Printed letters, February 24, 2013
When voting for City Council candidates, remember which ones actually did something good.
I want to recommend Laura Luke, who took the time to attend our neighborhood meeting to stop the Greyhound Bus terminal from being placed in a residential neighborhood.
She then took it to council, and its members wrote a letter to the Planning Commission against the idea.
Good job, Laura.
Chazen a choice choice for city council seat
The ballots for the Grand Junction City Council election will be mailed March 11. Elections for other offices often receive far more attention than those for city council; however, to the citizens who live in Grand Junction, there is no more important position than that of city council member.
Your property taxes, sales taxes and any number of other taxes and fees go to fund the operations of the city overseen by the city council members. The budget is huge, and how it is spent directly affects you.
Martin Chazen is running for the City Council because he doesn’t like wasteful spending. He is a numbers guy and has years of budget and finance experience. He understands the budget process and is uniquely qualified to look within the $145 million city budget for savings.
Coming from a career in the private sector, he knows how companies create jobs and understands that attracting jobs to our community is vital to our future and our lifestyle. His priorities will be public safety; infrastructure, such as roads, utilities, etc.; and living within the city’s means. He knows it is important for our city government to do the right things for the right reasons.
For all the right reasons, a vote for Martin Chazen for City Council will be the right thing to do for Grand Junction.
Bring John Otto’s vision of national park to fruition
The Grand Valley is graced with awesome sandstone towers and canyons minutes from western Colorado’s largest and most diverse communities of Grand Junction, Fruita and Palisade.
It is called “The Monument.” The question asked by most new visitors to the Colorado National Monument is, “Where is the monument? — you know, the pile of rocks with a statue on it?”
The name “monument” is not only confusing, but also costly. International travelers already land at Grand Junction Regional Airport, then head straight to Arches and other canyon-themed national parks. Guides and travel books promote national parks and often do not list monuments in their tours of the West.
National park status for Colorado National Monument will add millions of dollars to western Colorado’s lagging economy, which has the highest unemployment of the 12 major economic centers of Colorado.
The Grand Valley is proud of our art-filled downtown and our expertly grown fruit, wine and crafted spirits. We tout flowing and technical mountain bike trails. Colorado Mesa University provides high-quality education and unique experiences to students.
If western Colorado adds a new national park to our list of highlights, it will bring more acclaim and more visitors to buy wine, enjoy fine meals, warm up after a day of skiing, upgrade a bike, spend a night under the stars or in high-rise hotels or take on challenging semesters to earn accreditation.
“The Monument” is there because of founder, climber, trail builder and promoter John Otto’s desire to share the canyons, towers and amazing views with the American public. We honor his legacy and efforts by making his dream a reality. The Grand Valley will realize the overwhelming economic benefit that only national park status will bring.
National park status for the monument will be a great offering to western Colorado and the world — as its founder and creator John Otto intended.
Cofounder, Loki Outerwear
Editorial was objective about House gun measures
I appreciated the professional summary of the current assault on the Second Amendment in Tuesday’s Daily Sentinel editorial.
The first paragraph outlined very concisely the aspects of the procedures being employed that I am most concerned about — none seem obviously unconstitutional but all, taken together, seemed obviously counter to the intent of our Constitution.
And the second paragraph briefly summed up the only real direction I have seen expressed toward alleviation of our real problem — the morbid mental unbalance that results in a craving to be heard at any or all costs, including mass and personal homicides.
A most egregious part of the proposal, HB 1229 in paragraph five, would saddle private citizens with unspecified costs and responsibilities for predicting future actions of others with no means or control over those “others.” Open-ended responsibility without authority?
Throughout this piece I felt I saw a degree of objectivity generally missing from all too many public (read “media”) discussions of socio/political situations these days. For example, objective sizing of this situation might start with dividing the number of kids shot in school by number attending school — compare to number of kids injured in contact sports divided by number participating in such sports — number of pedestrian street accidents vs. total pedestrians — etc, etc. A little objectivity, maybe? Might even save a little dab of freedom.
A small booklet published by The Cato Institute in Washington D. C, is about five by three by 1/4 inches. It contains the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States with 27 Amendments. This little booklet contains our forefathers’ valiant attempt to provide us with a foundation for freedom.
In our libraries we can find truckloads of law books of laws supposedly based on the content of the little booklet plus, towering law office buildings in our cities full of lawyers explaining all those laws’ meanings. All these laws should remind us, always, that every law costs us some amount of freedom, when we wonder where our freedoms went.
Taxpayers shell out more as feds continue spending spree
Many of us were raised on the old saying, “When your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep becomes your downfall.”
We have been operating this country on a deficit of about 40 percent a year. This is equal to a household budget of $50,000 a year borrowing $20,000 a year to pay the bills when its real income is $30,000 a year. A responsible household manager would inform the family that it is time to cut spending.
Our manager is President Barack Obama. His response to our need to cut spending so far has been to rail about the impossibility of doing so without dire consequences.
Let’s take a look at the actual numbers that are being railed about in the coming “sequester.” Our current annual budget is approximately $3.6 trillion. The cuts called for would be approximately $85 billion per year for the next 10 years.
If you divide $85 billion by $3.6 trillion, it equals 2.4 percent. One-half of this amount would be applied to Defense Department cuts. The rest would be applied to discretionary spending.
To put this into perspective, 2.4 percent of a $50,000 budget is $1,200 a year. The half that applies to discretionary spending is $600 a year or fewer than $12 a week for a household budget of $50,000.
Ironically, payroll taxes just went up a similar number about a month ago. Some of us may have whined about it, but we pay it. The extra amount we pay will just about cover the amount the federal government is being asked to cut, leaving its income about the same and ours lower.
We are being asked to live by “If your outgo exceeds your income, then your upkeep will become your downfall” while the government wants to live by the old saying, “Have your cake and eat it all, too.”
Is something wrong here?