By Joel Warner
By Michael Roberts
By Alan Prendergast
By Michael Roberts
By Michael Roberts
By Amber Taufen
By Patricia Calhoun
By William Breathes
Again, thank you for giving Eric the recognition he so richly deserved.
Commerce and injury: It was with much interest that I read James Hibberd's "Funky Town," in the January 10 issue. It was a well-written story, and I hope it will serve to keep the heat on the chief odor offenders in Colorado, and especially in the metro-Denver area. As the article stated, the biggest problem is that the offenders have a lot of money and political clout when it comes to defending their right to continue their odor pollution in usually low-income neighborhoods.
I just wanted to inform you that as a Colorado state senator, I tried to pass legislation addressing this terrible problem. I sponsored SB 135 in the 1995 session of the state legislature, which would have given the people and neighborhoods affected by this nauseating problem some recourse with which to help address this situation. An article in the Capitol Reportershowed how lightly this problem was taken by the Senate Agriculture Committee when I presented it in February 1995: It's titled "Lawmakers turn up noses at odor bill."
In closing, I would like to make one general statement about members of the news media who enjoy making negative comments about Commerce City. Unfortunately, the people in Commerce City who usually take the brunt of these jokes are the children and young people who live here. They are continuously made fun of by kids from other areas, and they are often humiliated and embarrassed about something they had nothing to do with. Commerce City is a city of good, hardworking people who are quickly changing the city for the better. For the children's sake, I wish members of the media would understand who it is they are hurting with their negative comments and, hopefully, quit with their hurtful comments!
Picture this: After reading Michael Roberts's "Tower Failure," in the January 24 issue, I was struck by the continuing claim of the television broadcasters that they must switch from analog to HDTV broadcasting by a certain date as mandated by the FCC or they will lose their license. This claim is a fallacy, since the FCC has admitted it will need to relax this requirement and is willing to do so. In truth, from a television standpoint, these huge "over-the-air" HDTV broadcast towers will be ugly dinosaurs as more and more people receive their television signal from cable, satellite and high-speed Internet in the future. Already, over 70 percent of metro-area residents receive their television through cable and satellite. How many people buying a new, $2,000 HDTV will want to place a rabbit-ears antenna on top of their set to receive these "over-the-air" signals from these new towers?
The problem is that once these towers are put up, they will be almost impossible to tear down, remaining ugly eyesores along the Front Range for years to come. From a health standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to wait until the Colorado State University study of Lookout Mountain residents is complete before making any tower decisions at all, since possible adverse health effects should have precedence over business concerns.
All for one:I write you in support of the Mount Morrison replacement-tower application submitted to Jefferson County by Public Interest Communications (PIC). My wife, seventeen-month-old son and I live at the 6th Avenue West Estates just outside of Golden. The towers on both Mount Morrison and Lookout Mountain are clearly visible from our home. We frequently watch Channel 6 and strongly support its move toward digital television. I support the application in part because I would like to see a consolidation of towers. By supporting this application, you will help our community eliminate at least one -- and perhaps more than one -- tower from Lookout Mountain. I believe most area residents, while not excited about towers, understand that the towers are not going to magically disappear from Lookout Mountain or Mount Morrison. We need a plan. PIC's plan is simple and straightforward: to permanently dismantle two towers and replace them with one. When we have the opportunity to consolidate towers in the area, we ought not look a gift horse in the mouth.
I don't care for the tactics of tower opponents who assume an all-or-nothing approach to dealing with tower proposals. It's a classic case of NIMBY. Because of the line of sight, height of the mountains and proximity to the metro area, tower applications will continue coming to Jefferson County. Unless we want the unsightly things on every mountain in the county (not to mention the new power lines and mountain roads that new towers require), it makes sense that towers be consolidated on existing sites near the metro area. For whatever reason, Lookout Mountain and Mount Morrison were selected as tower sites many, many years ago. And with all due respect to tower opponents, noneof us moved into our homes in the middle of the night. We do, however, have a chance to get rid of at least one tower. Let's do it!