Letters to the Editor
This letter is regarding Animal Control in the valley. Tonight, Sunday, Sept. 14, at 6:30 p.m., a dog was apparently lost in front of Vista at the main roundabout in Avon.
A lady came in to ask me for assistance to try to catch the dog. She witnessed from her room at the Christie Lodge a man in a large motor home pull over to the curb, exit his motor home to close a hatch.
His beagle followed him out, which he did not notice. The beagle was in the front lawn at Vista as his owner pulled away. The beagle kept walking around the road, obviously looking for her owner. She was very scared, and would not come to anyone.
I promptly called Avon police for assistance, since I thought they handled the town’s Animal Control. The dispatcher said she would send someone. After 20 minutes of no response, I called Eagle County Animal Control’s answering service.
I received a return phone call within five minutes, but the man said that he could not help because it was in Avon and Avon handled the town’s Animal Control. I called the police back and was told by the dispatcher that there was only one officer on duty and he was backed up.
I then decided to call my vet and was advised to call Animal Control back. My vet said that Animal Control could tranquilize the dog, but she did not have such devices.
In the meantime, this dog kept running in the street, looking for his owner. Of course, I recalled Animal Control but did not ever hear back from them. The police officer showed up after an hour of attempts to capture the dog, with no leash, etc. He left and returned 20 minutes later with a cage.
Luckily, the owner (now it is dark out), finally returned looking for his dog. He pulled up in the same spot that he lost Lola. Lola was very lucky to live through the two hours. We all know what the Avon roundabout can be like!
I can’t express enough how disappointed I was in how this situation was handled by the government. What happened to working together? If Eagle County Animal Control can’t help in Avon, then Avon needs to be prepared to handle situations that arise with animals. We had a happy ending – tonight.
There is no doubt that corporate executives who “cooked the books” were dishonest and- guilty of completely disregarding the interests of their employees and of their shareholders. But we-have another “corporate”-problem also — that of exporting jobs in order to reduce labor costs and improve the “bottom line”.-While it is not a new phenomena, it- is now especially counter productive — and even unpatriotic .–It is happening at the same time that- our unemployment rate is 6.1% and we have 9,000,000 unemployed Americans. And it’s happening at the same time that-taxes-are being reduced in the hopes of stimulating the economy and creating jobs.
-The very same folks who have applauded- Mr. Bush for his tax policies are undermining-his announced goal by sending jobs overseas. Unfortunately, it’s a perfectly legal practice, and other than-the outrage being expressed by-our labor unions, it is-happening without penalty or protest.
-Mr. Bush gave a speech on Labor day and told us-how he-would -resolve what is-one of-the Nation’s most serious problems. In order to “provide a focus”, he-would appoint some underling to the Secretary of Commerce; he would create a job and then go find someone to fill it. Considering the importance of the problem, I think that he should have said that-he would speak to the C.E.O.s himself — some individually and some in groups.
Admonitions by the President would carry considerable weight, and- additional -pressure-from his Secretaries of- Commerce and- Labor-would also-be-effective.–Maybe-the “guilty” -executives are not really “thinking” and a simple reminder about “patriotism” would have some effect; certainly-a threat of “publicity” would deter others. I- am certain that by exercising all of it’s influence, this administration could make a considerable difference.
-David Le Vine
Time has come
Matt Zalaznick’s article on the subject of voting rights for second-home owners was excellent and long overdue. The arguments for giving second-home owners the right to vote in town of Vail elections and, possibly, in Eagle County elections, are overwhelming and well stated in the article:
1. As Rick Scalpello said, taxation without representation was a root cause of a “tea party” in Boston about 225 years ago, which led to the American Revolution.
2. It is patently absurd that the owners of 70 percent of the residential real estate in Vail are disenfranchised.
3. It is patently absurd that a seasonal worker with no investment in, or commitment to, the community can declare Vail to be his or her legal residence and register to vote after 30 days in town, while a second-home owner and taxpayer with a substantial investment in the town cannot vote.
4. If these are legitimate reasons for a second-home owner to have the right to vote, why should anyone care whether that person can also vote elsewhere, so long as he-she cannot vote twice on the same issue, e.g., national elections?
It is interesting to note that our town council persons want to “tap the abilities” of second-home owners without giving them the right to vote, and believe that those owners can “exert greater influence on town politics” by contacting council members about their views than by having the right to vote.
Those views are not too dissimilar from those of the anachronistic all-male organizations that exclude females from membership but “tap the abilities” (i.e., cooking, baking, and selling raffle tickets) of their lady auxiliaries. Our Town Council members might also note that having the right to vote does not preclude one from also contacting the elected officials about one’s views. However, have you ever met a politician who cares about the views of anyone whose vote he-she does not need to court?
The arguments in favor of second-home owner enfranchisement are many, sound and logical. The arguments against it are largely self-serving and emotional (“not all of us can afford homes in two or three places”).
This issue is rising to the top of the agenda of every resort community in America. Very few second-home owner enfranchisements have been accomplished peacefully. The members of a town council elected by less than one third of the property owners are not likely to vote to change the town charter and their constituency so dramatically. Unfortunately, the change will come, most likely, via litigation on which the Town Council will squander hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight and lose.
We would like to thank all who participated and donated to the third annual Family Fun Run at Vail Mountain School. We were treated to a glorious afternoon and evening on Friday, Sept. 12, and had nearly 200 runners and walkers!
Extra special thanks to Runners World, Highline Sports, West Vail Liquor Mart, McDonalds, Upward Athletics, The Town of Vail, the Vail Police Department (extra thanks to Jackie Ogden), Wishes, Vail Fire Department, Kevin Deighan, Karl Edgerton, Martha Peck, Jan Sackbauer, Krissie Barnes, Tim Swift, Ann Hutchison, Ross Graves, American Ski Exchange, Dorothy Distelhorst, D.D. S., Shaklee, Va
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
Are we seeing more bears because there are more bears on the valley floor, or because we’re all spending more time at home? It could be a bit of both.