Applications to drill on the Roan Plateau
Re: “Politics and policy collide on the Roan,” May 14 editorial, and “Western driller’s gifts scrutinized,” May 7 news story.
In response to your recent editorial and article about the planning effort on the Roan Plateau, I appreciate your effort to keep the public involved in managing public lands in Colorado. Public involvement is critical to achieving our mission of balancing sometimes competing uses of our public lands.
Finding that balance has been particularly challenging on the Roan Plateau, which was largely a federal mineral reserve transferred from the Department of Energy to the Bureau of Land Management in 1997 through an act of Congress. That act explicitly directs the BLM to enter into leases for the exploration, development and production of petroleum resources within the Roan Plateau planning area “as soon as practicable,” following the laws and regulations that guide the BLM’s multiple-use mandate.
Nine years later, the Proposed Roan Management Plan anticipated to be released later this summer is the culmination of public involvement and close coordination with our cooperators – which include local communities and the state of Colorado.
The final decision will be in full compliance with the nation’s laws. We believe we are developing an approach that protects the sensitive areas on the Roan while allowing environmentally responsible development of critically needed domestic energy resources.
I welcome any external scrutiny on the process we have followed developing a management plan for the Roan Plateau, and encourage the public to stay actively involved in managing BLM lands.
Jamie Connell, Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs
Qwest’s push to move into TV market
Re: “Competition in TV market,” May 25 editorial.
Your editorial about Qwest’s attempts to dodge requirements that it offer video service to all residents provided an accurate summary of the debate but missed the mark on the key issue.
If increased cable competition is good – and I heartily agree with The Post that it is – everyone in a community deserves to enjoy its benefits, not just the privileged few. After all, because public rights of way are required for companies to deliver cable services, a public policy ensuring that all residents have equal access to the cable services seems appropriate. As its name states, Cable Competition … For All (competitionforall.com) is making precisely that point.
Redlining – the practice of denying service to certain neighborhoods – is illegal in various industries because it denies residents access to the full range of services they need to prosper. Even if a neighborhood is served by one lender or one insurer or one cable company, that neighborhood is at a disadvantage if it’s not enjoying the “healthy competition” in the marketplace that your editorial endorses.
Cathy Reynolds, Denver
…
Your editorial makes a compelling point. Municipal leaders are poised and ready to make important and decisive policy as it relates to cable competition through a model video-franchise agreement developed by more than 30 cities and towns in the Denver metro area. This represents true regional cooperation, and the responsible exercise of local control at its best.
This is exactly why national telecommunications franchising legislation needs to be defeated in Washington. Municipal officials throughout the nation strongly oppose such incursions precisely because we can make these decisions locally, without federal interference. We applaud Congresswoman Diana DeGette for her support of this position when she recently voted against such legislation, which was before the House Commerce Committee. We urge the rest of the state’s congressional delegation, many of whom have been consistent and steadfast in their support of local control, to vote “no” on such legislation when it comes up for a vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate over the weeks ahead.
Sam Mamet, Executive Director, Colorado Municipal League, Denver
Letting the market determine fuel efficiency
Re: “Big Three, U.S. must tackle fuel efficiency,” May 30 editorial.
This editorial is proposing regulation to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. With high gas prices, consumers will make up their own mind whether or not to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles. The U.S. automakers will either respond or continue to lose market share to foreign automakers who do respond. The nice thing about supply and demand is that we don’t need the government to tell us what to buy or what mileage our cars need to get.
The one option that was left out was to pay the $3-plus per gallon and quit whining.
I drive a Ford Expedition to work. I get about 12 miles to the gallon. But I drive only 20 miles a day. I also go camping on the weekends and need the Ford to pull my trailer. I have a few options: buy a second vehicle or scooter, ride a bike, trade in my Ford and trailer, or pay the money. I actually am riding my bike to work two days a week and will probably come out more ahead than with any other options.
So, the answer is to let market forces work themselves out. It will take years to get new fuel-efficient vehicles off the drawing board (even for Toyota) and into the market. If consumers demand fuel efficiency, then GM, Ford and Chrysler will respond; we don’t need more government regulations.
Thomas Blackman, Lakewood
Whistleblowers’ rights
The Supreme Court has ruled that government whistleblowers aren’t necessarily protected by free-speech rights. I was at Fort Logan cemetery on Memorial Day, visiting the grave of a friend who served in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf. I saw row upon row of perfectly placed white gravestones. I saw thousands of men and women who died protecting our First Amendment rights. The Bush administration doesn’t want people pointing out its shortcomings, and has whined loud enough to get the Supreme Court to agree. This administration is spitting on the sacrifices made by our soldiers and their families. How dare this court state that the First Amendment rights these men and women died to protect only cover certain Americans, in certain circumstances?
Penny Visalli, Elizabeth
Post’s sports coverage
Re: “Jake’s story not a match; QB, motorist at odds in incident,” May 25 sports story.
I am amazed at the detailed reporting of Jake Plummer’s driving, as reported in the Denver Post sports section.
I am equally amazed and disappointed by The Post’s lack of coverage of Colorado high school rugby. Recently, the 21st annual state high school championship was held and defending champion East High School was upset by SWARM (Southwest Youth Area Rugby), in a game that was a true example of quality rugby.
Perhaps you can inform your sports desk that football (Plummer’s game) is played on one continent, whereas rubgy is played on every continent.
Keith A. Laskowski, Golden
Senator’s quid pro quo?
Re: “Reid takes some hits for getting free seats,” May 30 news story.
Let’s see: Sen. Harry Reid, who is from Nevada and has some knowledge and experience with boxing regulations, accepts tickets from the state government to a boxing match in Vegas, legally, and later votes against the interests of the state agency that gave him the tickets. If this is about a quid pro quo, maybe there ought to be a quo first, before there is an article trying to make it look like there was something wrong. It’s just an attempt to smear Reid and distract from the very real GOP corruption.
Kent Phelps, Conifer
TO REACH US
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
