Our letters
section and your opportunity to weigh in and be heard. Send
us your thoughts and profundities. You can contact us here.
A hard look at
last week's letters
Dear Editors:
I religiously read your publication online every week and,
although I am not as “liberal” as your target audience,
I do enjoy a differing perspective on local news and events.
That being said I humbly ask that I be able to respond to each
of the letters written to your publication covering Sept. 11
- 17.
In Seriatim:
Mr. Poshard: Although it “pains” you to describe
developers as people, it may injure you further to be viewed
as a close-minded, one-sided pundit who shakes his fist in the
air once he has secured his slice of real estate in Durango
and assumes no one else should move there. Would it be more
to your liking if the development were inhabited by yurt dwelling,
eco-zealots? Or how about building a fence around the county
and not allowing in any more future residents. Save those that
can decipher the set of regulatory schemes propositioned by
a group of ad-hoc, sign-waving folks who also have their slice
of property and assume that the county’s full. I am sure
that if you look real hard in Durango you might find some who
desire the project. I am not referring to the evil, profiteering
“Goliath” to whom you and the Telegraph cartoonist
do. Rather I am referring to the group of people who may find
jobs as a result of: Construction, upgrade of infrastructure,
employees of future businesses, etc. However you have your slice
of the pie, I guess that’s enough to satisfy you.
Mrs. Dunbar; Refer to the argument supra.
Sierra Club: Ahh, the great champion of environmental rights.
Thank you very much for weighing in on this heated debate concerning
the evil River Trails Ranch and all of her possible baneful
progeny. I am sure that there are throngs of people who are
greatly relieved that you are not endorsing such a greedy project.
Oh but wait, the Sierra Club is somewhat of a quasi-business
entity itself, is it not? The type that relies on tax-exempt
status and sells their product wrapped in over-hyped hysteria
that the Earth is doomed and would be much better off if all
humanity turned to dust. Thank the heavens that you have so
carefully opined on this project. I am sure you have all of
your law student interns headed for Durango right now, ready
to sharpen their litigational skills.
Mr. Lightbearer: Thank you for your heartfelt report on the
amorality of local businesses and their attempt to defraud you
out of your hard-earned money. Although I would agree with you
that the economy is in somewhat of a slump, I think your nomenclature
concerning “depression” is somewhat misplaced. I
can assure you that the local “landlord barons”
(the very same guys you see on the weekend fixing their roofs
and various holes in plaster walls due to renters) are feeling
the pinch too. As for the $8 sandwich, there is the matter of
economics and actually getting the sandwich material to Durango
to facilitate the construction of said sandwich. This involves
driving over mountain passes, ensuring the means of transportation
of said sandwich material to Durango is reputable and insured,
this costs money. Once the arrival of the aforementioned raw
sandwich material has arrived, it has to be made into a sandwich.
From simple sandwich building blocks to the actual sandwich
itself involves chefs, waiters, busboys, dishwashers, etc. All
of whom earn an hourly wage, not to mention the wage the owner
of said sandwich shop pays to the local and state governments
for the pleasure of doing business with happy and grateful customers
such as yourself.
I thank you for your time and bid you all a good day.
– Scott Mason,
former Durango resident
San Diego, via e-mail
Surf’s Up: Mark Braunstien,
of Durango, takes advantage of the run-off
from the recent record-setting rainfall while playing in
Smelter Rapid./
Photo by Todd Newcomer.
Buckle up...or else?
Over this past summer, I was rebuked by the management of the
radio station where I work for a critical on-air remark that
I made regarding the state of Colorado’s “Click-it
or Ticket” public-safety campaign.
If you missed it, back in May, Colorado began running a media
campaign that commanded Durangotangs to wear their seatbelts
– or else! Radio ads featured the stern-sounding voice
of a state patrolman threatening motorists with a citation if
they didn’t buckle-up, “No excuses, no exceptions,”
the ads menaced.
My remarks, concisely summarized, were this: You’re foolish
if you don’t wear a seatbelt. However, temerity aside,
do we really want to grant the state such authority over the
behavior of individual citizens? I say no. The criminalization
of acts that do not infringe upon the rights of others is itself
an infringement upon our rights as citizens. Implicit in our
rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the
right to risk that life, freely, in the pursuit of said happiness.
Government should restrict itself, as the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution suggests, to protecting the rights of its citizens,
while promoting their general welfare. The state’s seatbelt
law is an example of government’s predilection for usurping
powers from the people, at the expense of personal liberty –
a point not lost on Thomas Jefferson who wrote, “The natural
progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to
gain ground.”
Conversely, the La Plata County Injury Prevention Coalition,
a cooperative effort of primarily local government agencies
and private businesses, seems to have it right with its “La
Plata County Clicks” campaign. Grounded in the spirit
of promoting general welfare, La Plata County Clicks wisely
admonishes motorists to use their safety belts to lessen the
risk of personal injury in the event of an accident. Roadside
signs remind drivers to buckle-up, and radio ads feature accident
survivors singing the praises of seatbelt use.
See the difference?
One tactic unlawfully infringes upon our rights by being coercive;
the other is a properly restrained act of government to educate
its citizens – while leaving us free to act according
to our own conscience.
Similarly, the Durango City Council exemplified the spirit
of promoting the general welfare of its residents this summer
when it unanimously voted to oppose the so-called Patriot Act
passed by Congress following 9/11. The federal government, through
this act, granted itself unprecedented powers to trample the
rights of the people. For example, right now there are people
incarcerated in this country for an indeterminate amount of
time, with no charges filed against them and having been given
no legal representation. It’s a disgrace – and,
it’s unconstitutional. If the City Council had supported
Washington’s power grab it would have been complicit,
in my opinion, in this shameful governmental conduct.
In these two instances at least, the county and city governments
seem to have it right, and the state and federal governments
have it all wrong. Together they provide a powerful argument
against large, centralized government – and for small,
properly restrained government. Unfortunately, 200-plus years
of expanding governmental powers, coupled with the resulting
incremental loss of individual freedom has taken us far from
the liberty envisioned by our founders, and it’ll be a
long, bumpy road if we are to get back to that vision 85 better
buckle-up, or else.