it will block oil and gas development. However, as evidenced by a graveyard of plugged and abandoned well sites, drilling potential is naturally quite limited by local geology. Existing leases are to be honored to their completion.

By suggesting that the support for the Bears Ears was all from outsiders, out of state tribes and environmental philanthropists, the column deprives local Native Americans of agency in achieving their own voice and their own desires.

Bears Ears National Monument helps protect historical sites, but moreover helps to begin a long overdue process of healing. Tribes have endured over a century of largely unchecked looting, vandalism and grave robbing on their ancestral lands. Tribes play a meaningful role in managing the monument with a newly established commission.

The discussion surrounding this designation does not have to devolve to the inane level of politics as the innumerable hot button issue of today. This monument establishes a point of unification for local tribes, the outdoor recreation economy and at the least impact to regional resource extraction. With a seat at their own table, the Navajo and Ute tribal councils can finally direct their cultural futures.

Grand Junction

Cowardly and anonymous letter writers should be condemned for juvenile behavior

I must say “Amen” to Holly Von Helms’ letter of March 29. I have also been the recipient of cowardly, anonymous letters in response to my own letters to the editor. One came with my address as the return address on the envelope; another used much worse language than “liar” and was signed with first names only and a nonsensical return address. These were sent, not as reply “Letters to the Editor,” or even as anonymous “You Said Its,” but to my home address. This makes them not honest disagreements, but subtle threats to privacy and personal safety. These people are personally and morally immature and we should all condemn them for such juvenile behavior.

Grand Junction

Voters need to hear about the cons, not just the pros, of approving event center

Interesting how “studies” like the one concerning the events center can tell you the up side with great precision such as the economical impact, increased tax revenue, expected number of events, expected visitors and money coming in from outside the local area, etc. but they never seem to be able to project or just don’t want you to know what the maintenance costs would be and the impact if those ifs, maybes, and projections aren’t met.

Also interesting is how all of a sudden, right before the final vote, we are being bombarded with ads from advocates and special interest groups, TV promos from business people, many who have a lot to gain, a host of articles from The Daily Sentinel staff and reporters citing the benefits, and a sudden influx of Letters to the Editor telling us we must approve 2A.

Until I see the other side of the coin, count me as a “no.”


Grand Junction

Most of the GOP simply want to repeal ACA, return to the way things were

The GOP were all full of bluster when they voted countless times to repeal the Affordable Care Act while Barack Obama was president. But after Trump became president and the GOP had to vote to repeal and replace, they couldn’t even get to a vote! It’s so laughable.

The reason for this is that most of the GOP simply do not want to replace the ACA. They just want to repeal the act and go back to the way things used to be. This is where 20 percent of your premiums for health care comes right off the top and goes directly to the mega health insurance companies. Then, your deductibles are outrageous where you pay through the nose before you get any coverage, which you later find out doesn’t really cover everything. And if you had a pre-existing condition, you are simply not worthy of consideration for health care. And not to mention the large profits made by big pharma who are totally in collusion with the medical community and the health insurance company.

The GOP has always supported almighty capitalism and by going back to the way things were, they would support the huge profits of all the mega companies that should have the freedom to pursue getting super rich off the backs of the American public. True capitalism the GOP way.

Grand Junction

All Mesa County residents should get to vote on 2A tax increase

In response to Mr. Luck’s opinion in his March 29 letter, he makes a good case for downtown and the need for growth; I respect that. What I don’t like about this 2A tax increase is that only those who live in Grand Junction incorporated get to vote on it. When you refer to residents outside are you referring to the unincorporated parts of Mesa County or other cities. If I cross the street I’m in the city. So I don’t think it’s fair (and I know life isn’t always fair) to ask all Mesa County residents that this tax affects to go along with something we can’t even vote on. This is taxation without representation.

We don’t get all the advantages of Grand Junction City even though that is our address. When I look at the tax breakdown when I purchase something at Wal-Mart, which is in the city my receipt has, Tax 1 at 7.650% and Tax 5 (buying state sanctioned unhealthy food) at 2.900%. When looking at the tax breakdown of Mesa County online it reads: State tax 2.9%; County tax 2.0%; City tax 2.75% with a total of 7.65%. If it affects all of Mesa County since we will pay the tax, then we should be able to vote on it.


Grand Junction


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1

Ms. Corbin, the vote on an events center is because it will belong to the city and the city will thrive or be buried by it. You are free of worry. On the other hand, the County could have proposed it and you could vote on it. That would never happen because Mesa County is the most reactionary in Colorado and is married to the fair grounds. Have you ever attended an event at the fair grounds? Suddenly it’s 1910 and the good old days. But the ever-enjoyable destruction derbies are with more recent car models.

What a surprise! Hunley is voting NO. The essence of capitalism is the availability of funds for borrowing and lending. This country couldn’t have ever reached the level of development and livability it has without that banking system which has been used by commerce as well as governmental units. The issue is will
it or will it not be a catalyst for growth as well as an amenity for the enjoyment of citizens and improve the livability of the area. Some think it is a gamble and others feel it is a sure thing. We’ll see. Or not. In the meantime there is a paucity of investors lined up to build it. Is it because of lack of population or maybe the Hunley-like political attitudes?

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
eTear Sheets/ePayments

© 2017 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy