Letters to the editor
I can hear you
I just read the letter from J. Harbundt. Mr. Harbundt, according to most modern rules of writing etiquette, locking that caps lock key down the way you did means you’re STILL SHOUTING AT EVERYONE!
Ironic, isn’t it?
Having now lived here for five years, I realize Colorado is the home of high-speed slalom drivers!
Doing quite well
This is to the person who called in “Up to no good” in Tipsline. I say yeah! to the Vail Recreation District Board of Directors!
The “highly biased process of selecting a new director” you speak of, with no public input, was done through a professional headhunter, a nationwide search was conducted to find the few most qualified candidates. The board then selected who they felt was best suited for the job. I’m not sure, but I do not think that the director has been chosen this way in the past, nor has public input been requested. But if doing a nationwide search through a professional service is biased, so be it.
As for the board having “alienated and destroyed a quality staff with a vindictive style that is devoid of reason and lacks any type of leadership,” I think that you have mistaken them for the last directors of the VRD. This board is only asking that the employees of the district be accountable and responsible to the citizens of the district in carrying out the duties in their respective jobs.
Yes, I think that the board is going in new directions and that it was about a decade overdue. And that the district as a whole is better for it since the last election. It’s a new millennium and we need people with new ideas. We’ve been stuck in the status quo of “that’s the way it’s always been done” for too long. The voters spoke by an overwhelming margin in the last election to this.
Finally, if the person who called in “Up to no good” really has any evidence of wrongdoing, bring it to light. But don’t make faceless accusations and then not back them up, sign your name! P.S. Do away with Tipsline and put it under the heading “Gossip Column.”
What I take from Sept. 11
I would like to respond to the article about remembering September 11. I remember it very well, whether I would like to or not. I remember seeing a giant cloud of smoke engulfing New York two miles away, standing on the roof of my apartment building at my college in Jersey City. My next door neighbors made it to the roof just before me, in time to see the second tower fall. I didn’t see the fall, but I felt the deafening quiet of a city constantly buzzing with motion.
On that morning, everything was still. As we gathered in the quad to trek to the hospital to give blood, even the floods of emotion couldn’t overcome the cryptic stillness in the air. We arrived at the Jersey City Medical Center only to discover that because it was one of the closest to Manhattan, victims
were being brought there and we were shuttled to a hospital in the next town.
It was perhaps the first positive sight of the day to see so many people at the Bayonnne Hospital waiting to give blood, and the first time people could gather together and really share how they were feeling, as much as they could without knowing the gravity of the situation.
We were determined to help as much as we could, and when we left the hospital, we realized there was not only nothing more we could do to help, there was nothing we could do at all.
Sure, some of the stores, restaurants and bars remained open, but because they couldn’t receive orders coming from New York, the entirety of Jersey City was at a standstill.
It was almost two weeks before classes started up again, mostly for the students who had lost loved ones, and for everyone to have time to process what had happened. The weeks following, however, were bittersweet.
Yes, there was a wave of ultra-patriotism, of people reaching out to their neighbor, taking an extra second before honking their horn in traffic. But there was also a lot of built-up anger without an outlet.
A few weeks after Sept. 11, the FBI raided a mosque in Jersey City, about two blocks from my campus, arresting many men of “Arabic” descent, and supposedly confiscating plans for further attacks. Another JC mosque was raided shortly after that, and more arrests were made.
If that wasn’t scary enough, the hysteria that these raids caused resulted in many innocent Muslim people being harassed and even beaten up on the street. I don’t know if it was harder to see people burst into tears over the innocent victims of the WTC attacks or to see innocent people shouted at or beaten simply because of the way they looked.
For me, remembering Sept. 11 means mourning the horrible attack by terrorists on America, but also mourning the attacks of Americans on America, and the freedom for which our great country stands. I will never forget the devastation I felt staring for weeks at a dust cloud that used to be the scenery from my freshman dorm room, but I force myself to remember the consequences of impetuous reactions so not to perpetuate needless suffering.
“One man, one vote’
Rick Scalpello is correct in his assertion that the Revolutionary War was fought, at least in part, over the right of property owners to vote.
However, we have moved far beyond that narrow thinking, and his argument that nonresidents should be allowed to vote in Vail, simply because they own property here, is flawed. Two-hundred years ago, you did have to be a landowner to vote. You also had to be white (except in a few Northern states) and male (except in New Jersey). This is not a situation that I am eager to return to.
Alan Kosloff’s claim that second-home owners are “disenfranchis(ed)” by not being able to vote in Vail is similarly disingenuous. What Mr. Kosloff seeks is a multiple franchise for those folks. They want to be able to vote in local elections here, as well as in their home towns. This concept is directly contrary to what is now a longstanding principle – that voting rights are not derived merely from ownership of property. That practice ended in this country in the early 19th century.
Moreover, if Mr. Kosloff’s argument is correct, that second-home owners’ interests are closely aligned with those of the locals, why is he so concerned about second-home owners getting what essentially would be a ratification vote?
The bottom line of these arguments is that property owners should get two or more votes, while everyone else gets one. I, for one, prefer the time honored “one man-one vote” rule.
In response to the question “should Vail second-home owners be allowed to vote?” I say certainly; they are entitled to vote once, like everyone else, in the place they have chosen as their home. If people who own a second home in Vail want to vote in our local elections they can do so.
They need only declare Vail as their primary residence. In either event, no one in this country should be entitled to vote more than once.
Support Local Journalism
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User
Vail’s updated plans regarding the state guidelines and isolation housing requirements is one of several pieces of information guests are waiting on heading into the 2020-21 season.