Jump to content
I support what these folks have to say, up to a point:
I've waited-and-seen (or is it smelled) long enough. It seems to me that Town Board is expecting some fairy-tale of future revenue-through-job-creation to pay for a police department that isn't big enough to police what we already have, even without a third officer. Those following closely will know exactly what believable rumors I'm referring to, regarding how crime has already increased here due to pot growing.
(Which still pales in comparison to some of what I read in the paper about drifters passing through Steamboat, it's just that I'd rather not see Oak Creek catch up to that -- our gazebo doesn't have vagrants living in it. Don't get me wrong, I love every town in Routt County, I'm just sayin' that the quality of life in Oak Creek hasn't been miraculously improved by pot growing.)
Get it out of town and onto Ag land, where only one property owner needs to worry about that sort of thing per grow op, instead of everyone in town's tax dollars being diverted to marijuana enforcement we can't afford at the current permit rates. Or risk me coming back here all belligerent with my "told ya so's" every time that sort of thing happens, and it looks to me like it's being dealt with out of MY tax dollars.
Or raise the permit rates to the point where they actually DO benefit the town -- if such rates seem unfair, well, I see all sorts of small-holdings in the real estate ads where this sort of thing could happen without me really caring. Just keep it to hell out of my neighborhood, especially if I'm expected to subsidize it, eh? If we're going back to a 3-person police force, then I expect at least one of those positions (preferably a full-time) to be completely subsidized by the pot growers.
And if that's more bill than they want to foot, again I point to an abundance of land on the market that's zoned AG. They don't really need Oak Creek any more than we need them. If they really do, they should be charged accordingly. Or at least give me free herb to compensate for what I perceive as my subsidizing state/local regulatory/police enforcement their operations... ;-)
“We are going to plead our case and talk about the potential tax revenue Oak Creek can receive”
Not buying this for a second. When crops are harvested here, those hired for picking/trimming (part-time temps) are typically on disability and housing assistance, and are paid either cash, or pot, under the table. I'm not naming names, just sayin' I live here and I'm not blind. But if I were a local landlord, I'd insist on cash, not pot-in-kind. This is no basis for economic growth!
Aside from that (and the one parking space available for the proposed building), I'm embarrassed when I walk my dog a coupla blocks in a certain direction and the whole neighborhood smells like a skunk. Do I want my home to start smelling like that? NO!!! Nor do I care to hear the fan noise from such an operation instead of the calming burble of Oak Creek when my windows are open at night, in summer. I don't know who to blame for that, but until it's addressed, I'm opposed to any similar plan which threatens to make those problems worse.
My opinion remains, agricultural operations should occur on land that's zoned ag, not in every vacant property in Oak Creek that shouldn't be hosting agricultural operations to begin with. Maybe if, living here, I saw actual evidence of real economic benefit to the town, I'd be supportive. I'm not categorically opposed, just disappointed that real costs are ignored in favor of fantasies about job creation, etc. which simply haven't materialized to any significant degree as a result, as near as I can tell.
With apologies to certain neighbors who own/work at Mary's, this is not the path to economic salvation in these parts. With a likely downside of increasing the black market A64 was allegedly supposed to reduce, which also hasn't materialized. I'm sure this post will attract the ire of the non-realists, but if I wasn't ready to support my position I wouldn't be posting here for the first time in years.
Or, if the Pilot would just cease publishing bogus, Oak-Creek-needs-to-do-this type editorials which are ignorant of the realities of living in my neighborhood and written by those living 20 miles away, and mind its own business instead of sanctimoniously sensationalizing every little thing about my town in such a condescending manner, and start talking about what's different here now, from 20 years ago when that building was a computer store, THEN, maybe, I'd get down off my high horse.
What Oak Creek's economy needs is commercial-grade broadband Internet, not more dope growing. Let's talk about THAT instead of fantasies about how pot-related jobs have miraculously turned our economy around to the point where we welcome any plan like Dank Frank's.
Yeah, I thought I was done here, but I feel strongly enough about this to post to this forum for the first time in years. What I'd like are responses, from anyone but Wedel.
"Unfortunately, the government can not create jobs..."
Sure it can. Who do teachers, firefighters, cops, forest rangers, clerks of court, judges, list goes on, work for, if not the government? If Obama hadn't radically decreased government employment, we wouldn't be half as bad off as we are now, because all those workers spend money, which creates private-sector jobs. Take away public-sector jobs, and guess what? Private-sector jobs disappear, exactly what we've seen happen in America.
I don't read Media Matters, preferring to form my own opinions. Contracting the economy in the midst of a recession through austerity, is about the stupidest thing imaginable (and this opinion I form from having taken economics in College), and anyone who disagrees just needs to look at Great Britain for all the current evidence they need -- that's the fuzzy math.
"Right wingnuts" are those who think they're standing up for the constitution, yet have radically off-base notions about what the constitution is. For a Sheriff to stand up for the constitution, means that he'll enforce even those laws he disagrees with. When a Sheriff refuses to enforce a law because in his opinion it would be unconstitutional to do so, not only does he lack a legal leg to stand on, but is also failing to follow his oath to uphold the constitution.
Not the Sheriff's call whether something is constitutional or not, according to the separation of powers which is at the heart of the constitution.
"People that worship the state are so well conditioned..."
Resorting to categorical ad-hominems against everyone you disagree with is in no way persuasive, and discredits any legitimate point you try to make. Seriously, calling me a "state worshipper" exposes your ignorance in your rush to insult. My writings here are clearly anti-establishment. Which has no bearing on my ability to see when a Sheriff has gone off the reservation.
"You support the state's authority to pass gun control laws without amending the Constitution..."
Because there's nothing under consideration here that goes against the 2nd amendment, or requires amending the constitution, and that's what the polling shows, so I'm not in any minority just because you think you're in a majority.
Also, calling Godwin's Law and ignoring your further comments. Come back down to Earth and try rational arguments, instead of wing-nut ranting laced with insults against those you disagree with, and maybe I'll give you another chance.
Much of the nation on the dole happen to be gainfully employed, by the likes of Wal-Mart. I doubt that any but a small minority are happy to game the system; most Americans have a solid work ethic and would be employed if only there were jobs available. Look at the numbers of jobs lost in the recession, subtract the number gained since, factor in a larger working-age population, and just try telling me all those folks on the dole are just lazy.
Government stimulus in the form of infrastructure spending not only gives an economic return from the infrastructure greater than the capital invested, but the jobs created increase demand for goods and services, causing businesses to start hiring again instead of sitting on trillions of dollars of capital currently sidelined when it's needed most. Raise the minimum wage to get the gainfully employed off the public dole.
I say it's time to put America back to work, instead of cynically grousing about how citizens are voting for free stuff and not having to work. We all know from history, that provided full employment, America has the most productive workforce in the world. Blaming the victims as freeloaders when massive numbers of jobs are eliminated, has no basis in history and is downright un-American.
I'm not speaking for him, merely stating what he had said in public, what his brother has said about him in public, and Google's your friend as far as Chomsky.
Why should he have to do that, when nothing in the legislation requires him to take such action? What does this have to do with national politics? Why would a Sheriff want to lose more votes through politicizing his office, than explain to constituents that "he is required by statute to keep and preserve the peace, serve and execute all processes, writs, precepts and orders issued or made by lawful authorities"?
My point is, a Sheriff stands to lose more votes by misunderstanding his job description, than he stands to gain by pandering to those who literally request that he state that it would be unconstitutional for him to do his job.
Well, we expect Presidents to politicize their offices. And congresscritters, state representatives, city council... but not Sheriffs. They must put their biases aside and serve the entire community, or law enforcement breaks down when the 2/3 of the community who aren't in the Sheriff's political party lose respect for the office and the department.
So all these "Obama does it too" arguments are strawmen, and you're preaching to the choir since I think he ought to be impeached, anyway. So stop changing the subject -- this is about how a Sheriff politicizing his office has a detrimental effect on public safety, and is strictly a local issue.
Last login: Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.