Letters to the editor
I enjoyed the recent article on the Village at Avon water issues. It was a good wake up call for everyone in the valley and nice to know that others are thinking about this.
The developers’ argument that they might use the water in the Eagle Park reservoir is kind of like robbing snowmaking to keep box stores in business. When you have a finite resource like water, there must ultimately be choices made.
Will we have to someday choose between snowmaking and box stores? If the consensus of the Avon town government goes toward box stores, then we have a situation here.
My feeling is the village is now the tail wagging the dog, as far as Avon is concerned. The Village at Avon is proceeding like an out-of-control train bearing down on the quality of life here. If you hit the emergency brake on a train thats moving 80 mph, its going to derail all over the place. The question isn’t whether there is a train wreck about to occur somehwere along those unused tracks along the river, just whose train is going to win.
It’s also rather interesting that the developer is paying Sema Construction Co. some massive bonuses to speed up the timetable on that project. (That’s confirmed by people at Sema by the way and evidenced by the possible early opening noted recently by the Daily.)
Sometimes the biggest train going the fastest wins. And a train wreck on Yoder Avenue? Unthinkable! The entire plan for the future of the Village at Avon needs to be reviewed, and if it is found that there just isn’t enough water in the driest of years (and we know to the gallon how much that is based on last summer), then the whole thing needs to be scrapped and drastically downsized and the developers told tough luck and turn the remainder of the space into open space and wildlife habitiat.
Oily war cry
I’m guessing that Mr. Safire’s recent editorial was designed to bully the reluctant French, Mexicans and Russians into supporting the American position to invade Iraq if weapons inspectors find Saddam Hussein’s government in “material breach.”
Mr. Safire’s retort illustrates plainly the naked imperialist ambitions of our rightwing citizens. What “incentive” does he think exists for encouraging Turkey’s willing engagement of the Kurds whom they too have historically oppressed, after the assumed victory?
Wouldn’t a more likely scenario be that the Kurds would want a nation of their own straddling Turkey and Iraq in return for their cooperation in the war, assuming they could find a charismatic leader?
As for threatening France and Russia with the loss of oil revenues, how quickly we forget Mr. Putin’s willingness, not too long ago, to support the United States in encouraging Saudi Arabia to keep its oil prices in check by offering less
expensive Russian oil to the world market.
Of course, we recognize that this was also his way of reminding the world that Russia is a major player in the world oil market. Why should we fault him for this? Isn’t he just using his resources wisely? And isn’t Russia, whether we invade or not, a world class oil player?
These right-wing arguments make it painfully obvious what this diplomacy is about: oil.
Isn’t that what any self-respecting rightwing Texan thinks about first, anyway? It’s still not going to be his kids who’ll do the fighting and the dying.
Gore had one thing right. Alternatives to oil and other dependent technologies are what Americans need to start thinking and doing something about, not business as usual. The politics of imperialism are always hamfisted.