Printed letters, June 24, 2011
The Grand Junction Regional Airport Authority is spending grant money to put a gate across the access road blocking entrance to the Civil Air Patrol building and hangar at 2868 Aviators Way, which is used for access to the Western Colorado Amateur Radio Club and repeater. Once the gate is in place, we will have no access to our club meeting location or the radio repeater and antenna mounted on the building.
The repeater is used in numerous public service functions, such as ARES (Amateur Radio Emergency Service), RACES (Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service) and SkyWarn for the National Weather Service. We also test and certify new HAM radio technicians at the CAP building with a dial access allowing authorized CAP personnel to use the hangar and the flight line. It is already secure.
Security at the airport is important. But Grand Junction should evaluate the impact that this will have on our club and the economic impact on the businesses affected by the installation of the fence and the gate — particularly when there is minimal fencing on the desert, north side of the entire flight line.
Although this is grant money, it is still taxpayers’ money and this is essentially building a fence around a fence. What a waste.
DAVE BRATCHER, President
Western Colorado Amateur Radio Club
Holder deserves scrutiny over ‘Fast and Furious’
The Daily Sentinel’s editorial of June 22 was almost correct regarding the upcoming departure of Kenneth Melson as acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The acting director’s actions in not only allowing, but promoting “Operation Fast and Furious” were taken, I am sure, with the full knowledge and approval of Attorney General Eric Holder. To date, no one has exposed or questioned the attorney general about this operation.
I believe that this plan was part of a long-term goal by the attorney general to implement more and more firearms regulation to the point of putting legitimate dealers out of business.
DON COATNEY Grand Junction
Coal-fired electricity has kept prices low
Remember the video that Newsbusters exposed back in 2008, where then-Sen. Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that he planned on intentionally bankrupting the coal industry? It had to do with “global warming.” Oops, that was a mistake. “Climate change” is the preferred terminology now using the same scare tactics to demonize the coal industry.
A June 9 article in Coal News talks about two new EPA pollution regulations that will hurt the coal industry. Government data concluded that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost and electric rates will skyrocket as much as 23 percent.
The EPA considers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits. The EPA claims a savings of $290 billion in annual health and welfare benefits in 2014. The purported savings include preventing up to 36,000 premature deaths, 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma.
You can take this analysis to the bank. The EPA provided the numbers using a secret formula.
According to an article, “Energy Cost Burdens on American Family 2010,” from the May Coal News, energy prices have risen steadily for the past two decades, with the sharpest increase over the past five years. Gasoline and residential natural gas have increased the most, (131 percent and 100 percent since 1990, respectively). Residential electricity prices have increased just 49 percent since 1990, below the rate of inflation of 67 percent.
Using coal for approximately 50 percent of electricity generation has helped to keep electric prices low.
As a retired coal miner, I know the coal industry and its employees are genuine, good-quality people. I do not have a secret formula for this, but I suspect if you replace the 19,000 EPA employees with coal miners, they would contribute more to the economy and we wouldn’t have to worry about turning the lights on.
A vote of confidence in Foster’s artistic taste
I saw the painting meant for a building at Mesa State College on the front of The Daily Sentinel recently. I’ve never met Tim Foster. However, I certainly agree with him.
I wouldn’t hang that anywhere. It may be called modern art, but I believe any 10-year-old child could paint a better picture of the Monument than that.
No, I wouldn’t pay $12,500 for that. I believe that the artist in question should paint a few more realistic pictures.