Summit Daily letters: Appoint Gary Martinez as county commissioner | SummitDaily.com

Summit Daily letters: Appoint Gary Martinez as county commissioner

Appoint Gary Martinez as commissioner

The County Commissioner replacement process begins the 23rd. The process is a good one, especially with as many as 43 members of the Democratic Party making the decision. It is impressive that there are at least five applicants for the position.

First off, I am a registered independent. I care about who takes the commissioner’s seat because of each commissioner votes for whatever and wherever the item on their agenda is located in the county.

Looking at the list of candidates one stands out. Gary Martinez.

Over thirty years, I have actively worked within the county’s planning and zoning, open space, and environmental health departments. I had worked with Gary many times when he was the county manager and before that manager of the town of Breck.

He is always fair, gives excellent advice in procuring a positive outcome and simplifies seemingly complicated processes. Historical perspective, common sense and the ability to work with all the departments within the county is very important when considering who takes the seat.

1A passed. Now the hard work begins, committees that are addressing how to spend the funds and where to spend those precious dollars are going to need leadership and guidance to be successful, and frankly keep out of trouble. Gary has the knowledge and experience to act as one of the guides to do this right. No question.

I hope that the sitting commissioners support Gary. I wish I could vote, Gary would be my choice.

Eddie O’Brien

Silverthorne

A rebuttal to Susan Knopf’s immigration argument

Susan Knopf’s Jan. 17 column, “We can fund the government,” is interesting, but somewhat short on facts — at least presenting what Paul Harvey would say “the rest of the of the story.” Taking a quick look at some of her items here are additional facts that would be considered by an objective analysis.

(2) “There are no illegal aliens.” Wrong! Today is 2019. The U.S. throughout its history had developed and passed laws and rules. Today entering the U.S. without some type of entry “pass” is illegal. Coming over the border or over staying a visa is by its nature an illegal activity.

(3) Looking at this topic will yield an answer that states that generally 50 percent of illegals are either overstaying their visa or illegally entering the U.S. A toss up either way you look at it! There are a lot of illegals here and a lot more entering daily!

(4) We cannot continually “nation build.” We haven’t been that successful in the past. How do we try get rid of those dishonest foreign leaders? And who is to say that we always have the correct answers. It has been proven time and time again that giving money to a country usually funnels into some bad guy’s bank account.

(5) A Cato Institute analysis shows that, if stopping drug smuggling is the goal, a border wall is about the worst possible investment. However, marijuana smuggling, was their focus and since it is legal in many of our states this is a minor consideration. Logically, I would suggest that an added benefit of a wall is that it would slow down at least the flow of drugs into the U.S. Anything will help!

(6) Jobs. Good versus bad! It is a tossup about jobs. Sure, we can use labor in some sectors, but the real question, from a tax payers’ point of view, is the cost of illegals. It is estimated that illegals have a net cost of $115 billion or $2,746 per illegal alien, per year. You and I as U.S. taxpayers are paying this bill. Can we use that money better that paying for illegals? We could work on the plight of veterans, or our own homeless, or our own drug folks.

(7) Crime. Does it really mater the rate of crime between U.S. citizens, illegals and legal immigrants. Crime is crime! Why import more crime? There is no reason to measure with micrometers the rate of crime and compare the statistics! Entering the U.S. without some type of permission is illegal!

(8) “The NBPC’s survey, of more than 600 agents in two of the Border Patrol’s busiest sectors, found just the opposite: A stunning 89 percent of line agents say a wall system in strategic locations is necessary to securing the border.” Just 7 percent disagreed.

Note: NBPC: The National Border Patrol Council is a labor union established in 1967 that represents agents and support staff on the United States Border Patrol

My analysis may or may not be absolutely accurate but it does present another view on the topic of a wall. But Susan Knopf’s statements are no more accurate than mine. Her analysis is ”her” analysis — not necessarily factual.

Jim Welte

Frisco


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.