Forest Service approval of Wolf Creek roads
Re: “Ex-forest official disputes OK of Wolf Creek roads,” April 6 news story.
There has been considerable interest in my recent decision to provide road and utility access across the Rio Grande National Forest for the Village at Wolf Creek.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 requires the Forest Service to “grant such access deemed adequate to secure the landowners the reasonable use and enjoyment of their land.” Any time an application is received for access to private land, my responsibility is to review the application and decide how reasonable access can best be provided. The Forest Service has no regulatory authority to prescribe development scale or activities on private land. That responsibility lies with the local governments and other state and federal agencies that have jurisdiction over development on private property.
My decision authorizes two short access roads across the national forest. Construction and use of these access roads and utility corridors will occur under stringent environmental controls to minimize impacts to the national forest.
At no time during this process did I receive direction, influence or pressure from higher levels on how or what decision to make. My decision is based solely upon the law, the environmental analysis, public comment and my best professional judgment. This decision balances my legal obligation to comply with ANILCA with my responsibility to minimize environmental impacts.
The Record of Decision and the Application for the Transportation and Utilities Systems and Facilities for the Village at Wolf Creek Final Environmental Impact Statement can be reviewed at www.fs.fed.us/r2/riogrande/planning/projects/decisions, or a copy may be obtained at the Public Lands Center Office in Monte Vista.
Peter Clark, Forest Supervisor, Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista
Illegal immigrants’ demands for rights
Re: “Marching for respect,” April 11 news story.
Regarding the recent outrageous illegal-immigrant protests, one must think about what America is coming to. These illegal immigrants expect America to welcome them with open arms/borders and no strings attached? To citizens like myself and others, this is incomprehensible. You either immigrate legally or not at all.
Maybe the solution is to deport them all back to Mexico and build us a protective wall, a la Berlin. Then we employ thousands of willing and armed police guards to protect our fragile border. Sounds harsh, but sadly, this is what our state of immigration has come to.
No other country would let an issue such as this get so inflated and out of hand. How could America, one of the greatest countries on earth, let such an easily treated issue come to such a pathetic state?
Lisa Baker, Centennial
…
People who enter this country illegally, regardless of their logic for doing so, cannot expect carte blanche “respect.” They have flaunted the very laws they now protest to have changed to protect or change their illegal status. You don’t get it both ways: you don’t get to break the law and then expect to have the law changed to negate your illegal action. If these illegals hide or use false Social Security numbers or forged documents, how is it they expect they have earned any right to citizenship? Citizenship is a privilege. It is something of value. Any legislation that rewards people (and their families) who have entered this country illegally devalues the very basic principles of American citizenship.
Debbie Griffith, Golden
…
There is a large number of distant relatives in my dad’s family who live in Mexico near Guadalajara. Starting in the 1700s and 1800s, a large number of people came from Eastern Europe (like my dad’s relatives) and even France to certain areas that Mexico opened up for immigration and settlement by the Europeans. There is a large population of blue-eyed, light-haired people there with Russian and German and French surnames who are now full-fledged Mexican citizens. That’s one of the reasons I learned Spanish some time ago. But our relatives would never think of crossing any national borders illegally at times like this.
Catherine French, Los Alamos, N.M.
Possible plans to attack Iran with nukes
According to Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker magazine this week, the U.S. military has intensified planning for the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites using nuclear “bunker-busting” bombs.
We are being told that we must do this to “stop the threat” from Iran. But why bomb, especially using nukes? Not only does this violate international law and nuclear weapons treaties, it will inevitably release radioactivity into the environment and create a backlash against the U.S. I would like to know why our government is not leading the way to a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East, where all the countries in the region agree to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes only and submit to international inspections. We should make this demand of both Israel and the Arab nations alike. It we unilaterally bomb Iran while allowing Israel to keep its nuclear weapons, it will surely generate more violence in the Middle East and it will make the U.S. the target of terrorism on a scale never seen before.
Tim Boyle, Denver
Graffiti in Denver
Re: “Hot words over graffiti law,” April 10 news story.
If New Yorker Marc Ecko and his local attorney David Lane are so concerned about “giving kids a chance to express themselves artistically,” why would they not make a large endowment to Denver Public Schools, which is facing a series of well-publicized budget cuts? In this era of increasing dropouts, I would imagine that such an endowment would be gratefully received and would give kids an incentive to openly express themselves.
Barring that, I would invite Ecko to purchase a home in Denver and hold the graffiti festival on his land. If this is impractical, I am sure Lane can accommodate the event at his home, which will give him the chance to support kids’ First Amendment rights throughout our city.
Philip Atkinson, Westminster
Imagining 16th Street Mall without shuttles
The RTD strike gave us a glimpse of what Denver’s 16th Street Mall could be: an active, vibrant, friendly place for pedestrians to enjoy a stroll to work or just to enjoy the sun at lunch. The threat of being run down by one of the many free shuttles that usually menace the mall was gone for a week. Too bad these noisy lumbering shuttles had to return.
Perhaps there is a way for the shuttle busses to be permanently banned from the mall. What if they simply went up 17th Street and down 15th, circling the pedestrian mall and leaving the mall itself for pedestrians? The amount of walking that the average shuttle user needs to do will remain the same and the pedestrian mall becomes a true pedestrian mall. Do this and downtown Denver will become a much more pleasant place to visit.
Dan Brockway, Boulder
State smoking ban
I love asbestos. Inhaling it gives me a nice buzz. Even though I know it causes cancer, I am willing to live with those consequences for the enjoyment I get out of inhaling it. And even though it is proven to cause cancer in others, I don’t really care; I deserve the right to fill the air in the bars and restaurants I visit with asbestos so I can enjoy it.
Sound ridiculous? It’s not much more ridiculous than smokers whining about the smoking ban. Cigarette smoke is a carcinogen. Period. No discussion. You smokers can kill yourselves in your own homes and cars, but stop whining that you lost your right to kill those around you.
Chris Roland, Englewood
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
