Puzzled by teachers’ union not endorsing Shelly Benford for board
I see that the teachers’ union (Boulder Valley Education Association) is not endorsing Shelly Benford for reelection this November. I have heard that voting for Shelly was a “problem” because she was one of two school board members who voted not to renew the Superintendent’s contract. The better question would be “Why didn’t they vote to renew his contract?
Quite frankly I was shocked to hear that the Union would not be supporting her because I know that Shelly has been a strong advocate for teachers, supporting both cost of living adjustments and lower class sizes. I also know that she was instrumental in pushing for air-quality testing at Casey Middle School when teachers complained, and that she strongly agrees with teachers who oppose the amount of time we are devoting to testing at the expense of class time.
I was even more surprised to hear that conversations on this topic have taken place at school, because campaigning for OR against a candidate on school property, during school hours, is a violation of Colorado’s Fair Campaign Practices Act.
It does not benefit the teachers or the district to reject a questioning or dissenting voice on the Board. In fact, it makes voters nervous when boards rubber-stamp the actions of administrators. As well it should. Voters should be paying attention to their school board and how they vote. It might be better to look more closely at board members who rubber-stamp everything the Superintendent proposes or does without asking questions. We expect our students to ask questions in order to learn and to become critical thinkers. Should we expect less of our elected board members?
Shelly is an excellent advocate for teachers, tax payers and, most importantly, our children! I urge the district teachers, and all voters, to look at Shelly’s record for themselves.
Carol Rechel/Boulder
Support Maloney
We strongly support Dennis Maloney for Ward 3 City Councilman in Louisville. Dennis has strong business leadership skills from his professional career. As a board member of Coal Creek Ranch Homeowners Master Association for several years and President of The Springs HOA he has his demonstrated his analytical ability, teamwork, knowledge and capability to solve complex issues. Dennis also served on the Louisville Golf Course Advisory Board and helped lead the effort to recover the golf course after the major flood of September 2013.
Dennis understands the issues facing Louisville and Ward 3 and will be a great representative for our community.
Louisville needs Dennis Maloney to help our City going forward!
Ken and Marie Gambon/Louisville
Lafayette endorsements
I am shocked at your endorsements for the Lafayette City Council. I don’t know what you are basing these endorsements upon, other than your interview with each candidate. The only positive was the fact that Cliff Wilimeg’s mother, Merrily Mazza, already is a council member and should not be a candidate at this time. When his mother is no longer a sitting member of the Lafayette Council, then he might want to consider running for a seat. Cliff Smedley, Cliff Wilimeg, Merrily Mazza, and Tom Dowling ran on a single issue last election – fracking, which in turn cost the city of Lafayette $85,000 in legal fees, monies that could have been used for much needed renovation of Public Road and to attract more desirable businesses to our community.
If you had attended the first forum, you might have come to a much more educated decision.
Aside from your endorsements based on interviews only, the Lafayette City Council in all their wisdom has chosen to give themselves a raise of 65 percent. Their reasoning for this is that they have not had a raise in 14 years. Well, they haven’t been on city council for 14 years. This will cost the taxpayers $20,000 and would be taken from an already approved project. I think you should take a more comprehensive approach to your endorsements in the future.
Joyce Fischer/Lafayette
‘Daily Camera’ wrong on 300
The Daily Camera’s editorial page editor poured himself a generous helping of words while arguing against propositions 300 and 301. His 1,476 words are approximately twice what the paper allows for guest opinions and five times what is allowed for letters to the editor, so obviously Mr. Krieger values the paper’s opinion highly. I will try to be more succinct. Krieger writes that if Prop 300 is rejected and Boulder “grows at the rates projected, it will change.” If the proposition is approved and the city grows “more slowly or not at all, it will change, and perhaps more profoundly,” which he deems “the more ominous possibility.” Krieger is a professional writer, so we know that by using the word “ominous” he means that approving Prop 300 “forebodes evil.” Of what would this evil consist? Briefly, Krieger suggests it will be a “disincentive to growth” that will “exacerbate the rapidly-escalating cost of housing in Boulder” and thereby fail to preserve “human diversity.” Consequently, he urges his readers to oppose 300, to densify Boulder more rapidly, and thereby to decrease the rate at which we become “whiter and wealthier.” His tenet is that restricting growth with Prop 300 is evil, and presumably, because “Boulder’s growth is restricted horizontally by open space” and “is restricted vertically by a…height limit,” those constraints must be evil too. Following Krieger’s argument to its logical conclusion, I have to assume that he would also support eliminating open space and height restrictions. But it is precisely our city’s ability to preserve open areas and views that makes Boulder a sought-after location for residents, tourists, and businesses. Open space provides a space for rest and relaxation, height restrictions help preserve our views of the mountains, and Prop 300 will help preserve our neighborhoods. Is that evil?
Loren Pahlke/Boulder
Flatirons, open space, municipalization
As we approach the election I’ve been wondering what Boulder would be like today if our past City Councils had not held firm on forward-thinking projects. What if they had given up halfway through the struggle to protect our mountain backdrop or to create the greenbelt? Our view of the Flatirons today might be obstructed by condos and McMansions. Without the open spaces around us, where would we go for hiking, biking, bird-watching, being with our friends in nature?
Boulder municipalization is a legacy effort similar to these past legacy efforts. It is a long, difficult struggle that our community has supported over the years because it promises to cut our carbon pollution while maintaining competitive rates and increasing reliability and also making Boulder a hub for clean energy entrepreneurship for years to come.
Some of the candidates for City Council support following through with municipalization as long as it continues to make economic sense. Others though would have us give up, throw in the towel, and squander the opportunity we have worked so hard to create.
They would condemn us to another half-century of coal dependence and lack of liberty in our energy decisions.
Some of the candidates who question municipalization raise concerns that have already been addressed long ago. Some even make claims about municipalization that are flatly untrue, as they clearly could have found out for themselves from the publicly available data. We don’t need council members who are uninformed or misleading on a crucial city issue.
When you make your ballot decision, please remember that, though obviously more dire than municipalization, the American revolution was a long hard struggle, too. What if George Washington had given up during that hard winter at Valley Forge and gone home to Mount Vernon?
Chris Hoffman/Boulder
Don’t undermine our community
As a longtime resident of Boulder, I urge you to vote no on ballot dssues 300 and 301. These measures undermine our sense of community and prevent residents from making collective, sound decisions about the future of the community in which we live.
Ballot issue 300 gives 10 percent of any one of 66 different Boulder neighborhoods the ability to force a vote on proposed development. Such elections would be very expensive and divisive. Allowing a small minority to make decisions for the majority is bad public policy. We don’t want the tail to wag the dog. Decisions about what kind of city we want, whether we wish to provide additional affordable housing to residents, how to deal with traffic and other infrastructure issues should be decided by the city as a whole. While it can be challenging to bring people with different opinions together, this should not be a reason to treat the city as unrelated small units. The whole should be greater than the sum of its parts. Together we should arrive at sound decisions about our future.
Ballot issue 301 asks develops to “pay their way.” But, the method for calculating these payments is not defined. It is clear that the intent of the measure is to impede future development. But, adding unclear language into our city charter is not a productive way to make important decisions about how or whether development should go forward or how it should be funded. The City should not stand frozen in time by unworkable charter amendments. We must move forward to try and make sound decisions on development based upon clearly articulated means and in light of our city’s changing conditions. I reject these measures because I do not despair of our ability to together make intelligent decisions about our city.
Lisa Battan/Boulder
We’re number one
Dear: Editor Hi my name is Matthew. My teacher Mrs. Wilder gave my class an assignment to write to a newspaper company and I chose you because Colorado is my favorite state.
Sincerely, Matthew/Boonville, IN
Corporate spin is not news
I opened today’s Daily Camera to find that two of the four articles on the front page contained information from corporations and the government they control, telling people how to ignore the disastrous results of their destructive profit-making practices. One was how to deal with the earthquakes caused by blowing 10,000 gallons of water into the ground at high speeds in order to fracture rock structures so that crude oil can be extracted. The other told us why we should ignore the toxic bright yellow overflow from a mine disaster that polluted streams throughout Colorado and New Mexico. Thanks, profitminded corporations and the government they control for your advice. I’d like to see a headline from the public. It would be much simpler. It would read “Stop doing things that destroy the planet.”
Sally Terwilliger/Boulder
Bennet and antibiotics
I am writing to express my severe concern on the topic of antibiotic use in the farming industry. As a student in the Environmental Studies department, I have been learning about the means by which meat and animal byproducts are produced and becoming more and more appalled at the lack of federal legislation governing antibiotic use.
Personally, it came as a shock to learn that approximately 80 percent of all antibiotics in the U.S. are fed to farm animals. Bacteria breeding in the unsanitary conditions of industrial farms are developing resistance to drugs and are reaching the very populations they were designed to treat.
Doctors are now reporting cases where patients have hospital infections that aren’t responding to any treatment whatsoever. 230,000 Americans each year die from these infections.
I will feel confident in our country’s meat industry when it is invested in the quality of their product, not simply the quantity, and Senator Bennet can help pave the way for this transformation. The Preventing Antibiotic Resistance Act (PARA) is a bill that would allow farmers to give antibiotics to animals when sick, but prohibit the current practice which gives otherwise healthy animals antibiotics on a daily basis in their feed and water. This bill is currently sitting in committee, and by co-sponsoring the bill, Senator Bennet can push it through to next levels of congress. If he is properly representing his state and country, he will co-sponsor this bill and do everything it takes to push it along to become a law.
Elana Selinger/via Internet
Vote Maloney in Louisville
What should you look for in a Louisville City Council candidate?
If you believe the person should be hard working, open and responsive, experienced in community service, supportive of small businesses, fiscally responsible, and committed to maintaining Louisville’s family friendly atmosphere and small town feel, Dennis Maloney is the right candidate in Ward 3. Dennis has been active with the Habitat for Humanity, Community Food Share, 9Health Fair, Community Table, and the Louisville Golf Course Advisory Board. Dennis believes that Louisville’s unique charm comes from its distinctive appearance and welcoming culture. We strongly endorse Dennis Maloney for Louisville City Council.
Pete and Gayla Lindquist/Louisville
Debt bad
We’ll be in big trouble if we don’t take steps now to reduce the present national debt within 10 years. We can do so if we add our signatures to the more than 373,000 at fixthedebt.org/ citizens-petition. (It has a link to the Simpson-Bowles plan, which accomplishes this without hurting the poor.)
Alex Sokolow/Santa Monica, CA
