Email Letters: September 20, 2017

People’s voice not heard on name change

I’m sure that when City Council decided to go forward with the name change from North Avenue to University Boulevard they didn’t anticipate the level of controversy that would result from it. I have seen posts on both sides as to the reasons why it should or shouldn’t be changed. Some are neutral, wondering why there are any issues at all. I myself have written to the City Council letting them know my concerns with their decision. I wanted to clarify my personal concerns with this particular issue. It rests in the very foundations that our forefathers intended our government to stand upon – the very first words in our national Constitution…“We The People.”

As it clearly states in the Declaration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In short, this means that the government gets its power from the people. This sadly hasn’t been a reality for our national, state, and now – so it seems – our local government. In my opinion, there are many good personal and economic reasons why the name change shouldn’t occur, but for me it runs so much deeper than this. There is a moral factor that in such a huge decision that effects so many of us, our city government failed to allow our voices to be heard. Few made a decision for the many and that is something that should concern us all. I can accept a name change if in fact it was something that the majority of the people within the community agreed to. I cannot, however, accept the fact that the city felt that it was acceptable to take away the voice of its people.

So, as a citizen of this community I will sign the petition against the name change. I encourage every citizen to do the same – not because you agree or disagree or maybe don’t even care about the name change – but as a sign to our local government that here in Mesa County the voice of the people will continue to be heard.

Grand Junction

Government should spend tax money on form over function

In response to John Borgen’s online letter:

Mr. Borgen, The concept of “taxing ourselves into prosperity” is not about streets, roads, and law enforcement, but about the manner in which those taxes collected are used.

“Governments” are created by the people to see to the common, everyday, necessary activities of the community and to society as a whole.

While safe, well-maintained streets and roads, as well as criminal control, are the prime reasons for the creation of a government, our taxes are spent on a myriad of projects in which government has no legitimate role.

The government has no intrinsic need to become involved in “pretty.” While providing a safe and comfortable building, whether it is for emergency services or bureaucratic, all government buildings should be built for functionality. They should not be built as an artistic showpiece with designs that do nothing for function but are strictly “pretty” so the government workers can have a pretty place to work. The same goes for emergency services and law enforcement. Function over form. This subject is too long and detailed to deal with in such a limited forum as this.

Simply raising taxes to throw more money at failed, needless areas of government is taxing the citizens into poverty for no good, acceptable reason.

Cumming, Ga.


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

Mr.Dickey, I don’t agree with your assumptions. “Pretty” often leads to better productivity for workers in and out of the building. Also, some of our most esteemed buildings from the past are not just pretty, but beautiful. How did they manage in times not nearly as affluent as our society is currently.? Finally, taking a hard financial look at things , a “pretty” community invariably has higher property values.
After WW II there were many schools at all levels that started in ugly former Army barracks. They were adequate but most, or even all , grew to large campuses with lots of perfectly functional buildings that were also “pretty”.  Public officials going wild on monuments to themselves?

Are you talking about the District 51 ballot issue that emphasizes school building maintenance? Is that what you are considering unnecessary?

My only suggestion to you is to visit the voting center— but not the one in Georgia — to register your contempt for any body voting for what you consider unnecessary or any newcomers on the ballot that you feel may be so inclined.

Human’s generally respond favorably to artistry in most things they do. We are way beyond what you may think is functional. We need that as well as good streets, etc.

Register your feelings and they may be winners. You also may be a minority. In the meantime, some examples of what you are against might make you letter more meaningful. A full description of your ideology might also add meaning to your letter. What are you for? For instance, should our new open air performance center be out-of-bounds for government involvement?

Ms. Pell, I hear very often that we are not a democracy, but a republic. That supposedly means we have others who we vote into office that we rely on to govern us. You will have the opportunity to vote NO on those who in your opinion, have voted incorrectly.

North Avenue is an old fashioned junk business street that seems to follow no known kind of codes and zoning. The city has agreed to spend a lot of money in making it appear as if it belongs in 2017. They also believe a name change is in order to ally the street with the fact that we have a university in town and it is important.
You have every right to register your disapproval in any way you can but, at this point, it has to be at the ballot box. That’s the way the system works. If they are rascals, throw them out, or at least try to.

Mr. Borgen,“pretty” is not the same in the eyes of all ‘beholders’, and most often, “pretty’ is what determines the acceptance of the design. For example, we spent tons of money on Riverside Parkway to make it “attractive”, but not enough on the actual structure of the road or overpass structure. It has been falling apart since it was built, but it is still “pretty”. Paint color and decorations will not alter the functionality.

If the employees do not want to work in a building they find “unattractive” they are free to go work for a company that will create a ‘pretty’ place to work at the expense of said private company. There are many ways that an employee can adjust their space to be more conducive of ‘emotionally acceptable’ with the addition of plants, pictures, etc. It is not the role of government to spend money that is irrelevant to functionality.

If, as a private citizen, you wish to donate your time and or money to pick up the expense of adding “pretty” to a government building, you are free to do so. Why not get some sculptures placed in, and around the building at your expense and not demand we, THE PEOPLE pay for your frivolity.

Is the comment coming from Dennis Patton or Ms. Patton, the usual commenter in this space? Frivolity? Wow! This would be a dreary world if “pretty” were not a consideration in government work. You are trying way too hard to find a subject to comment on. I will accept anything our elected reps will do until I don’t, at which time I’ll at least try to vote them out of office. You have the option to do the same and you certainly have the right for your own desire for frugality.
Why not some thought next time rather than the pressing need to say something —  anything. Particularly regarding a comment that starts with the words “Mr.Dickey, I don’t agree with your assumptions.” Contrary to what you may believe this is a place to express opinions or try to clarify incorrect assumptions.

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