Printed letters, March 13, 2013

The Daily Sentinel recently endorsed my candidacy for City Council. While I appreciate the endorsement, the editorial indicated that I supported adoption of Referred Measure B on the city’s April 2 election ballot. I am writing to clarify my position on Measure B.

In regard to sales tax in Grand Junction, I support the concept of a TABOR override because it lessens the burden on the city’s residents when paying for capital improvements.

According to the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, of the total sales tax collected by the city, 18 percent is paid by city residents and 31 percent is paid by city businesses.

This equates to 51 percent of the total sales tax being paid by individuals and businesses from outside of the city, and they are helping to pay for capital improvements.

Measure B lists a number of proposed capital improvement projects, and I believe that each of these improvements will be important for the future of the city. However, Measure B does not give any indication of the amount of money being requested or a timeframe for the override to cease.

When the voters approved a TABOR override to pay the Riverside Parkway bonds, they were told the expected amount of money that was needed and an estimated timeframe for completion. Measure B fails to do this.

Imagine a general contractor going to a bank and asking the bank to agree to start sending money to help pay for the list of projects he wanted to build.

The bank would likely ask how much money the contractor wanted and for how long.

If the contractor replied that he would figure that out later, he wouldn’t get very far with the bank, and I do not think Measure B will get very far with the voters. I will be voting “No” on Measure B.

I apologize to the Sentinel’s editorial board for failing to make my position clear, but I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position.

DUNCAN MCARTHUR

City Council Candidate,

District E

Grand Junction

Grant’s religion column
had emotion, not subtance

Bill Grant’s March 6 column about religion and the civil-unions bill exudes lots of emotion but little substance.Echoing the Southern Poverty Law Center’s designation of the National Organization for Marriage as a “hate group,” Grant piles on with “intolerant, exclusionary, bigoted form of religion.”

It is ironic that the SPLC is calling NOM a “hate group,” since Heritage Foundation studies have found that children growing up with a mother and father are significantly less likely to live in poverty. A stable home was found to raise children’s chances of escaping poverty by 82 percent.

Salvo Journal (winter 2012) states: “The SPLC operates out of a $24-million building locals call the ‘Poverty Palace.’ According to 2010 tax records, the SPLC sat on private investment funds exceeding $200 million. Top execs collect six-figure salaries. They’ve stamped out poverty splendidly — for themselves. There’s big money in hate.”

Could living in excess, while the poor you claim to represent wallow in poverty, be considered a form of hate?

As for Sen. Pat Steadman’s comment, “To those who claim that religion requires them to discriminate, I’d say, ‘Get thee to a nunnery ... away from modern society’”— what planet is he from?

His modern society is rife with economic meltdowns, mass killings, health and human service organizations overburdened and underfunded, a massive welfare state on the rise, and millions of dollars spent annually on internet pornography kept in lockstep with growing trends of child sex abuse and spousal unfaithfulness.

Perhaps a little discrimination concerning life’s moral choices is in order. Is it hateful for Christian organizations to promote causes that contribute to societal well being?  We don’t need more laws in our society as much as redeemed hearts. The cost of the former is outrageous. The cost-effectiveness of the latter is beyond measure.

BILL FORBES

Whitewater

As gun dealer, Rezak
showed bias in column

While reading Jeff Rezak’s column March 7 about gun laws, murder and other gun statistics, I was thinking he made some good points. That is until toward the end of the article, when he tried to compare drunk drivers and cars with weapons.

When someone is injured or killed by an automobile, whether a drunk driver or a sober person is driving, 99.9 percent of the time it is by accident.

When someone with an assault rifle massacres numerous people, it is 100 percent of the time a conscious decision to kill and maim as many as possible.

Then I realized why Rezak has this rationale. Rezak is a gun dealer.

AL AMIRAULT

Fruita

 

Rezak, Sentinel deserve
thanks for gun column

My thanks go to Jeff Rezak and to the Sentinel for his column March 7.

Controlling guns is not about safety of anyone. It’s about the government’s control of citizens. There is no shortage of statistics from the U.S. and around the world of what happens when citizens can no longer defend themselves and their families from the crazies.

And when did gun ownership become a partisan issue? Surely there are just as many liberal-leaning folks who own guns as the rest of us.

When is the next pro-gun rally?

DAVID DASHNER

Grand Junction



COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.




Search More Jobs






THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy