A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The (Grand Junction) Daily Sentinel, Aug. 16, on why those against a mosque near Ground Zero should buy the property to prevent construction:
President Barack Obama’s mixed-message musings on the $100 million proposed mosque and Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan have done nothing but further aggravate an already contentious issue. He would have done better to stay out of the issue entirely.
For their part, Republican leaders are needlessly trying to turn the issue into another political club with which to bludgeon Democrats running for Congress, even though it is not a federal issue or one that either party can affect.
There’s no question why a substantial majority of Americans oppose the construction of the mosque two blocks from where thousands of people were incinerated in the name of Allahat the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Such a center would be an insult—a slap in the face to the family and friends of those who killed that terrible day, thanks to Islamic terrorists.
Certainly, not all Muslims subscribe to the violent Islamist theology that drove the 9/11 terrorists to fly jet planes into buildings.
And not all Christians are Muslim-haters. But imagine the outcry that would be provoked in the Muslim world if some Christian groups sought to build a massive edifice highlighting its religious beliefs at, say, Srebrenica, the site of the massacre of hundreds of Muslims by predominantly Christian Bosnian forces in 1995.
Most Americans would welcome any indication that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the developer of the proposed mosque, recognized the offense his proposal has generated and accepted offers he has already received to build the mosque at another Manhattan location. The fact that he has repeatedly refused to budge from this site suggests he’s adamant about making a political statement.
Rauf and his supporters clearly have the right to build on the private property they own so long as they comply with local zoning requirements. The last hurdle in that regard was removed a couple weeks ago, when the New York City Landmarks Preservation Committee refused to designate the old garment factory on the property as a historic landmark, although an appeal is pending.
Some of those who are now demanding that government—local, state or federal—do something to halt the mosque project would be frothing-at-the-mouth furious if any one of those governments arbitrarily tried to halt construction of a Christian cathedral.
The U.S. Constitution doesn’t allow either action, of course. The First Amendment makes no distinction between Christianity and Islam, Buddhism or Judaism. It simply says Congress—and through the 14th Amendment, all arms of government—under the Establishment Clause, cannot single out one religion for special treatment or condemnation.
If people really want to stop construction of the mosque, they should use economic means. Start a fund to purchase the site from Rauf and his backers, even if the purchase price is considerably higher than its market value. That is the legal and truly American way to solve the mosque dispute.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, Aug. 17, on ruling that National Park Service cannot require demonstrators to get a permit:
News reports characterized a recent appellate court ruling as a First Amendment freedom of speech decision.
The National Park Service, ruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, cannot require activists to obtain a permit to demonstrate, distribute literature or otherwise just publicly speak their mind in a national park.
Yep, that’s a free speech issue. But to be fair, it doesn’t appear the National Park Service has ever denied a permit to anyone who wanted to rally or hand out pamphlets at a park.
So the ruling, in a small way, is also a blow against government bureaucracy. That’s less paperwork for citizens, less processing work for government employees, less filing and tracking—in short, less bureaucracy.
But religious missionaries and political activists who want to use national parks as a venue should keep in mind that people visit the parks to get away from the everyday, to commune with nature or to enjoy the beauty and grandeur of our diverse landscape. So, by all means, speak your mind. Just be discreet about it.
The ruling didn’t require the park service to eliminate designated free speech areas, and the ruling was directed at individuals and small groups, essentially letting the park service decide how to handle large groups. Still, the park service isn’t planning to change its permitting policy until it gets direction from the top. And the Interior Department hasn’t decided yet whether to appeal the ruling.
The department should avoid an appeal and spend its time and money elsewhere. We can all benefit from a little more free speech and a little less paperwork.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Gazette, Aug. 13, on how medical pot could save grass in state’s parks:
Medical marijuana may be the best hope for the grass in our parks.
Most in Colorado Springs are holding their breath and praying for continued rain, as recession-era budget cuts have resulted in a reduction in the city’s ability to irrigate. We can’t depend on rain, which can be scarce, but we can depend on revenue from medical marijuana sales.
So far this year, the city has collected $327,500 in sales tax revenue from medical marijuana sales alone. By the end of the year, the city will likely collect more than $600,000. It’s chicken feed, relative to the size of the budget. But it’s substantial, relative to the needs of grass in our parks.
Kurt Schroeder, the city’s manager of parks, trails and open space, told The Gazette this year’s anticipated sales tax revenue from marijuana almost equals the amount of money needed to put the nearly 24 inches of water recommended each year for the city’s 634 acres of neighborhood parks. Under today’s budget constrictions, Schroeder is able to apply only 15 inches of water to the neighborhood parks.
“That money could protect a capital resource that’s vulnerable to weather and budget conditions,” Schroeder said.
City officials say medical marijuana sales tax revenue and permits could bring $1.2 million to city coffers in 2011—far more than enough to save the grass.
The revenue from medical marijuana sales taxes could fund the ongoing costs of employing eight to 10 new firefighters or cops. It could fill potholes galore. It could pay to operate and maintain 18 Uncle Wilber fountains, while today we can’t afford the one we have. The imagination is the limit.
So, should we ban dispensaries in response to irrational fears, scare stories and ominous theories of “Reefer Madness” doom? Absolutely out of the question. The revenue generated by this relatively harmless trade could solve some of the most high-profile budget constraints.
Beyond the advantage to our city budget, the medical marijuana trade has put paying tenants into commercial space that was empty. That protects the value of commercial real estate and puts money into the pockets of property owners who spend it throughout the community. Dispensaries have transformed a black market trade, which burdened the public, into a legitimate industry that helps the common good.
The case for protecting the medical marijuana trade in Colorado Springs grows stronger as counties and other communities forbid the industry. That’s because people restricted from buying and selling medical marijuana in other locations will gladly travel to cities and counties that allow it. For Colorado Springs, this means the potential of growing sales tax revenues with money from out-of-town—which means we will see primary economic growth.
City Council should consider directing money from medical grass to the cost of watering and maintaining bluegrass in our parks. That would make perfectly clear the value of this new sector of production and trade.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, Aug. 15, on how the state’s recent primaries have motivated voters:
Colorado’s primaries were remarkable for the fervor they ignited among voters, and that’s a good thing.
It was heartening to see a record-high primary election turnout of more than 40 percent for Republicans and Democrats.
We hope those who have been so energized by the electoral process will use the next three months before the general election to press candidates for substantive answers on important issues facing Colorado and the nation.
It may be convenient to paint candidates as Tea Party favorites, or Obama sympathizers, but those labels don’t always define the policy distinctions that could—and should—make the real difference for voters.
In the governor’s race, these are some of the issues on which voters deserve more than platitudes:
— Budget: Colorado has struggled to balance its budget as revenues have fallen during the recession. Because of constitutional strictures and other constraints, lawmakers and the governor have limited alternatives when it comes to making ends meet. What would candidates do? Cut spending? Increase revenue? Where and how?
— Higher education: Support for the state’s higher education system is the one large budget area that is not protected in the state constitution, and it has taken significant hits during the recession. How would candidates address the higher education funding predicament?
— Immigration: States are clamoring for an Arizona-style immigration law that cracks down on illegal immigrants. The Colorado legislature passed strict restraints in 2006. Should more be done, including the state joining the federal Secure Communities program, in which locals cooperate with federal authorities to identify illegal immigrants booked into jail?
— Constitutional changes: Does Colorado need a broad constitutional fix, addressing at the minimum the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and Amendment 23, to alleviate the state’s cyclical fiscal dilemmas? In the race for U.S. Senate, the issues are more varied but also begin with the budget.
— Structural deficit: Entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security must be reformed so these programs don’t consume the federal budget. How to do so is the question. Stimulus spending: The economic recovery has stalled, but is additional stimulus warranted? If not, what should government do to spur economic growth?
— Immigration: The never-ending controversy cries out for a compromise. Afghanistan: What if the military “surge” doesn’t work? Should the U.S. abandon the country to the Taliban?
— New Energy Economy: Is it worth pursuing? At what cost?
The next three months present an opportunity for voters to press candidates for answers on these and other issues. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be surprised if what they get instead is politics as usual.
Editorial:
