Category: politics

G.J. Gun Club Protests Continued U.S. Gun Violence

Grand Junction Gun Club Protest

Photo Credit: Lee Gelatt Photography http://www.leegelattphotography.com/

Grand Junction Gun Club members held signs and waved at noon today at 7th Street and Patterson Road to protest the escalating epidemic of gun violence in the U.S. and demand sensible gun regulations, like closing loopholes in the law requiring background checks for gun purchases.

The group turned out in response to Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which organized similar rallies across the country including in Washington, D.C. today. Stay-at-home mom Shannon Watts founded Moms Demand Action on December 15, 2012, in response to the devastating shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 20 elementary school children and 6 school staff members were massacred. Moms Demand Action wants state and federal legislators enact common-sense gun reforms.

Photo Credit: Lee Gelatt

Photo Credit: Lee Gelatt

Gun Violence Protest in Grand Junction

In Grand Junction, protesters stood on the busy corner in front of St. Mary’s Hospital in clear, sunny 80-degree weather holding signs saying “No More Massacres,” “End Gun Violence,” “Background Checks for Guns” and “Whatever it Takes.” The group got plenty of thumbs-ups and honks of approval from drivers passing by, as well as curious looks and even some middle fingers and angry shouts from drivers who didn’t support their efforts.

Photo Credit: Lee Gelatt Photography

Photo Credit: Lee Gelatt Photography

In the U.S., nearly 8 children are shot and killed every day, and Colorado has the dubious distinction of now being home to a growing list of notorious gun massacres: The Chuck-Cheese killings in 1993, the Columbine High School mass killing in 1999 and the Aurora Theater Massacre in 2012. And the legacy continues: at the same time protesters were holding their signs in Grand Junction today, yet another juvenile male was shot in Aurora, Colorado, resulting in three schools being locked down.

Have you had enough of gun violence in our country? Want to see the U.S. start doing something to reduce these now-common tragedies? To join the anti gun violence cause locally and get word of upcoming gun sense activities in Grand Junction, go to the Grand Junction Gun Club’s Facebook page.

 

Why We Need to Reject Religious Accommodations at Work

cornerinjailBy definition, religion consists of sets of beliefs based on myths, fantasy and superstition.

If we accept one person’s religious beliefs as valid, we must accept them all, no matter how crazy they may be.

But if we act on this principle and start honoring all these various beliefs (and even the more mainstream ones) in workaday life, mayhem will result.

To see how this bears out, just take the principle to its logical extensions:

A woman goes to medical school and becomes a heart surgeon, then decides to become a Jehovah’s Witness who believes blood transfusions violate her religion. Honoring her religious belief at work would sacrifice patients’ quality of care, and could cost lives.

A devoutly religion 911 operator believes everything happens according to God’s will. Your house catches fire and you call 911. The religious operator answers, is your neighbor and recognizes you and your address. She knows you occasionally use alcohol, and based on the comings and goings at your house, has conclude that you regularly have sex on occasion even though you aren’t married. These activities violate her religion, and she honestly believes the fire at your house is God’s punishment for your sins. She does not alert the fire department because she dare not interfere with God’s will.

Your house is toast.

You get the idea.

We’ve already seen how the Kentucky County, Clerk Kim Davis’, religious belief against equal marriage have caused her to deny citizens’ their civil rights.

Just because a crowd of people mass in support Kim Davis by gathering in front of the jail she is being held in, and prominent Republican politicians make a show out of of visiting her in jail doesn’t mean she is right.

She is wrong. People who believe she is right need a thorough lesson in the purpose and value of a secular government and separation of church and state.

In the U.S., Ms. Davis is welcome to follow her faith any way she likes in her personal life, but as an elected public official, she is required to law carry out all of the duties her job requires in full accordance with the law or step down.

 

Community Rights Ballot Initiative Coming Back in 2016

Screen shot 2015-08-19 at 12.12.12 PMColoradans for Community Rights (CCR) is gearing up to once again put a Community Rights initiative on the 2016 state-wide ballot.

A Community Rights amendment doesn’t ban anything. Instead, the measure establishes that communities in Colorado have a definitive right to local self-government. That is, the new law would give people, not corporations, the dominant authority to decide how to best protect health, safety and welfare in their own communities and surrounding natural environments. Basically, the measure would allow communities to decide, free from corporate or state interference, whether to allow corporate projects that could negatively impact their safe and healthy environments.

What does this measure mean to citizens on the western slope?

The Community Rights Amendment would, for example, give Mesa County residents living around Alanco’s stinky Deer Creek frackwater ponds the right to disallow this land use in their area. It would also give Paonia residents the right to keep drilling and fracking activities away from their schools, residential areas and organic farming districts. Corporations and their trade groups could no longer sue communities over decisions to keep dangerous or noxious industrial activities out of their area. The amendment would also prevent corporations from suing communities that vote to enact living wages, or ban GMOs (genetically modified organisms), for example.

On August 17, CCR submitted the official ballot language for the 2016 Colorado Community Rights Amendment to the Colorado Legislative Council. The ballot measure is very short, only about 200 words. After the ballot language is approved, CCR will organize a state-wide campaign to gather the number of signatures necessary to qualify the measure for the November 2016 statewide ballot.

CCR tried to get a Community Rights measure on the 2014 statewide ballot, but legal challenges by corporations opposed to the measure succeeded in delaying the signature-gathering phase of the effort until it was too late. This time, CCR has started work early enough that they will have a better shot at getting the measure on the ballot and passing it.

Efforts to pass Community Rights Initiatives are also ongoing in New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington.

New Change.org Petition Seeks to End the Ban on Marijuana Cultivation and Sales in Grand Junction

It was a long time in coming, but a Grand Junction resident named Derrick Sorg has finally started a Change.org petition to end the ban on cannabis cultivation and retail sales in Grand Junction.

Sorg says lifting the ban on marijuana commerce will finally create more jobs in our area and bring in more tax revenue for schools. Sorg says if he gets enough support for his online petition, he will initiate an official City petition to get a measure to legalize pot cultivation and sales on the local ballot. The Colorado Department of Revenue reports steadily increasing taxes being collected from marijuana sales. Many Grand Junction area residents see high-paying jobs being created across the state and watch as other towns rake in significant revenue from the new marijuana economy, and feel our town is being left far behind.

 

Screen shot 2015-08-11 at 10.34.59 PM

 

KKCO 11 News broadcast information about Sorg’s petition on the evening news tonight. The petition currently has 148 signatures, and the number is increasing. See and sign the petition here.

G.J. Chamber Ad Promotes Low — Um, NO Wages

The Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce's ad in the 7/27 Daily Sentinel

The Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce’s ad in the 7/27 Daily Sentinel

An ad run by the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce in last Monday’s Daily Sentinel featured this headline, designed to make local employers drool. After all, from a business owner’s standpoint, what could be better than employees you don’t have to pay? At one time this was called “slavery,” but let’s not let that little detail sidetrack us.

The ad was about a Mesa County Workforce on-the-job training program in which the Workforce picks up 50-90% of the employees’ wages for a set period of time, so employees can get experience and training. Once you get past the Chamber’s demeaning headline, the program sounds great, but this really seems like entirely the wrong way to promote it. The ad’s headline is a slap to local workers and the thousands of low-wage earners in Mesa County.

Things are hard for working families in Mesa County. A living hourly wage for a family of two working adults and two children in Mesa County is $15.02/hour, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But the average per capita hourly wage in Mesa County is just $12.83/hour. Workers in Mesa County on average earn 85% of what others in the state earn, and almost 15% of Mesa County citizens live below poverty level, compared to 13.2% for the state as a whole. To make things worse, local elected officials reject out of hand new economic opportunities literally laid at our feet — like making the Colorado National Monument into a national park, and participating in the growing and prosperous marijuana industry — that could greatly help lift Mesa County’s long-suffering economy.

Zillow Leads the Way in Correctly Naming Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area

This map, taken from the real estate marketing site Zillow, correctly names the spectacular area southwest of Grand Junction as "Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area," the original name of what some now call "McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area."

This map, taken from the real estate marketing site Zillow, correctly names the scenic public lands southwest of Grand Junction as “Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area,” the original name of what some now refer to as “McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area.” In 2004, a handful of House representatives from states other than Colorado quietly renamed the area for their buddy, former House representative and failed 2010 Colorado gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis, who later was accused of plagiarism and now opposes the conservation of land in perpetuity.

Colorado State Senator Ray Scott: Class Clown

RayScott

In 2011, Republican State Senator Ray Scott, at the time a freshman in the Colorado House, wrote a funny newsletter for his colleagues he called “Lessons I’ve Learned,” in which he explained what he had learned during his time in the legislature. Among the items Scott wrote,

“Never be in the chamber until after the Pledge.”

and…

“Committees are for spending time in the hall, texting or catching up with family.”

The newsletter earned him the title “Class Clown.”

 

 

 

Mesa County District Attorney Set to Further Abuse Beleaguered Blagg Juror

The Mesa County D.A. has whipped up hysteria about the former Blagg juror, and is now responding to the desires of a pitchfork-wielding mob to punish her

The Mesa County D.A. has whipped up local anger about the former Blagg juror, and is responding to the desires of an angry mob to punish her further

The abused Blagg juror in Grand Junction and her further prosecution by the Mesa County District Attorney are raising questions among local women about exactly what constitutes domestic abuse, and whether and when someone experiences it or not.

The U.S. Department of Justice defines domestic violence as “a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.  Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.”

Under this definition,  whether an act constitutes domestic violence or not depends entirely on the point of view of the targeted partner. In the case of the Blagg juror, her former husbands’ actions drove her to divorce them, but someone can certainly file for a divorce without feeling intimidated, threatened or abused by the other partner’s actions. If her husband’s actions just angered her and pushed her to divorce them, does that really make her a “victim” of domestic violence?

Maybe it just makes her a strong woman.

Whereas society used to entirely accept a man beating up his wife, now domestic violence is defined by things as subtle as using dirty looks, playing mind games, using children to relay messages or taking away someone’s cell phone.

Subjective Gray Area

Moreover, whether or not a partner’s actions rise to the level domestic violence depends on a number of differentiating variables, like frequency and intensity of violent acts, and the presence or lack of other forms of maltreatment, like chronic attempts at financial control or isolation. Other factors like substance abuse, the aggressive partner’s history of abusive actions, or a history of mental illness or possessiveness, can also figure into a definition of what constitutes domestic abuse. It’s also important whether a pattern of abuse exists or not. If a one-off threat or act by one partner drives the other partner end the relationship permanently, does this rise to the level domestic violence?

Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger, caving to an angry public, is poised to publicly heap more abuse on a beleaguered former juror in the Blagg case who has been targeted repeatedly by the Defense.

Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger, caving to an angry public, is poised to heap further abuse on a beleaguered former juror in the Blagg case who has been targeted repeatedly by the Defense for more than a decade

Again, it depends on the point of view of the person targeted by the act. Despite this huge gray area in what constitutes domestic abuse, a Mesa County Court judge has told the former Blagg juror exactly what her marital experiences amounted to, and how she must define them.

This is a tremendously presumptive position by the Court. It’s also a tremendously unfair position in which to put the juror. Further, in return for having the temerity to disagree with the Court about her own experiences, the D.A. is now is poised to punish her further with jail time and thousands of dollars in fees and fines, in addition to the thousands she and her current husband have already been forced to shell out to an attorney to help defend her.

By now one thing in this case is truly clear: the former Blagg juror has suffered far more abuse from the Court system and the D.A. than she ever did from her former husbands.

The D.A.’s actions to further punish this already aggrieved former juror will no doubt put a healthy dose of fear and trepidation into everyone who gets a jury summons in the future. The Mesa County District Attorney is now also poised to severely deplete the already small pool of people who are willing to serve on a jury, and probably not just locally, but will create the same difficulty for courts across the country.

Mesa County D.A.’s Attack on Former Blagg Juror Featured on Denver’s 9News

Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger, who is ruthlessly throwing the book at a now-disabled former juror who helped convict Michael Blagg eleven years ago

Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger, who is ruthlessly throwing the book at a now-disabled former juror who helped convict Michael Blagg eleven years ago

9News journalist Chris Vanderveen today published an investigative news story about the beleaguered Grand Junction woman who has endured eleven years of invasive personal attacks as a result of serving on the jury that convicted Michael Blagg of murder in 2004. The piece focuses on Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger, who is now piling on to the former juror’s woes by pursuing legal charges and fines against her. Vanderveen’s efforts bring the story of the Grand Junction juror’s plight to Colorado’s front range.

The piece is titled “Juror gets sued after murder conviction.”

Marilyn Charlesworth first endured ten years of attacks by Blagg’s defense attorneys, who, in repeated efforts to win Blagg a new trial, first accused her of failing to disclose a vision impairment, then of failing to disclose a prescription for a certain medication, and now finally accusing her of lying about whether or not she believed she had experienced an incident of domestic abuse over twenty years ago. Now Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger is joining Blagg’s defense in attacking against Charlesworth by charging her with contempt and threatening her with jail time, fees and fines in excess of $50,000, purportedly to pay for costs of Blagg’s first trial, like hotels and meals for expert witnesses.

Hautzinger’s legal pursuit of Charlesworth is forcing her and her husband to spend their retirement savings on legal fees, and could bankrupt the couple. The stress Charlesworth has been under has recently caused her eyesight to deteriorate further to the point where she can no longer drive or work. The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel’s many negative articles editorials about her has turned her into a pariah locally, to the extent that she rarely leaves her house.

Why so harsh on Charlesworth? Misogyny? Politics? Smokescreen?

Hautzinger’s over-the-top pursuit of Charlesworth is raising questions locally of whether this is a possible case of misogyny, since he recently let a male juror in another case who was accused of exactly the same offense walk free with no consequences. Others think Hautzinger is disproportionately attacking Charlesworth to divert attention from former Mesa County Sheriff investigator Steve King, who was the lead investigator for Blagg’s 2004 trial. King recently pled guilty to embezzling, and a result can no longer offer credible testimony in a new Blagg trial. King is also a former State Senator and favorite of the Mesa County Republican Party, which has suffered a number of embarrassing incidents of corruption and candidates who have broken the law in recent years. Charlesworth has in the past also been an outspoken critic of longstanding Mesa County Republican institutions, like the GOP-dominated Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce. Hautzinger is a Republican, so his actions could also potentially be political payback.

KUSA 9News reporter Chris Vanderveen won the Edward R. Murrow journalism award in 2011, and the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) Reporter of the Year Award in 2012. He and a camera operator drove out to Grand Junction from the front range and back in a single day to cover Charlesworth’s story.

Charlesworth wants to publicize her experience so citizens are aware of the dangers they face if they agree to sit on a jury, since there are no limitations on how long or intensively defense attorneys can try to get new trials for their clients by pursuing jurors who return verdicts they don’t like.

 

 

Same Crime, but Vastly Different Treatment of Two Jurors in the Mesa County Courts

Chief Deputy D.A. Dan Rubenstein, lead county DA pursuing Blagg juror (Photo Credit: CO Bar Assoc.)

Chief Deputy D.A. Dan Rubenstein, lead county DA pursuing Blagg juror (Photo Credit: CO Bar Assoc.)

If you need verification of the extent to which former juror Marilyn Charlesworth is being hung out to dry as a result of her service eleven years ago on the Blagg jury, look no further than how the District Attorney’s office handled another recent case of juror misconduct that also led to a new trial for the defendant.

To recap, Charlesworth currently has the distinction of being the most abused juror in modern U.S. history. Over the past eleven years, convicted murderer Michael Blagg’s defense team has forced her to defend herself against a number of allegations, including that while serving as a juror she withheld information from the Court about the extent of a vision problem, about a specific medication she was allegedly prescribed and, most recently, about whether she experienced an incident of domestic violence over two decades ago. The Mesa County DA has now filed contempt charges against her, is currently threatening her with 30 days in jail and fees in excess of $45,000, nominally to pay for Blagg’s first trial. That figure includes witness travel fees, hotel expenses, expert witness fees, subpoena service, the cost of transcripts for further hearings and additional costs not yet specified. Over the eleven years since Blagg’s first trial, the Court has made public Charlesworth’s medical, employment, DMV and IRS tax records and information from them has been published in the local paper, all without her consent. The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel now routinely features her name in articles about the Blagg case. Charlesworth and her husband now face thousands of dollars in legal bills for her defense from the two-pronged legal onslaught by Blagg’s defense team the Mesa County District Attorney’s office.

Contrast this with how the same D.A.’s office handled a second case of a juror accused of the exact same charge — misconduct — in another recent case, and whose actions resulted in a convicted defendant, a child molester, getting a new trial.

Different Cases, Same Charge

In 2010, Rodney Eddy, a former resident of Mesa and deacon at Mesa View Bible Church, was convicted of multiple felony counts of sexual assault on a teenage girl. A jury found him guilty on four counts each of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust.

Rodney Eddy, who is going for a third trial -- the juror accused of misconduct in Eddy's case suffered no consequences

Rodney Eddy, who is going for a third trial — the juror accused of misconduct in Eddy’s case suffered no consequences for intentionally lying on a juror questionnaire

Eddy, now 73 years old, had two trials. The first ended in February, 2010, after jurors deadlocked on the charges against him. His next trial came six months later, in August of 2010. In that trial, jurors convicted Eddy of four counts of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust and four more counts for a pattern of abuse. He was acquitted of eight additional charges and sentenced to 16 years to life in prison.

Fast-forward to February, 2015, when the Court awarded Eddy a third trial, this time due to juror misconduct.

In a screening questionnaire given to jurors before Eddy’s second trial, one unidentified juror answered “no” to the question of whether he or any of his family members had ever been a victim of sexual abuse. He later confessed that he had, in fact, been sexually abused by a priest in Grand Junction in 1965, at age 12. He told investigators that he had lied on his questionnaire to get on the jury after he learned sexual abuse allegations were central to Eddy’s case. He told investigators he was seeking “payback” for the wrongs allegedly committed against him by the priest when he was a child.

RIP Former G.J. Mayor Bill Pitts, and Why Citizens Should Care About Him

Former Grand Junction Mayor Bill Pitts

Former Grand Junction Mayor Bill Pitts

Former Grand Junction City Councilman and Mayor Bill Pitts died this week.

Bill Pitts was a successful inventor and a non-stop, die-hard booster of our town. As a long-time private pilot, he started trying to draw the public’s attention to the corruption occurring on Grand Junction Regional Airport Board years before the FBI raided it for fraud allegations in November, 2013. He invented the magnetic plastic covers people put over their swamp cooler ceiling vents in the wintertime to keep drafts out. He started the Security Alarm Company, and a camp ground and RV park at 22 and H Roads. He started Dinosaur Days. He had a relentlessly positive view of Grand Junction, put in hundreds of hours of his own time to promote it and gave up several big job offers and promotions and sizable salary increases to be able to live here full time. Pitts left a huge legacy of accomplishments for which his family can be very proud.

But despite all his good deeds and positive accomplishments, Bill Pitts also suffered from the very worst treatment that Grand Junction’s dominant local leadership could dish out.

Stabbed in the Back by the Chamber

The Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce turned on Bill Pitts, their long-time member, when they put Rick Brainard up as a candidate against him in the April, 2013 City Council election. The chamber, through its secret money group the Western Colorado Business Alliance, poured over $10,000 into getting Brainard elected over Pitts. If you put the track records of the two candidates side by side, anyone could see that Bill Pitts, with his past experience, accomplishments and history, was the stand-out candidate who was far better for Grand Junction. But people listened to the chamber and elected Brainard over Pitts. Brainard’s arrest for assault four days after his election just added an exclamation mark to the horrible choice the chamber made in selecting and backing him as a candidate. The incident demonstrates yet again why the chamber is so very bad for Grand Junction. Pitts confided that he believed that prominent Grand Junction businessman, Doug Simons, owner of Enstrom Candies, who sat on the Grand Junction Regional Airport Board, was the driving force behind the GOP and Chamber’s effort to oust him from Council, believing it was done in retaliation for trying to draw attention to the fraud Pitts suspected was occurring at the Airport.

After being a die-hard booster and dues-paying member of the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce and the Mesa County Republican Party for over 44 years, at the May 1, 2013 City Council meeting Bill Pitts announced that he was withdrawing his memberships from both organizations.

Read the full story of how these groups stabbed him in the back, and why Pitts fled the chamber and the Mesa County GOP here.

G.J. Chamber Opposes Local Businesses Again, Appears to Be Losing Influence

Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce President Diane Schwenke, who turned the G.J. Chamber into a branch of the Tea Party (Photo Credit: YouTube)

Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce President Diane Schwenke, who turned the G.J. Chamber into a branch of the Tea Party (Photo Credit: YouTube)

In its 2015 Voter Guide, the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce urged voters to approve Referred Measure 2B, which would have authorized the City to take on millions in debt to extend the Riverside Parkway along 25 Road. Almost all businesses on 25 Road strongly opposed the measure, saying the City blindsided them by failing to let them know measure even existed until it was safely scheduled to go on the ballot. The business owners opposed 2B because it would have let the city seize land fronting their businesses, and harmed their businesses by subjecting the road to an extended construction period. Curiously, the measure also would have zig-zagged the Parkway through existing business and residential areas instead of building it according to the original plan, which simply extends the existing Parkway route further west down River Road to 24 Road.

Once again, the chamber’s position on an issue was diametrically opposed to the one held by the very local businesses it claims to represent.

Council Candidates Sound Like Broken Records, Ignore Constituents

It's the same-ole, same-old from Council candidates again this year. Who supports all the other folks?

It’s the same-ole, same-old from Council candidates again this year. Who supports all the other folks in town besides business and property owners?

Candidates for the contested seats on the Grand Junction City Council are all starting to sound the same. Kim Kerk supports “property owners rights” and a “business friendly community.” Duncan McArthur is for “private property rights” and the “small business owner.” They sound just the same, don’t they? Dennis Simpson says he’s a “fiscal conservative,” and McArthur is for “fiscal responsibility,” but aren’t these the same thing? Basically, it’s code for even more belt-tightening for our community.

It’s like listening to a broken record. And it’s folly for voters to listen to them.

Business owners and the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce wield outsized influence in Grand Junction, and they’ve shown citizens time and again that believing anything they say or do at election time is completely absurd.

Kim Kerk also supports the same old constituencies. Don't others matter?

Kim Kerk also supports the same old constituencies: private property owners and business owners. Why don’t the rest of us matter?

The chamber portrays itself as the single most important political voice in town because it represents businesses, but only a fraction of area businesses actually belong to the chamber and according to the chamber’s membership list, many of their members are from outside of the area. The “Grand Junction Chamber” has members in Denver, Arvada, Lakewood, Greenwood Village, Centennial, Glenwood Springs, Moab, Utah, Reno, Nevada, Houston, Texas, and even Washington, D.C…. Why should any company based on the front range or another state have any say or lobbying power over Grand Junction’s issues or candidates?

What’s more, valuing businesses more highly than ordinary, hard-working city residents has cost this city dearly and set us far behind smaller western slope towns. For years, maybe even decades, Grand Junction citizens have been craving a public recreation center, like the ones the cities of Fruita, Delta, Montrose and Durango have already built for their citizens. Over and over, our City Council has denied residents this same wonderful amenity based on an unproven premise that building such a facility might possibly be detrimental to less than a handful of private businesses in town, like gyms and athletic clubs. A couple of businesses vs. tens of thousands of citizens who could benefit from such a facility. Why are city residents always the losers in this kind of issue?

Haven’t Grand Junction residents sacrificed their quality of life on the altar of almighty private business long enough?

Businesses and the Chamber: Unreliable Voices at Election time

The chamber promised G.J. voters if they voted to zone this parcel by the river to light industrial, Brady Trucking would bring in a bunch of $70,000/year jobs, and build trails and landscaping by the river. Voters passed the measure, but this is how the site looks today.

The chamber promised G.J. voters in 2013 if they voted to zone this parcel by the river to light industrial, Brady Trucking would bring in a slew of $70,000/year jobs, and build trails and landscaping by the river. Voters passed the measure, but today, two years later, the site remains dilapidated, no jobs were ever created and no trails were ever built.

Moreover, neither the chamber nor private businesses have proven reliable proponents on issues. The chamber has gone to bat for private businesses at election time before, only to be outed as lying.

Remember Referred Measure A in the April, 2013 election? It asked voters to uphold light industrial zoning by the Colorado River so Brady Trucking, a private business, could expand its operations there. The chamber promised voters that if they passed the measure, Brady Trucking would bring a slew of new jobs to town averaging $70,000 a year and build a walking and biking trail on a 50-foot wide easement along the river, as well as fencing and landscaping. Chamber President Diane Schwenke said, “This is an issue where the voters can support good jobs and development of trails.”

Oh, really?

Voters listened to the chamber and duly passed the measure, and now, two years later, the site is still untouched. No trails were ever built, and no additional jobs ever brought to the area.

The vaunted chamber, the “voice of business,” spoke and told voters the best thing to do, and it was a lie.

The arrest of Chamber-backed city council candidate Rick Brainard in April, 2013 shocked Grand Junction citizens and embarrassed the entire City.

The arrest of Chamber-backed city council candidate Rick Brainard in April, 2013, for beating up his girlfriend, shocked Grand Junction citizens and embarrassed the entire City.

Remember the infamous 2013 chamber-backed city council candidate, Rick Brainard, and what a debacle he was to the City? Brainard got arrested four days after being elected and appeared on TV news broadcasts in a yellow jumpsuit. He later pled guilty to assault.

After these kinds of terrible candidate endorsements and lies, should voters really listen to the chamber any more about which candidates and issues to back in local elections?

Of course not.

The better idea is to listen to the chamber so you can do the opposite of what they recommend.

There are plenty of good and important people in Grand Junction besides business and private property owners, yet in every election cycle, council candidates ignore them. What about retirees, students, disabled citizens, people who work for salaries like nonprofit workers, retail workers, landscape workers, day care workers, restaurant workers, teachers, government employees and volunteers, to name a few?

Don’t these people matter to candidates and elected officials, once they get into office? Why are none of these groups considered viable constituencies worth pursuing at election time and serving once in office?

Arguably, these citizens are the real lifeblood of our area. Not only do they provide important local services, but they earn the money that gets spent at local businesses. Without these people as customers, local businesses would die. But who fights for THEIR best interests?

No one, so far.

ManBalloonIt’s way beyond time for council candidates to acknowledge that there are many voters in town with needs besides private property owners, business owners and people who want more belt-tightening by City Council. There are plenty of business-friendly tightwads on Council already. What we need at long last are candidates who care about average, hard-working Grand Junction residents, many of whom live on the edge, have difficulty feeding their kids, making ends meet and affording medical and dental care. We need council candidates who will vow to support these people’s interests and needs if elected to Council.

Now THAT would be one giant breath of fresh air.

Why Stop at Renaming North Ave.? Grand Junction Needs a Modern Moniker

Grand Junction is plagued by a host of bad nicknames

Grand Junction is plagued by a host of bad nicknames

Note – Owing to City Council’s now-official change of name of North Ave. to University Ave. in 2017, I am re-posting this blog from 2015.

In a March 24, 2015 editorial, the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel argues that “North Avenue needs a modern moniker.” The article cites the town’s extensive modernization and expansion since it’s founding many years ago, and extensive capital improvements, like the airport and interstate highway, as reasons to rename North Avenue to University Avenue — the most frequently suggested new name for the street.

Changing the name of North Avenue is a fine idea, but it’s thinking small.

Re-Naming is On a Roll, But What Will Really Work to Remove Grand Junction’s Negative Baggage?

We need to take collective big deep breath, go a big step further and rename the entire city.

Lots of local features have been renamed in the past few years. We’ve re-named Walker Field Airport, Mesa State College and F Road, all with no ill effects. The new names have even proven to be marked improvements over the old names, eliminating confusion and better representing the amenities they point to.

But let’s face it, folks. Grand Junction has plenty of negative baggage. This is reflected in the slew of pejorative nicknames our area has earned: “Grand Junktown,” “Gland Function,” “Spun Junction,” “Meth Junction,” “Tweakerville,” to name a few. Moreover, our town has given rise to a disproportionate number of dysfunctional institutions, embarrassing political scandals and politicians.

Scot McInnis: Mesa County’s Land Conservation Hypocrite-in-Chief

Former Congressman Scott McInnis won a race for Mesa County Commissioner in November, 2014, even though his campaign broke several rules, including illegally posting campaign signs on power poles without permission and standing on city medians in violation of City Ordinance 9.04.250, "Prohibition against standing on or occupying medians."

Former Congressman Scott McInnis won a race for Mesa County Commissioner in November, 2014, even though his campaign broke several rules, including illegally posting campaign signs on power poles without permission and standing on city medians in violation of City Ordinance 9.04.250, “Prohibition against standing on or occupying medians.”

Mesa County Commissioner Scott McInnis has carefully cultivated an image of being a land conservation maven. Until recently he was a member of the board of Colorado Open Lands, a statewide land trust that holds the largest conservation easement in the state. That group’s mission is to conserve productive farmland and scenic areas of the state through voluntary partnerships with private landowners and federal, state and local agencies. Ostensibly, Mr. McInnis served on this board because he believes in the value of land preservation. As a U.S. Congressman, McInnis so closely linked himself with boosting land conservation that he even got his buddies in Congress to rename a 200,000 acre area public land on the western slope as “McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area,” even though doing so violated a House Rule created specifically to prohibit Congressmen from naming public works or lands after themselves.

Quite an accomplishment for Mr. McInnis.

So if we could presume that anyone on the western slope would be a champion for the value of land conservation, you would think it would be Scott McInnis, right?

Nope.

Since being elected Mesa County Commissioner just last year, McInnis has suddenly turned skeptical of the value of land conservation, and so far, he hasn’t explained to the public why he’s had such a radical turnabout in his views.

When the Mesa Land Trust asked the Mesa County commissioners earlier this month for a letter supporting a Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) grant application to put a conservation easement on 22 acres of productive private agricultural land on East Orchard Mesa, McInnis threw on the brakes and denied the request, claiming — of all things — that he needs more time to learn about easements and what they mean for the county’s future.

McInnis is suddenly very concerned that conservation easements might be harmful to Mesa County because they protect land from development in perpetuity. He now suggests open lands only be conserved for just 30 years, instead protecting them in perpetuity for later generations to enjoy.

McInnis’ new stance is a 180-degree flip-flop on land conservation, and has rendered him a complete and total hypocrite on the subject.

Land conservation seemed valuable enough when it meant McInnis could get a federal conservation area name after himself, but now, not so much. The idea that it might be inappropriate for a private landowner to choose to preserve his or her own farmland for future generations is incredible. But if we are to now believe Mr. McInnis, this is what he thinks.

Scott McInnis dropped out of the race for governor in 2010 amid plagiarism allegations, and got a national conservation area named after himself in violation of federal House Rules prohibiting Congressmen from naming public works and lands after themselves.

Scott McInnis dropped out of the race for governor in 2010 amid plagiarism allegations, and got a national conservation area named after himself in violation of federal House Rules prohibiting Congressmen from naming public works and lands after themselves.

It’s not as though Mesa County citizens had no warning that McInnis would be untrustworthy in public office. His 2014 campaign for commissioner violated several laws and ordinances, his infamous plagiarism scandal while running for governor in 2010 and the subversive way he got federal lands named after him in 2004 in opposition to what Coloradans wanted all made it painfully clear that McInnis was far from being a decent candidate, to put it charitably.

So now that McInnis has suddenly changed his mind and believes land conservation is a bad idea, what happens now?

Maybe he will now be willing to let the name “McInnis Canyons” expire, so the conservation area so mistakenly named after him can revert back to its original name, “Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area.”

Or, if you’d rather not wait for that to become reality, we can initiate that action right now, so Mesa County citizens can finally end the embarrassment of having a national conservation area in their backyard named after a total hypocrite.

To get moving on fixing the “McInnis Canyons” mistake, click here to sign the petition to Colorado Senator Michael Bennet asking for legislation to revert “McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area” back to its original name, Colorado Canyons National Conservation area.

AnneLandmanBlog Voter Guide 2015

ALVoterGuideThis guide presents voters with a citizen’s perspective on a number of upcoming ballot measures, and provides recommendations on which candidates to vote for in the City of Grand Junction’s Municipal election on April 7, 2015. Recommendations are evaluated based on what residents feel is important to their quality of life, safety and welfare, and the best economic interests of our area.

 

City of Grand Junction Referred Measure 2A: Restoring authority to the City to provide high speed internet and cable television service, either directly or indirectly, with public or private sector partnerships.

Explanation: This ballot measure allows the City to ignore SB 05-152 (pdf), a stupid law passed by the Colorado legislature in 2005 that prohibits municipalities from providing cable TV or telecommunications services, like broadband internet service, in any form to anyone. Fortunately, the law has a loophole that allows municipalities to opt-out of the law as long as they hold an election asking people if they want their city to opt out.

We should opt out.

The City of Grand Junction has its own broadband network in municipal buildings, but under the above-mentioned stupid state law, they can’t offer free wifi to citizens in their buildings even though the network is there. The city’s broadband network even runs into its streetlights, but the because of the stupid state law, the City can’t share the network with citizens. That’s just ridiculous, especially since we already pay for it through our taxes.

Approving this measure would let the City share its network, so people can get free wifi downtown. It will also let cable companies install and repair fiber optic lines during city construction to improve streets.

Since we’re all stuck with Charter Communications for high speed cable broadband internet and Charter has no competitors in this area, we need to opt out of the state law.

Recommended vote on 2A: YES

City of Grand Junction Referred Measure 2B

Explanation: This measure authorizes the city to take on $14.5 million of additional debt to finance more construction on the Westside Beltway project, also known as the Riverside Parkway.

The City wants to continue the Riverside Parkway, starting where it currently ends at 25 Road and the I-70 Business Loop, extending it north up 25 Road to F 1/2 Road, then west to 24 Road, and up 24 Road to I-70. The City wants to finance the project by keeping taxpayer funds that would normally have to be paid back to citizens under the TABOR Act (the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights).

The measure sounds fine at first read, but we recommend a “No” vote on Measure 2B.

Here’s why:

Beware How Voter ID Laws are Portrayed in the News

When will media report on the fact that Voter ID laws are really designed to prevent certain voters from accessing the polls?

When will media start reporting that Voter ID laws are, in fact, designed to make it harder for certain voters to access the polls?

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is taking the New York Times to task for portraying the attack on voting rights in the U.S. as little more than a partisan disagreement. According to the NYT, Republican-enacted laws to shorten early voting periods and force voters to show identification cards are designed to prevent voter fraud, while Democrats say such fraud is nearly non-existent and these restrictions are a Republican effort to disenfranchise poor and minority voters.

But the Times failed completely to report on the actual facts pertaining to the issue of voter fraud in the U.S.

On many occasions Republican politicians have actually admitted that voting restrictions are, in fact, aimed at disenfranchising Democrats. Additionally, no Republican has ever been able to show that any American election was stolen as a result of in-person voter fraud. Not one.

Moreover, academic studies show voter fraud is practically nonexistent in the U.S.

Law professor Justin Levitt since 2000 has tracked down and analyzed “every specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else and the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.” He found only 31 incidents over 15 years and over more than a billion ballots cast. Most of the incidents were due to voters misunderstanding the voting eligibility rules or making mistakes filling out registration forms. Levitt concluded that “There is almost no voting fraud in America,” and “The only reason Republicans are passing these laws is to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes.”

Despite this, the New York Times failed to state that voter restriction laws are, in fact, an ongoing effort by Republicans to disenfranchise voters and gain an electoral advantage. Rather, the paper reports on the issue as though it is merely a disagreement over the facts between Republicans and Democrats.

Source: Jim Naureckas, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, March 9, 2015, “Voting Rights Shall Not Overcome NYT Reporting Like This”