Printed Letters: August 28, 2016

City should revise weed abatement plan

If it looked to the passerby that the weeds at First and Patterson (Northridge) were being neglected, look no more, as they have been cut, twice, and then sprayed twice! There was a reason for the hiatus of keeping pace with the weed growth. Read on:

My family is the property owner and my weed cutting was following a schedule until somebody helped himself to my Kubota Tractor (loader plus brush hog) by stealing it in April. That tractor was my main means of controlling weed growth and invasion. Without the tractor, I have had to bear the expense of renting a tractor once, which I don’t wish to do again.

I have asked the Northridge HOA to participate thrice, but had no response or follow through.

The special purpose of this letter is to thank some individuals who came to my rescue and helped me out in cutting the weeds on this property not once, but twice. They responded to my cry for help without wavering. I extend my sincere thanks to them for doing such a nice cutting, with such short notice.

This is an example where two different entities of public and private came together (I helped them previously) to help each other out — Grand Junction style. Love it!

As a final comment, from my many years of cutting weeds, I have a strong conviction and recommendation to the City Council to study and revise the weed abatement program. It is antiquated and ambiguous, and has created more animosity and consternation than it prevents, and it needs to be reinvented. The weeds are not just owned by the property owners, as they didn’t plant them or make them grow; the weeds belong to everybody in the valley and the removal, as with snow and ice similarly, should be shared by the public and the private sector together.

I am available to serve on a committee to research the abatement codes and to find more effective alternatives or modifications to the present codes for eradication of weeds.

Grand Junction

City should consider 
restricting open burn season

I’m a runner. I run hard, which requires breathing hard. Last spring, while out for a run around Sherwood Park, I started to lose energy. It was difficult to move at all. I was able to finish my run but felt as if my lungs were taken away completely. I made it back home, but as soon as I stopped moving the coughing fits came. The coughing continued for five solid minutes and it was almost 30 minutes before I felt that I could breathe deeply again.

What happened? I am not an asthma sufferer. I am in great shape. I don’t smoke. What was wrong? One look toward the billowing black clouds around the valley made it obvious. I was choking on smoke and particulates from a half dozen or so fires. A brownish-yellow haze painted the hills around the valley.

Further, a neighbor was burning weeds in the alley we share behind my house.  When I asked why he was burning, he said that he had a burn permit.

For five months out of the year, people can obtain a permit to burn. I understand that it is quick and easy to burn as opposed to making a dump run or to manage yard waste by hand, but I feel the health implications far outweigh the benefits. If it was hard for a healthy person like myself to breathe, I cannot imagine what it must be like for someone who struggles to breathe on a daily basis.

As Grand Junction takes steps to make this a healthy place to live and strives to develop an outdoor recreational industry, I think it wise that they should consider restricting the open burn season.

Grand Junction

Let’s elect those who’ll punish child murderers fittingly

Bob Dylan sang “Everything is Broken.” But in all fairness, that’s only been true for the last 6,000 years of human history. A few lyrics: “Broken laws, broken bodies, broken bones, people bending broken rules…” The last line hit home in a revolting way this last week and inspired a question for any fellow citizen not brainwashed by the heartless ACLU or some feel-good “spiritual” nonsense.

Question: If one day’s Daily Sentinel front-cover story reports that a convicted child murderer is given a mere 32 years in prison, and another tells us there’s a caseload increase and funding decline at the Western Slope Center for Children, at an approximate cost of $50,000 per year to feed and care for a single convicted murderer who has, in any rational and compassionate society, forfeited their right to live ... how many children could instead be helped with that $1.6 million from taxpayers?

For extra credit, how many more children could be rescued from further abuse, and even murder, if members of a society ever chose to look beyond their personal and organizational agendas and stop coddling violent criminals? Before anyone answers with that worn-out, thoroughly refuted knee-jerk response about capital punishment qualifying as “cruel and unusual,” they should come down from their moral high horse and consider how criminals convicted of abusing children are treated by fellow prisoners.

This election will set the tone for how this nation responds to violent crime. If we have to be ruled by leaders who are (insert invective here) can’t we at least elect those who know enough to get this issue right? You know, for the children?

Grand Junction


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

Does Marty Dhabolt want justice or “his pound of flesh”?  The answer is the latter for, if he is after justice, he will be sorely disappointed.  The only way any type of justice could be served is to undo what has been done, to a child or anyone else, and that is impossible to do.

He goes on to attack the ACLU (and others) for what they do.  I wonder if he were the defendant in any type of criminal case he would feel the same about that organization?  That is highly doubtful for, as all of them do, he would not only accept such assistance, but demand it as a “right”.  Therefore, the first thing he might choose to do is get off his very own “moral high ground”, as some of us don’t see it as being “high” at all, but really as rather “base”.

He then goes on to state that if we did not have to pay in order to incarcerate such criminals, the money could be use to take care of “how many children”.  That has absolutely nothing to do with it as the children (and far too many of them) still need help.  However, Mr. Dhabolt not asking the right question “Why do so many children need help” does not only not see that, but does not really want to pay for it although that need does exist.

When some of us hear of someone causing harm to another, child or adult, we do get furious, just as does Mr. Dhabolt.  However, as we are adults, we do not allow our emotions to govern our actions.  Mr. Dhabolt, as should many others, make a determined effort to do the same.  That is, of course, provided that they still can.

I wonder if Mr. Dhabolt would complain about the ACLU when they are defending someone he agrees with.

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
Advertiser Tearsheet

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