Printed letters, June 28, 2012
How can the city of Grand Junction justify putting taxpayer money into an endless money pit with the incredible amount of $3 million?
As two 70-plus natives of Grand Junction, we witnessed the good times of the Avalon/Cooper. However, with the uncomfortable, pathetic seats in the outmoded, difficult-to-see seating configuration, the inadequate stage, the outdated sound system, the same ugly carpet, etc., etc. — not to mention the problem of finding parking — the decision should be to destroy the “old memory” structure and move on.
The city owns property northeast of Grand Junction that would accommodate a structure more accessible to all surrounding communities. A theatre/art complex located outside the confines of downtown Grand Junction would allow more uses by more people.
Some of the money from the city and donors would be much better spent on a retreat to Colorado Springs for a visit to the Pikes Peak Center. If travel is not an option, check out the Pikes Peak Center’s website, pikespeakcenter.com. As noted on the website, it is an “entertainment, cultural, educational assembly center.” To attend an event there is to have the feeling that there is definitely something special with the city’s pride and cultural variety.
When will city of Grand Junction leaders wake up? They need to quit using taxpayer monies to keep holding on to a very old, musty memory of the Avalon. It is time they look ahead and build something multifunctional and indicative of the future of Grand Junction and Mesa County.
CAROLE A. STROBL
DONALD G. FISCUS
Garfield County must protect existing agricultural operation
You may remember that in February, the Garfield Board of County Commissioners unanimously voted against allowing Bedrock Asphalt to operate on land immediately adjacent to Eagle Springs Organic Farm in Silt.
Commissioner John Martin shared that the board had received more letters and emails from citizens about this issue than any other he could recall — all in support of protecting the valuable asset that Eagle Springs is to our local food supply. Also, more than 50 citizens rallied outside the county offices before the vote, representing a regional groundswell of support to prioritize local agriculture.
The commissioners all expressed concern that the asphalt plant would adversely affect the ability of the farm to successfully operate its business. Then they stood together in affirming the existing code that disallows any land use that impedes existing business or agricultural operation.
Now Bedrock is back at the table, asking again for a land-use change permit to allow a “contractors’ yard” that would include some “processing,” a “recycling processing facility” and “some crushing activity of the stored asphalt and concrete.” This is, again, the kind of harmful industrial activity from which the code is set up to protect existing agricultural operations.
Eagle Springs managers have already reported adverse effects from the substantial dust deposited on their crops (even inside their greenhouses) from Bedrock’s moving of dirt to build roads on the site. If this dust were to include toxic chemicals from asphalt processing and storage, Eagle Springs’ recently audited, exemplary, USDA organic status would be at risk.
The Roaring Fork Food Policy Council encourages citizens to weigh in with the Garfield County planning commission and suggest that they not recommend this application to the board for approval. Let’s not go through this again. With the climate stakes as high as they are, this occurs at a time to draw a line in the sand to protect our ability to feed ourselves locally and protect our agricultural assets.
Roaring Fork Food Policy Council
Candidate’s policy statement should have been a paid ad
This letter refers to Woody Walcher’s letter printed June 20. In this letter, I do not agree or disagree with the content. Instead, I question the editorial board’s placement of his letter.
The board placed his letter in the “Letters” section of the “Commentary” page. Writers submit letters to the editor for a multitude of reasons — to comment on affairs, rebut printed articles, question government, etc.
Walcher’s letter did provide a bit of his background and a couple opinions, but the bulk of the letter articulated what he intended to achieve if he was elected. As evidence, count how many promises he made.
I fail to see how the placement of his position statement is entitled to consume newspaper resources designated for readers to comment on affairs of the community and the world in which we live.
I believe the editors provided Walcher with a platform to convince readers why they should vote for him. As such, perhaps his piece would have been better suited as a paid advertisement or as part of a series highlighting every candidate’s positions.