Home / Articles / Views / Letters /  Letter | Creek fest fracas
. . . . . . .
Give Through iGivefirst
Thursday, October 21,2010

Letter | Creek fest fracas

Creek Fest fracas

(Re: “Ruffled feathers,” News, Oct. 14.) What a great article. But I have to say I’m with Chris Dailey on this matter. Why is the city of Boulder interjecting itself where it should be the “silent partner”? Think about it. They didn’t want anything to do with the Boulder Creek Festival before because it was a loss in revenue and were ready to chalk it off. Now, it’s generating revenue and bringing in people from everywhere, which means more money, and, in reality, isn’t this what it’s about on the city’s side? Money.

More people mean more traffic, more foot traffic, more of everything — the good and the bad. To deal with it doesn’t mean putting a bid out for someone who doesn’t have our best interests at heart, but the heart of city officials. They live in expensive homes with expensive cars and look down their noses at the rest of us, pretending to be part of this community. If they really were true to Boulder, this would not be happening, and it would never be an issue. Ever.

“However, it is our contention that a change in ownership will be in the best interest of both the City of Boulder and Boulder Creek Events.”

What a crock! Dailey wanted to do something for Boulder out of his own pocket to save said venture. Yes, in that sense, it was a great business opportunity.

You’d have to be a fool not to see that.

“Chris has done an admirable job running the event,” [parks and rec Director Kirk] Kincannon says. “I don’t think there’s any unhappiness based on what’s being provided. We’re just trying to see what we can do to enhance it, relative to green technology.”

Again, must we look at this and say, wow, money again? Green technology is awesome! Great for Boulder! Great for our community! At what price do we individually pay if the city takes over? Admission to the event in the future? Would the money go to their pockets instead of PLAY or the Parks and Recreation Division? City members should be walking hand in hand with this project, not trying to bully their way into a great event. Didn’t learn from the Invesco Field at Mile High incident, did we? What’s in a name? Everything.

And in the spirit of what Boulder is about, Dailey should continue to run things without having to worry or wonder about the next year. The city, on the other hand, is being a petulant child, giving Boulder a worse name than it already has. They want Boulder to be like Louisville or Denver and to lose what spirit of life Boulder people have. “The best bang for your buck.”

It’s always been the best smile in the world to give when a Denverite speaks with a true Boulderite; “you people” they say as they shake their heads, not understanding why or that we care about each other, our community, the type of businesses that are here. We care about the environment and how we treat it. It’s truly the “People’s Republic of Boulder — Keep Boulder Weird.”

Thanks for the article. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Tamatha Rawls/Boulder

Stupid Boulder

(Re: “Vote!” cover story, Oct. 7.) I would like to say thank you for your Vote 2010 cutout section. While I am proud that we disagreed on most issues, we did agree on a few. As a Boulder resident for almost six years, I have learned a couple of things: 1) While Boulder may be a beautiful city, it is full of some of the most stupid people on the face of this planet; and 2) Most of the residents are ultra-liberal progressives. Coincidence? I think not. After the atrocities committed by the Democratic Party since the 2008 elections, one must be either stupid, ignorant or a socialist to completely agree with the policies set forth by the left wing in America. Most people in America would agree with me. In conclusion, I would like to thank you for showing just how dumb the residents of “The People’s Republic” really are.

C. Johnston/via Internet

Supporting gay teens

(Re: “Tyler Clementi died for your sins,” Uncensored, Oct. 7.) Thank you for the article about Tyler Clementi. As the mother of a young lesbian who, like Tyler, is talented beyond words, kind, loving and giving, I fear that one day she will be targeted for her sexual preferences.

When asked by people how I feel about her gayness, my response is simply, “I was put here to love her, not to judge her,” and that is precisely what I do.

Dolores Tanaloa/via Internet

Bosley wants guns at CU

There are many reasons not to vote for Steven Bosley as CU regent and as many reasons to vote instead for CU law Professor Melissa Hart. Here are three big ones. Bosley wants to jack up tuition at CU by a whopping 9.5 percent per year for four years, or nearly 40 percent by 2015. You think higher education at CU is expensive now?

Professor Hart wants to revive state funding for higher education rather than rip off students and their hardworking parents.

Bosley also wants to wipe out need-based financial aid for students from middle and working class families. He talks a good line about “diversity,” but jacking up tuition and slashing financial aid will let only the wellto-do attend CU. And forget about any more ethnic minorities landing on CU’s nearly lily-white Boulder campus.

Professor Hart is all about diversity and is appalled at Bosley’s desire to wipe out need-based financial aid at CU.

Finally and most ominously, Bosley wants to allow loaded guns on campus. Can you believe this guy, in light of the Virginia Tech massacre and the recent shooting spree at the University of Texas? Apparently, Bosley doesn’t give a rat’s patootie for the safety of CU students, faculty and staff. His love for guns seems to come first.

Professor Hart hasn’t taken a formal position on guns, but can you imagine a professor and mom like her wanting loaded guns in college classrooms? Think about it when you vote.

Ken Bonetti/Boulder

Steve Bosley for CU regent

Let’s break some rules this election season. I will certainly be breaking a few of my own. Incumbents worry me as career politicians, so I tend not to vote for them. Additionally, my party’s candidates gain my favor in races where they run.

In past elections, many local and state races offered few choices. Normally I’d vote for Libertarians, or at least an exchange of warm bodies. I certainly wouldn’t vote against my principles of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.

The CU regent-at-large race forces me to break some of the rules without tossing my morals out the window. I am supporting Steve Bosley to continue as CU regent.

In endorsing Steve, I ask Libertarian-minded voters to consider Steve’s exemplary work throughout his term. He’s been instrumental in advancing fiscal reform, without trashing needed programs. We’ve seen a lot more transparency at CU since Steve came on board, and that’s not a coincidence. His banking career required openness for stockholders and regulators. He’s brought these skills to CU, knowing that stockholders and regulators are the voting taxpayers.

Steve’s had two successful careers: banking and creating the second largest timed 10K race in the country. Proven leadership and innovation. His short career at CU has helped improve the quality of education by reforming tenure; better scrutiny of private donations; expanding relationships with other universities; and strengthening the infrastructure of the entire CU system with decisive action. This is inviting to students and investors, especially alumni.

Steve Bosley still has his eye on the ball. He’s been concentrating on CU and not climbing the political ladder. He hasn’t been distracted by politics or corrupted by it. He’s not a career politician, but he is a career mensch.

Let’s not exchange warm bodies at CU, and re-elect Steve Bosley as regent at-large.

Paul Tiger/Longmont

Vote No on Prop 102

This election brings some very interesting choices for Colorado. None leads with fear more than Proposition 102, promoted by “Safe Streets Colorado.” The proposition would take from judges the ability to utilize pretrial services programs designed by judicial districts to relieve indigent small offenders of the need to post bond at an un-reimbursable cost of a thousand dollars for a $10,000 bond.

This will force an impoverished second offender of a minor crime to remain in jail at a cost to taxpayers or become indentured to a loan company.

The bill was written by the Allegheny Casualty International Fidelity Associated Bond Company and is backed by Bail USA. It is estimated that it will cost taxpayers $2.8 million a year in unnecessary incarcerations, while giving the bond industry a cash cow of small offenders. The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition recommends that we vote No on Prop 102.

John Hoffmann/Carbondale

Wake up, smell the coffee

There is apparently “sympathy” in some quarters with the mini-revolution known as the Tea Party. Elements of it have stated, among other things, that “the Earth is starving for carbon” (the implication being we need to do our Christian duty and burn more fossil fuels, now). Wow. Wake up and smell the coffee. Better yet, look up.

The atmosphere is struggling to distribute or just contain a lot of excess energy. Take it from a former geography professor — localized extremes in weather are a symptom. Whatever the cause, inaction is bad, and exacerbation is worse.

Similarly, to sympathize with business (remember them?) and its aversion to hiring, it is clear that TPers point to rational business behavior. Rational is not always beneficial. Government may have demonstrated behavior that is beneficial, but not rational. At least we have avoided bread lines, so far.

Corporations have stockpiled mountains of cash and borrowed even more. For what? To endure the biggest buyers’ strike ever? Would that we could see such organized behavior by American consumers. But a holiday from Wal-Mart would probably feel to most like confinement, so I discount that possibility. If CEOs are deaf, we should let them see some resolve.

Greg Iwan/Longmont

Boulder Weekly

welcomes your e-mail correspondence. Letters must not exceed 400 words and should include your name, address and telephone number for verification. Addresses will not be published. We do not publish anonymous letters or those signed with pseudonyms. Letters become the property of Boulder Weekly and will be published on our website. Send letters to: letters@boulderweekly.com. Look for Boulder Weekly on the World Wide Web at: www.boulderweekly. com.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
No Registration Required