Letters to the editor | VailDaily.com
YOUR AD HERE »

Letters to the editor

Daily Staff Writer

Ohhhhhh, OK, I get it! All along I’ve been thinking that the town of Eagle and/or Eagle Ranch have been conducting West Nile virus research in our swamp on a corner of Brush Creek Road near Eagle. But now I realize they’ve simply hooked up with WECRD and added a much-needed mud-bog pit to complement the pool and ice rink recreation center located nearby. It certainly does give our jeep-driving, midnight-wandering teens something to do, and the mud residue on Brush Creek Road does add a rather natural touch to the otherwise stark black asphalt.But then perhaps it’s a combined effort in the name of science to see what effect roaring Michelins have on the virus. Perhaps the county commissioners could create matching funds to erect a winter bubble to preserve the research site so that the $100,000-plus spent for mosquito control this summer would not have been aimlessly spent.I am further pleased to see that the surrounding planning-use at the Brush Creek Meadows is 150 percent equal to the beauty, design and engineering of the adjacent housing tract.Way to go Eagle, Bravo!P.S.: Also, perhaps the Eagle County Environmental Health Department could get involved by setting up a self-pay station so the late-night bogging participants could contribute to a memorial fund for the horse that died next door after testing positive to the virus. Sadly, his death last year went amazingly unnoticed by everyone. Rosie ShearwoodBrush CreekLiquor store warEven though its said and done, there’s a few things that you, the community, should know. I’m sure you’ve all heard something about the application for Edwards’ fourth retail liquor licence, which was passed by the county commissioners on Monday, Aug. 2. But there were a few bits of information omitted from the entire ordeal. A lot of you may have received a phone call from an independent research firm out of Iow a doing a phone survey regarding the need and desire for this fourth store. But most of you are not aware of the outcome. Out of 498 people called at random; 238 being male and 260 being female. 96 people (19.3 percent) said they desired another store, and 402 people (80.7 percent) said they had no desire for a fourth store. This information was received through a completely non-biased data collection method, targeting residents in the 926 pre-fix area, and over 21 years old. To those of you writing in letters saying, “These liquor stores are concerned with increased competition”: First of all, they all have their own loyal clientele. Second, they would have already tried to put each other out of business if they were really concerned. To those of you writing in trying to compare this with other businesses’ over saturating the market in Edwards. You need to think harder. We are dealing with a government-controlled substance here, not ice cream or deli sandwiches. In regards to those asking, “What message are we sending to our children?” Well, kids will do what they want. But I know for a fact that the other liquor stores are watching out for our community. Sure, they are selling something that some of you don’t partake in, but they do their job by keeping it controlled and not selling to those without ID or who they believe to have already been drinking. Which brings me to my next concern. EAT! Inc. and DRINK! Inc. are considered separate enterprises, but are essentially the same store. Polly Anna Forrester, owner of EAT!, and her significant other, Chris Irving, owner of DRINK!, share the same retail space. As mentioned, a liquor store may not sell to someone they know has been drinking. So when someone has a few glasses of wine and some cheese at EAT!, then walks across the room to DRINK! for a few more bottles of wine, how is that legal in anyway? They won’t be turning down every sale, will drinking and who was able to buy more from someone, fully knowing they’d been drinking. Please, someone explain to me, how is that legal? Another question is why do Irving and Forrester, who both reside in Vail, feel the need to open in Edwards? They don’t know the needs and wants of our community. They should have just stayed in Vail and left our town alone. The only people who stood up for them were their friends and not the majority of the community they are invading. Also I think it was very misleading to the public, the fact that the Vail Daily would only print that the opposition was solely from the other area liquor stores. It’s ridiculous about the other 79 percent of the community who also opposed? Speaking of misleading. How many of you were told it was just a cheese and wine bar, then later told it was that and only a fine wine shop. Then to see Chris Irving quoted in the Daily saying they would also sell “handcrafted beers.” The story changes each time. What next? I feel that we were lied to and I for one as a member of the community don’t appreciate being lied to! Lastly, I address the county commissioners and the board. You should all be ashamed of yourselves and you should rethink what your job is. You went into this hearing with your minds made up, the same as many other hearings I’ve attended. Not even listening to these members of the community addressing their concerns. Your eyes glaze over and you don’t even pay attention. I’m sure you’re thinking of how it might bring a little income to the county, which will probably find its way to your greedy pockets. Yo US, not yourselves. Think about it next time you have a hearing. As to the next election, none of you will be getting my vote. I doubt anything can be done now. But maybe, as a community, it’s time to set some new standards as to what goes on in our neighborhood. William BolioEdwardsAnother lossAs the 2004 presidential election heats up, we’re sure to receive an adequate dose of biased rhetoric from network television, national newspapers and even some of our local “expert” commentators.Fortunately, most Americans have the ability to tune out the whining cry-babies who are still seething from the 2000 election that Bush won. You’ll hear the familiar slogans, “Every vote should count!” and “Let the people decide!” It’s a good thing the Democrats aren’t using that logic for the 2004 election.Even though you heard the familiar rallying call at the Democratic National Convention, actions speak louder than words. In many states across the country – including Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida and Arizona – the Democrats are suing to keep Ralph Nader off the presidential ballot. Not only is this action plainly undemocratic and sordid, it’s a direct threat to our electoral choice. See, the Democrats want every vote to count, but only if you vote for their candidate. You can question the blatant hypocrisy, but can you blame them for trying? Nader won 2.7 percent of the votes nationwide in 2000 and is currently polling at 4 percent. Having Nader on the ballot in tightly contested states could be devastating for Kerry’s election hopes in November.It’s a shame we don’t hear more Democratic pundits explaining why they are attempting to use litigation and dirty tricks to keep Americans from having a real choice on Election Day. Is this the winning strategy that Democrats are pouring time, energy and money into?The most recent Gallup Poll shows that President Bush’s approval rating is over 50 percent. In fact, no president whoever had a job approval rating of over 50 percent this late in the year has ever lost re-election. With the Republican National Convention sure to provide another boost and a series of debates in which Kerry’s hypocrisy and voting record will be exposed, it looks as if Democrats will have four more years to think about another election strategy. Y’all come back now, y’hear.Steve HendersonEagle


Support Local Journalism