Email Letters: October 14, 2016

It’s not wise of city to pony up the money for amphitheater

I’m sure it hasn’t been two weeks since The Daily Sentinel publicized the fact that the city was offering/threatening city workers with unpaid furloughs, because current tax receipts are so low.

But suddenly the city is all in on a (more or less – nobody is sure) $3 million amphitheater. This amphitheater apparently will generate only $76,000 in 2018, excluding expenses, which will be absorbed by the city, even though city officials can’t tell how much they’ll total. What?

So, where did this newly found money come from? And regardless of where it came from, when one considers the logic behind the expenses statement the city provided, how smart is this, anyway?

Not very smart, according to Councilman Chazen.

RICHARD RININGER

Grand Junction

Focus on enforcing laws rather than restricting rights of law abiding gun owners

The Oct. 13 Sentinel contained a story of the conviction of Deone Patterson for armed robbery. His sentence was 25 of a possible 48 years in prison. Patterson is said to have been unhappy with the range of possible sentences, given the “low amount of cash involved.”

It’s not about the amount of cash, but the fact that a firearm was used in the crime. Those who are concerned with gun violence should be working to ensure that existing laws on criminal use and possession of guns are enforced. A prime example is the push for more inclusive/intrusive background check systems when there is currently a dearth of prosecutions for those who attempt to defeat the existing system (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/23/despite-retoric-gun-prosecutions-plummet-under-ob/)

The current emphasis on restricting the rights of law abiding gun owners will not have anywhere near the impact on reducing crime, if that is the true intent…

D. DEMONT POTTER
Fruita

ColoradoCare would mirror our system of Medicare

ColoradoCare would mirror our system of Medicare, with its low administrative costs for insurance. Would you say we’ve all bought into socialism by using it and paying for it? We’ll all pay as we’re able and all get care, as we should, if we vote for Amendment 69. ColoradoCare will pay, but does not affect which doctor we choose or where we get our care.

JUDY DANIELSON

Denver

Public healthcare destroys these parasitic insurance companies

I won’t go into economic analysis, comparative nation studies, or even the ethics behind ensuring everyone has access to medical coverage in the state of Colorado. Many more capable individuals have done an exemplary job of paving the rational road towards public healthcare. What I hope to focus on is a lesser made argument, though none the less for it; it is good to decimate insurance companies. ColoradoCare, aside from ensuring no one has to spend hours on the phone disputing dishonest billing practices with a spineless bureaucrat, ensures that all of those bureaucrats would actually be forced to participate in our democracy, do something meaningful, and actually live a productive life. Think on this carefully. You have at present an army of fools and charlatans whose sole responsibility is finding loopholes to deny coverage, explain why you were charged $700.00 for treatment that should have been covered, and at the same time sequester literally billions away from hospitals, citizens and progress.

Public healthcare destroys these parasitic organizations. All of that money can effectively be put back into our pockets, and back into the pockets of those actually providing us with medical care. By getting rid of the middlemen, we can deal honestly and faithfully with our doctors, nurses, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. It would usher in a world of renewed democratic practices and fellow feeling; the very thing we are desperately lacking today.

I say if we cannot hang every greedy CEO by their over-priced neckties, then at the very least we should create an entity that would rightfully put them out of business.

Vote yes on 69.

DAVID SEGALCHIK
Denver

Indoctrination to blame white people has achieved goal of daily racial violence

My thoughts on racism in America: As one wanders the streets, highways and byways of America, and American neighborhoods and businesses, one notices and sees things that are noteworthy. Regardless (with a few exceptions) of where one wanders, there are always people of all colors present going about their daily lives. Whether it is their jobs, their pastime activities or daily shopping, in America, the vast majority of all colors are present, accepted as normal and treated with respect the same as Americans of Caucasian descent.

Those “few exceptions” are inner city neighborhoods where no white person is allowed to enter under fear of death. It seems that those minorities have been trained since birth to “blame whitey” by the media and the political left. The indoctrination to blame whitey has finally achieved its intended goal of daily racial violence from border to border and coast to coast.

If one were to look back at the history of racial unrest and violence in America, they would find a balance and slightly decreasing issues until the early 1960’s when the FCC dropped the requirement to “broadcast the news twice a day without commercials” as a condition of their broadcast license. The day after that requirement was dropped, the media set out to increase the numbers of viewers to increase the value to advertisers, and thus raise the ad rates, bringing in more cash to the network coffers. The old adage of, “if it bleeds, it leads” is even better if it’s mixed in with racial violence and the blood of minorities. The early 1960s was when racism in America took a sudden and intense upward spiral thanks entirely to the network news pushing racism as a means of increasing their profit margins.

The facts are there, all one needs to do is to look!

DREW DICKEY
Cumming, Ga.

How can school district afford to pay both principal and replacement?

Let me see if I have this straight. A middle school principal was (allegedly) involved in a hit and run crash. This principal, Hal Templeton, has been placed on administrative leave. His new “job” is in “dropout retrieval and recovery.” This “job” pays him $81,063. His “replacement” is a former district Chief Academic Officer Bill Larsen, earning $97,796 annual salary. Templeton’s new job is “temporary.” So, the school district is paying out $179,399 for a “fired” employee and a new employee. My, how fiscally responsible the school district must be! Are they so “flush” that paying twice essentially for one job is in the budget? Or did the district create another job for Templeton? I must be confused – or something.

CREIGHTON BRICKER

Grand Junction

Our government should be doing all they can to help rebuild Haiti

In the aftermath of Hurricane Matthew, the death toll rose to 33 in the U.S just two days ago. In Haiti, the death toll is expected to be over 900. What has our government done to help? Not much. I believe the U.S government has not done enough to employ aid to Haiti. The UN is reporting over 1.4 million Haitians will need assistance and 750,000 need “life-saving” assistance. So far there are still towns that the aid has not reached yet. However, all this pleading to help has done nothing for those affected.

The U.S government has been known in several instances to have less of an impact and a large delay in resources for cities or countries that have been hit by natural disasters. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana. President Bush took two days to respond and four days to visit New Orleans. In retrospect, this is a long time in the wake of a natural disaster.

President Obama should be taking steps to urge citizens to donate to Haiti relief organizations that can mobilize easily to provide aid and keep an open line of communication with Haiti. As a president who has presented himself as a liberal, he should know that cooperating with Haiti would immensely help with the distribution of aid and the restoration of homes and buildings. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and our government should be doing all they can to help.

ERIN MILLER
Englewood

It seems that the drug addicts get more respect than our elderly

My friend got evicted from her apartment because she was helping her daughter and son-in-law. And before she could get off the property she got another eviction notice for non-payment of rent. According to my attorney, that’s against the law. Since she was already evicted she was using SSI to get another place. According to the law, she didn’t have to pay rent.

Not only this, but drug addicts are than welcome on the premises along with drug dealers. Yet decent elderly are treated like garbage over there. It seems that the drug addicts get more respect than our elderly.

SAMUEL POTTS

Clifton

Winner take all primary is a bad idea – No on initiative 107

On this year’s election ballot, soon to arrive in the mail, there is an initiative, #107, that appears to address problems with the precinct caucus system, but a closer reading tells a different story. Although #107 creates a presidential primary and opens up the process to unaffiliated voters it also contains what I think is a fatal flaw and a giant step backwards for the democratic process, it makes the primary “winner take all.” Instead of candidates being awarded delegates based on the percentage of the vote they won, the top vote getter in the race gets all the delegates, 100 percent of them.

Imagine a three, four, or five person race, not unusual in presidential contests, where the top vote getter receives 35 percent of the vote…they would get 100 percent of the delegates even though 65 percent of the people voted for someone else. It’s conceivable that in a multi-candidate race, the top vote getter, “the winner,” could get even fewer votes than that but under “winner take all” they would still get 100 percent of the delegates!

A “winner take all” primary is no way to choose a candidate for president of the United States and not my idea of democracy, do you agree? If you do, then vote no on #107 and hopefully we can get it right with another initiative in two years, in plenty of time for the next presidential
election. Vote no on #107!

CHRIS GOODWIN

Boulder


COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.


TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Advertiser Tearsheet
Information

© 2016 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy