Email Letters: March 31, 2017
In the long run, event center may burden community
Since I’ve been here nine years, I keep hearing that The Avalon and Two Rivers Convention Center constantly lose money. So why do we think a renovation of Two Rivers and the building of a new 5,000 seat multi-purpose arena will be a long-term moneymaker for the city?
As others have mentioned here, if this will be such a cash cow, how come the private sector hasn’t built this yet?
My concern is that after hiking taxes and creating more taxpayer debt, that we may have built an albatross, which in three to five years will not be profitable. Have you seen the few people who turn out for Rockies games?
I personally love hockey and live concerts, but consider a half-full arena on a Tuesday night. Do you still think 5,000 people will come out to see a semi-pro hockey team or the likes of Helen Reddy? Where are you going to draw 5,000 people, day in and day out, year after year for all these events? Additionally, wages are suppressed here, so you think a family of four can come out and spend at least $75 for game tickets, food, etc. when most people in this Grand Valley seem to only make about $10/hour? And do this multiple times per year?
Perhaps this is a good idea in the short-term (jobs created, temporary economic boost, etc.), but in the long run, I think we all lose. I don’t see the population numbers here, or the long-term support to sustain such an enormous financial project.
No on 2A.
Voters needs to know about potential downsides of event center
Back and forth, back and forth. What to think about the events center? Here are my questions: What are the downside effects of this proposal? In my experience, nothing is 100 percent wonderful, and if the proponents cannot speak to the downside, then they are being disingenuous. If you have to raise $48,000 to advertise this event center, I question if it can stand on its own merits.
What stops it from being an albatross to taxpayers as football stadiums have in other cities? Were studies done in cities where an event center did not work out? How much money must it generate on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis to just break even? What is the real cost, including interest paid? Does The Avalon pay for itself? If it doesn’t, what is the benefit to the community – increased property tax, adding to the beauty of downtown, that makes it worthwhile?
While the tax is small, it’s still a regressive tax because everyone pays it whether they can afford to use it or not. I don’t mind paying more taxes, but I would rather pay more taxes for better schools, improved roads, public safety, etc. This center seems to benefit the hotel builders and restaurateurs most of all.
Wortmann qualified with wisdom, experience, and belief in community
I met Duke Wortmann on a Mesa State road trip in 1977. I was impressed with his genuine enthusiasm and positive outlook on life. We became close friends throughout our lives. Duke is a loyal, trustworthy, inspirational man of integrity. Duke has the rare quality of bringing out the best in people around him and raising the bar of excellence for the task at hand. He does this by listening to all the stakeholders in a given situation and facilitating a solution with creativity, patience and respect for all participants.
Duke has proven his commitment to our community with a life of service. He passionately believes in the greatness of our community. He has the skills, experience and desire to work with cultural and ideological diversity. Our community needs a leader that can bring us together at this challenging time for our city. A Grand Junction City Councilman must also be able to bring together and work with Mesa County, the State of Colorado, Federal Agencies, many non-profit entities and District 51 schools.
C.E. Duke Wortmann is uniquely qualified with wisdom, experience, passion and belief in our community. Please allow Duke the opportunity to serve our community with a positive vision for our future.
MICHAEL J. PEWTERS
In a single-payer system the risk is spread over the entire population
In his column this morning Charles Krauthammer seems to resign himself to the coming of a single-payer health insurance system. He says a ”market” system should be what is offered, assuming the government should be involved at all. A person should be able to pick and choose what coverage he or she should think is appropriate for them.
Okay, but who knows, regardless of age, what they will need? And when? A young person in what appears to be good health buys a minimum coverage policy under the assumption he won’t need anything beyond that coverage. Except he or she is involved in a horrendous highway crash. Equally horrendous hospital charges result way beyond insurance coverage. Now what? No problem, ERs and hospitals are mandated to take care of it. Does that make sense? Buy a catastrophic coverage policy? With what kind of limits? Can you forecast your needs?
Does that same young person feel that he won’t be the victim of a countless number of diseases that affect people of all ages? Does he or she have the ability to forecast the onset of one of those diseases, which, these days, might have medication that costs thousands of dollars each week?
Does a system of gambling make sense? If such a system of ”choice” was in place does it make sense to continue to have the mandate that, when all else fails, your medical bills will be handled and the cost spread out to everybody else? Gambling assumes you take a chance. How much of a chance is taken if you know you will be taken care of if you guess wrong?
In a single-payer system the risk is spread over the entire population. Full coverage is workable. No gambling. You’re covered no matter what happens to you and how long you may be disabled. Anything else makes no sense at all.