Summit Daily letters: How to vote on this week’s mail-in ballot
Vote NO on 2B on this week’s mail-in ballot
Frisco is such an amazing community. We are thriving because tourists from Denver and around the world realize we have something very special to offer. If you ask anyone about our success, they simply state “our town has charm.” This charm has been a blessing for retailers, restaurants and everyone who works and lives here. We are thriving! We have an opportunity to build on this momentum or potentially squelch it. What makes our town special? Everyone should ask themselves this question before voting on this week’s mail-in ballot.
The ballot is asking you to convert the Pocket Park, located on 3rd between Main and Granite (our town’s core) into high density, affordable housing without sufficient parking or storage; 12 studios with eight parking spots. The Pocket Park is one of only two downtown parks zoned as open space. Although we desperately need affordable housing, is this the answer? Are we looking for a fast answer or the right answer?
Let’s plan together, like we used to, with forums that got the community involved in important decisions versus a surprise question on a ballot. Also, the ballot deserves some clarification; the Town is prohibited from the sale or lease of town-owned parks and open space without approval of the registered electors. That is why we are asking you to Save Frisco’s Pocket Park and vote NO on 2B.
At present rates of growth, the tourism/leisure industry will soon become the leading U.S. industry. We need to think about what attracts people to our community and plan accordingly. If you develop everything, you destroy what people come here to see.
Vote NO on 2B and ask the Town to evaluate other options for our ever-critical affordable housing issue. The CDOT lot and Sabatini lot together provide 450 percent more affordable housing without giving up open space in our already dense and critical core. If we purge our town of what gives it its character and charm, then we lose its beauty and what has made it successful.
The act of balancing rights
I am not a member of the NRA, but I have lived around guns all my life. Wild game has always been a welcome addition to our family table.
I also believe in the Bill of Rights. However, the rights of free speech, religion and the others enumerated in the first 10 amendments are subject to regulations that have been designed to keep excessive freedom of one group from infringing on the freedom of a different group. It is always a difficult process to balance the rights of one against the rights of another, and progress is not always perfect, but this search for balance is what has made and kept the United States the greatest country.
The time has come for the NRA to stop its campaign to step on the rights of the majority of Americans.
Because the NRA has chosen not to listen to voices of reason, I want to express my support of the companies that are cutting ties with the NRA. When I shop, vacation, fly, bank, etc. I will do it with businesses who have chosen the rights of our children over the right to own an assault weapon.
Methane rule needed for clean air
The Methane Waste Reducton rule, while a bit redundant to many who may think of methane as merely a waste by-product, is an $800 million paycheck to the American people for efficient production of natural gas. As natural gas is almost entirely comprised of methane, any losses due to leaky valves, pipelines, flaring and venting, is a direct loss of the domestic energy reserve required to make political statements like “energy Independence”, “energy dominance” possible, as well as to keep your house warm without firing up that coal stove in the basement.
NASA has found a methane cloud the size of Delaware over the Four Corners Region that can be traced back to the oil and gas production on federal lands in the San Juan Basin of New Mexico. This cloud, while contributing nothing to our economy, or even to the bottom line of gas companies, is contributing substantially to poor air quality over Western Colorado. Though Colorado has a methane rule in place, (serving as the template for the national rule), adjacent states do not abide by the same principles of efficient production and consequently pass on the effects of their bad habits to us here in the mountains of Colorado.
The consistent attempts to weaken this rule, including most recently to weaken requirements to fix leaks and to use available techniques to limit hazardous, smog-forming VOCs, are intended to save oil companies money in the short run on compliance-related costs. In effect however, we all lose out; not only on royalties to taxpayers for trillions of cubic feet of wasted natural gas, but on a finite resource, and on the air quality befitting to our superior lifestyle in the High Rockies.
We stand to lose more than extraction companies stand to gain with elimination of these rules.
Dear Senator Michael Bennet
Your taped comments read at the opening of the Democrat Caucus Tuesday night, March 6, oozed with self-congratulatory words about bringing honesty and values back to Washington, and frankly made me want to puke.
At a time when discussions about immigration reform, gun control, infrastructure (issues that could have a real benefit to the people you represent) should be initiated by the Democrats, you joined with 16 other Democrats (aptly called the “Bailout Caucus”) and all Republicans in voting to advance a bill that would rollback oversight of big banks and eliminate protections. This bill, s.2155, cleverly named the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, significantly weakens the Dodd-Frank protections enacted after the financial meltdown of 2008,9. While the bill started with the limited goal of offering more of a level playing field to smaller, community banks, it rapidly (with the aid of powerful banking lobby groups of course) morphed into a bill that makes future bailouts more likely, deregulates many larger banks (even foreign banks), and encourages more racial discrimination in lending practices. Why would you vote for such a bill?
A clue might be found in some previous “blights” on your voting record and the reason for these. In Feb., 2017, you joined with 12 other Democrats to defeat an amendment to a budget resolution for 2017 that would have allowed pharmacists to import drugs from Canada, often at a fraction of the cost paid in the U.S. Turns out this select group of Democrat “no” voters contained some of the top Senate recipients funded by pharmaceutical companies. Congratulations, you made the cut! Another memory: In a town hall meeting in Frisco in 2016, you reaffirmed your support of Big Oil with your approval of the Keystone Pipeline. You might remember we had quite a heated discussion of this at the time.
Hmm…I wonder of there is any relevant link between these votes and the present banking act vote. The good news is that you still have time to change your mind and behavior pattern this time. Advancing the bill to the Senate floor does not guarantee it’s passage. Think of the welfare of the country, or at least think of the Democrat Primary Caucus in 2022!
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.