Mountain property owners
At the Hwy. 6 junction I saw few cars take that exit, so I thought traffic might be better there, so I drove Hwy. 6 down Clear Creek Canyon, where I immediately encountered torrents of yellow mud from the rock quarry running across hundreds of feet of the road, which turned “Clear Creek” into yellow mud for a dozen miles downstream. At least the casino traffic was steady at about 38 mph to Golden.
It’s now official. Colorado is dead. The only thing special about Colorado is the mountains, and now they are totally besmirched by the proliferation of disgusting yuppie condo slums and ranchettes. So many people have built homes in the mountains that they are now spoiled. It is apparent that every bit of private land in the mountains is now doomed to be a housing development. I-70 eased access and enabled the ruination, and then became clogged itself. What to do? This horrible problem requires drastic action. Colorado needs to raise gas taxes to $4.00 per gallon, so that gas costs $6.00. Mountain homes require long polluting commutes, and have expensive year-round heating costs which aggravate CO2-induced global warming. Every mountain home should be property-taxed 20% of its resale value every year, which would result in the closure of many of those abominations, and would cause a drop in home values and equity of those evil homeowners who have despoiled our mountains. Mountain homeowner parasites now receive huge subsidies in federal forest fire protection. Every forest home must post a huge $bond$ to the U.S. Forest Service for forest-fire expenses. As a result of these government actions, the highways would become less clogged, and many homes would be removed. Forest fires would be left to burn and clear out the massive unnatural infestations of worthless Engelman Spruce and Lodgepole Pine that currently clog our higher mountains. Those infestations have been protected from fires by a hundred years of misguided expensive federal fire-fighting efforts, and grow so thick that nothing can grow in their understory. Our mountains would slowly return to the special wonders they were, or at least their conversion into urban slums would slow.
This letter has not been edited.
where do you start to answer a letter like this. what sophmoric drivel, like a 3 yr old throwing a temper tantrum.
Posted by thelastamerican on August 23, 2007 02:16 PMThe only thing I could even think of would be to tell this guy to just F off. Thank goodness none of his ramblings would even be remotely considered.
And here is a big piece of news for this fool. Those that can afford a second home in the mountains, probably could afford $6/gallon gas.
Posted by What I wish I could write on August 23, 2007 02:25 PMSo it was ok for you to drive to the mountains, but not for anyone else. And you don't heat your home in the city, nor cool it in the summer, right. Get over yourself, I am a 4th gen native, I have a home in the city and a family home in the mountains. It is my right to have both and I am responsible for the care of both properties, including fire mitigation.
Posted by mickey on August 23, 2007 02:26 PMMr. Scott,
I am terribly sorry that your drive was ruined. I hear Alaska is nice. I have only been in this state for 6 years. However, I rent and pay taxes, not receive subsidies. Sorry if my living here has contributed to your unhappiness. By the way have you thought about the fact that your driving I-70 contributed to the congestion?
Anyone else wonder where he's a transplant from?
Posted by csj on August 23, 2007 02:47 PMOh, he doesn't want HIS way hindered, just yours. He wants to be able to live where he wants, drive where he wants, but you? Not you. You should be under his thumb.
Typical lib drivel.
Posted by Dravur on August 23, 2007 02:54 PMShut up you Commie!
Posted by on August 23, 2007 02:55 PMHey, what the heck is he doing in my neighborhood?
What a presumptuous pile of socialistic nonsense. Somehow he thinks that all those cars must have been driven from homes in the mountains down to the Denver area. No, Mr. Scott, those were cars driven by people like you who live in the Denver area and who had driven into the mountains just as you did. You had the misfortune of leaving about the same time thousands of others did. So you vent your anger by blaming those who live in the mountains and proceed to say what we should do to mitigate your anger.
Thelastamerican was right on target in calling this letter a temper tantrum.
Mr. Scott, you also fail to realize that most mountain homes either have a wood burning stove or at least a fireplace with which to heat the home. We don’t have the “expensive year-round heating costs” as a result and they are not “year-round” because we don’t need to heat our house in the spring and summer.
“Mountain homeowner parasites now receive huge subsidies in federal forest fire protection.” That one is just a bald faced lie, Mr. Scott.
For encouragement to homeowners in mountainous areas to reduce the fire hazard, the forest serviced USED TO give a grant that was equal to half of what the homeowner spend on fire mitigation up to $3,000. In other words, they would grant up to $1,500 if the homeowner spend at least $3,000. At our house we spent close to $4,000 within a three month period for fire mitigation and got $1,500 back from the forest service. Nothing to sneeze at, to be sure. But it was not what I would call a huge subsidy.
That program is no longer in operation. So not only did Mr. Scott not know the facts of the “huge subsidies,” but he also didn’t know that that program no longer exists. He also failed to recognize that the forest service would have spent much more than that to fight a fire in our area if we had not taken measures to protect our property.
Mr. Scott, I fully appreciate your heartfelt love for our mountains. Just don’t be such a moron.
Posted by Mountain Cat on August 23, 2007 03:13 PMPeople who live in the mountains would not be heading towards Denver at 4:pm on a Sunday afternoon.
It's people like you who go up to the mountains every weekend to get in touch with their feminine side with mother nature.You are the cause of traffic congestion.
I guess only you should be allowed to go hiking in the mountains.Everyone else must pay?
You need to get over yourself.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 23, 2007 03:17 PMJames,
This is a free country. Since you don't like it here in Colorado, isn't it terrible that other people were allowed to move here after you did?, please take the suggestions here, especially the one about Alaska. From what I hear, the people there would be able to help you understand a new concept called sharing. Heck, they might even be able to convince you that you aren't the only person who matters. If not, think how much fun you'll have living where there you can control your climate with good old fashioned fire. Bye. Need any help packing?
I hope people like James Scott continue their treks into the mountains and enjoy the scenery. I hope no one minds if I indulge in a little entertainment while I watch them take the "detour" at the west end of Idaho Springs only to create a another taffic jam when they try to re-enter I-70 on the east end.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 23, 2007 03:32 PMWAAAHHH!!!!!! WAAAAHHHHH!!! WAAAHHHH!!!!
Posted by tj on August 23, 2007 04:41 PMGotta love these psudo-intelectuals who think they are sooooo enlightened they think they KNOW what is best for EVERYBODY!!!
Posted by tj on August 23, 2007 04:48 PMMr. Scott...
Don't let the swinging state boundary line sign hit you in the ass on your way out of Colorado to a location more suitable to your tranquility needs.
Posted by Trinity on August 23, 2007 04:52 PMAstounding. Its the same argument made by those who consider themselves long time residents of the mountain areas. Those who move in and stay for five to ten years. Now all of a sudden they know what is best for the mountain community and throw a fit when others want to move into the nieghborhood they did.
I call this the genese effect. After the genese houseing area. Its "the world revolves around me and i am not responsible for my actions."
I was born and raised in the mountain area. been here for over 42 years. I am by far not a long time resident as there are families that have been up here for generations going back over 150 years. They have seen the traffic and populance increase. They will tell you the same thing. All these wannabes that move or want to think they know best come up here and make things a mess. But we allow them thier right to enjoy the mountains.
If this jacko#% doesnt want to share. Utah and Wyoming have lots and lots of open land he can go and enjoy without having to run into traffic or others. It is closer then Alaska.
Posted by on August 23, 2007 10:00 PMhey jimmy boy if you want wide open access I hear that it is not very crowded in death valley. try that and I bet you will be able to drive as fast as you want and not miss anything.
is your IQ that of 3 point below plant life? sure sounds like it.
Dravur,
Is Everything bad in your little world the fault of Liberals?
My guess is that he spends the week sitting on his fat ass poking a keyboard and voted Republican. And he most likely was driving an SUV, maybe even a Hummer.
Welcome to Colorado, now please, both of you, GO HOME!
dmz,
Whether I drive a Pious or a hummer matters not one bit, but thank you for your diatribe. Socialism is a disease where others want me to pay for whatever pet project they receive bennies from, so I am against it.
And since I have the freedom to drive whatever I want and can afford, I choose based on that, not on your insane notion of what others should do based on your nannyism.
So, yes, Libs are the cancer on the US. They want the nanny state brought about so that they can feel safe from the big bad world. Cradle to grave care, forcing others how to think, what to drive and how they can raise their kids.
Just because libs are scared of individualism, they need not push their wussy ideas on anyone else.
Posted by Dravur on August 24, 2007 07:22 AMDravur - do nannies & libs from both parties offend you, or is it just the Dems that you are opposed to?
Posted by Mary on August 24, 2007 07:36 AMColorado needs to close it's borders now! Use the national guard if necessary. Deport all Californians and Texans! They are taking Colorado jobs and drawing on our resporces such as minimal traffic lanes and open space!
Posted by on August 24, 2007 07:52 AMJames Scott, Are you any relation to Gary Scott? Just wondering.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 24, 2007 09:18 AMMary-
What conservatives are promoting limiting personal freedoms like smoking, drinking,eating, gun ownership ...?
Posted by Get Real on August 24, 2007 09:33 AMWhat does being conservative or liberal have to do with someone complaining about congestion in the mountains?
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 24, 2007 09:54 AMDMZ What? You are the person spewing crap and it is a one way street for you on all of your posts. Now you want bi-partisan views? Once you get on the Level playing field to play, then we can talk, but not sure you are up for that.
Posted by on August 24, 2007 11:09 AMLibs are the cancer on the US. They want the nanny state brought about so that they can feel safe from the big bad world.
Posted by Dravur on August 24, 2007 07:22 AM
But conservatives want government to get bigger to fund a Department of Vagina's to investigate every miscarriage as a possible homicide. They want government to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies and keeping Terri Shaivo in a vegetative state for years to the tune of million of dollars. These New Age conservatives believe government should solve their pet problems every bit as much as any 60's Liberal.
As far as I-70 traffic and congestion, try something closer and off the beaten path like Golden Gate State Park. If we can get the Front Range trail built, folks can hike from Fort Collins to Pueblo with driving on I-70.
Posted by on August 24, 2007 11:11 AM Dravie,
Im heading to the hills, in my fuel stingy vehicle, and I'm the one with DON'T CALIFORNICATE COLORADO bumpersticker.
And not bitching about the traffic.
Alas ,it's too late to keep you out, but conservatives are their own worst enemy.
They shall destroy themselves from within.
I'ts already begun and it's obvious you're painfilly aware of that fact.
It shows in your desperation and panic.
Cons just have a bad habit of screwing things up, then blaming Liberals and whining how we need to fix it.
Take a hike, back to your home (father) land, Drav.
And note to 11:11...Dept of Vaginas Good one.
Not desperate and not panicking and I'm pretty sure my family has been here since before statehood, not that that matters. So, if all you can do is promote an ad hominem attack where all you do is look foolish, go for it.
The pendulum swings both ways in the political realm and dems may well pick up the white house in 08. But they will screw it up and be forced out down the road.
What we have to do is limit the effect of their socialism. So, while you are heading to the hills, I will be working at a gun show, exercising my rights to sell guns, buy guns and just generally making the local hippy wet his pants in fear. And while you are going that way, just keep going.... California is the first wormhole on the left.
Posted by Dravur on August 24, 2007 07:02 PMDMZ dont need you to fix a damn thing thank you. Stay the hell out of my life and I will stay out of yours. You bitch about somebody coming in and saying something bad about liberals and I have NEVER heard you say a kind thing about anybody but your own party. You whine and b&^tch about as much as Truth and Charles.
That pacifier that you have in your mouth..........well buddy it is actually a plug.........use it for the purpose you bought it. Maybe you can sit and write something kind once in awhile.
Stan
I see that you too noticed how this thread succumbed to random partisan name calling and left the original topic far behind. oh, well....
Is is possible to gain insight and exchange ideas through all this extraneous verbal slander? I'm not seeing it...perhaps I'm beginning to suffer diminished mental capacity in my old age.
Posted by Trinity on August 24, 2007 08:19 PMDear Mr. Scott,
Why do you hate America, freedom, and Jesus??
Posted by Bill O'Reilly on August 24, 2007 09:08 PMI'm with Trinity. This happens on every thread here.
As usual, it always deteriorates into lib vs. con, and who's ideology is right or wrong. Getting the two sides to do anything other than whine and moan about each other is like trying to climb a lamp pole slicked with ball-bearing grease. I will admit that I've succumbed to the urge myself. You've got bomb-throwers on each side that do nothing else but spew diatribe.
I hardly agree with the huge majority of what this poster blathered. I think we all have to live in this state and all should grow the hell up. You've got to admit that the mountains are starting to look like the butt-ugly cookie-cutter developments that are sprouting up all over the plains. Personally I'd hate to see the high country looking like that. I think that we need to be creative, somehow, someway, with how mountain areas are developed, because, at the rate that population is growing, it's just a matter of time before there's no more space for developers to build on.
Posted by Beavis on August 24, 2007 09:45 PMIt's not the houses that get me so much, though there aught to be a limit of some kind on the prolifieration of them. It's the idiot people with a dogs named foofoo or some other such nonsensical name who demand that bears and mountain lions must be removed or killed because they moved there and their dear little piece of fluff might get eaten by those evil monsters, even though it has been there habitat for thousands and tens of thousands of years and that they are infinitely more important then some yapping, spoiled, worthless, nonproductive fur ball.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 25, 2007 11:27 AMMy,my,
It seems that I've gone and offended a selfish, fascist-loving , peace-hating, gun-dealing, planet-trashing Tim McVeigh worshiper.
Or two.
My work is done.
Posted by dmz on August 25, 2007 05:28 PMdmz - huh?
Posted by on August 25, 2007 06:23 PMDMZ
If your work is focused on offending people, prepare yourself to be offended. That's only fair is it not?
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 26, 2007 01:26 AMI think we all have to live in this state and all should grow the hell up.
Posted by Beavis on August 24, 2007 09:45 PM
I basically agree with your post Beavis but the problem with developing a consensus is that the ideology of conservatives precludes solutions that include government involvement except for social issues like two hairy guys sleeping together.
I'm not so worried about slum subdivisions in the mountains as much as the destruction of our Front Range forests from the Mountain Pine Beetle. We could see our forest literally eaten alive all the way from the Continental Divide to Golden. There needs to be some effort at the local, state and national level to develop ways to contain the beetles and help restore the health and diversity of our forests. The obvious solution to me is tree thinning programs but that means government involvement and taxes and you will have conservatives frothing at the mouth to oppose any government program that isn't war related. It is pretty sad that the only threats to our way of life that conservatives have no problems funding are always war related. I pretty pessimistic that we will ever get our conservative brethren to understand the need to protect our common wealth. The reality is they will oppose any attempts to save what is truly unique about this state until it is too late. I believe the term is locking the barn door.
Posted by Wes on August 26, 2007 07:58 AMWes
DDT worked excellent on the pine beetle - until the flaming liberals started crying about dubious touchy feely crap and got it banned. It was banned because of what it theoretically could do, not what was proven to have caused harm. It's still used successfully in many parts of the world.
Twenty five years ago The libs were crying about the imminent ice age due to man's effect on the earth. The earth was in a warming cycle that they denied -- finally proved the warming cycle, so the libs switched to hysterical rants of global warming. Which, by the way, is making a substantial fortune for the gallant champions of the cause.
They stopped the forest industry from harvesting in areas due to the imminent demise of the spotted owl -- only to find them living not only in other forests, but in the electric signs in cities throughout the northwest.
They stopped the Twin Forks damn project based on the treble mouse about to become extinct only to find that the species is about as common as the house mice. They stopped that water project but support the illegal immigrants coming into an arid region already struggling to meet the water needs of its population and agricultural needs.
The current class of "conservatives" in power are a bunch of jerks selling us out to global economic interests. But the flaming liberals don't have any credibility beyond whining hysterics to offer a viable alternative. They cried wolf too damn many times.
The only problem with the barn door of your illustration is that the modern so called conservatives want to leave it open until they can squeeze the last bit of profit out of the average American during their barn sale; and the flaming liberals want to leave so many doggy doors and bird windows in it out of concern for questionable reasons of environmental and humanity that you could drive a semi through the door without having to open it or do any damage to the wood.
While the libs and cons blast each other as destroying American, we are falling into the bottom pit of the outhouse without any leadership on either side of the aisle to arrest the fall. They're both too damned concerned about blaming the fall on the other rather than being constructive in arresting the fall and climbing out of the pit.
But, you cry plaintively, we offer viable ideas for correction only to be stopped by the obstructionists on the other side! Listen carefully, you'll hear that cry come from both sides of the aisle.
United we stand, divided we fall is an appropriate phrase. The party leadership in both parties is beholden to the same economic powers. They mouth and feign differences but walk lockstep in the direction laid out for them by the puppet masters.
Meanwhile, they have the general populace split and parroting talking points and philosophies which are supposedly going to make a difference. Until we shelf the talking points and theoretical differences and clean house in politics by holding the office holders accountable for results, we're just going to get getting the same crap dumped on us in all fall into the pit.
Posted by darfor on August 26, 2007 09:29 AMDmz... to be offended, one would have to care what you think.....I am not offended.
Posted by Dravur on August 26, 2007 04:21 PMWes.... Conservatives, being generally pro business would have loved the chance at logging in the forests being devastated by the pine beetle. Even if that was just clearing breaks and divides to stop the progression, if that is possible. All those millions of board feet of lumber would have drawn lumbermen from all over to harvest it. You would have had your breaks and the possible saving of groups of the trees from the beetles.
I wonder who stopped them....... The rabid enviros? It wasn't conservatives. I think you need to take a long hard look at the policies of the enviros and see where that leads as well. You don't even need government funding if you allowed commercial logging. But, just as the Roan plateau and ANWAR is off limits due to lib policies, leading to higher energy prices, so too go the forests.
Posted by Dravur on August 27, 2007 09:35 AMWes is a whimpering liberal. He hits, insults and provides pontifications from above in a condescending tone, then high tails it out of Dodge as he can't defend his positions. He'll be back, briefly, pontificating from a high (with empty head) on another thread before once again disappearing without attempting to defend a position.
He must have loved Clinton...
CA
Posted by on August 27, 2007 10:27 AMNice Ad hominem 10:27. Maybe I need to rework my schedules to be available when you want me to be. Nah. I'd rather live a real life outside of this forum.
Dravur echoes the discredited conservative themes that business can solve everything. He/She has the perspective that forests are commodities and by allowing business to harvest this commodity they will save them. Thinning our forests requires the removal of non-commercial grade trees and slash. For-Profit organizations won't want to remove this material and will concentrate on removing what is profitable regardless of whether it benefits the overall health of the forest.
I also liked the standard conservative "it's the environmentalists" fault logic. If those darn environmental hadn't stopped us from stripping the woods bare we wouldn't be in this mess". Such a simplistic understanding of a complex issue.
I don't see any progress being made until we move from a commodity perspective to a sustainable perspective. Our environmental infrastructure is the foundation that supports our economic and social structures. If we degrade and destroy that foundation we will go the way of the Easter Island inhabitants. A good book on the true costs of environmental neglect is Collapse by Jared Diamond.
Posted by Wes on August 27, 2007 01:35 PMWes is still suckling at the teet of Terri Barton. See what happened there. Thinning and fire management are needed to keep a healthy forest. Look at the Pike Forest now(the areas not burned by Terry and her employer). It is in dire need of help from decades of mismanagement. This has led to beetle infestation and will lead to other fires that can not be managed.
There are groups that will go in and clean up the unprofitable debris of trees and brush that is killing our forests, along with defined thinning of profitable material. It is called a contract Wes and that is the way the Forest Service must manage their contracts with companies.
Please tell me Wes how the Forest Service is helping with the Water shed of the Platte? Please tell me how much the Denver Water is paying out to try and preserve the water shed for Denver Metro. How many roadblocks have the Forest Service put in the way of solving this very real issue?
Wes, Almost all of a tree or brush is usable by someone, whether for paper products, lumber or even power generation or landscaping material.
In Switzerland, each tree is harvested individually and carefully hauled out and it is profitable for a company or companies to do this. Perhaps that will be the case here. I cannot say as it is not my area of expertise.
But, currently, policies do not allow any form of cutting, so the possibilities of thinning and pulling out the debris is not known. There may even be a cottage industry waiting in the wings to be able to thin the forest. Wealth may be able to be produced. A company may be able to work under conditions to the betterment of themselves and the forest.... But, due to the .gov, we can never know.
The .gov currently manages the forests... badly? If so, how would throwing more money at the problem through the gov make it any better?
And suffice it to say, alot of the protectionism that has come about is directly because of enviros. Some are misguided, some not. But it still stands that alot of the policy on this subject is set by enviros. Otherwise, we would be drilling in ANWAR, and off of our coasts. It amazes me, Mexico allows its oil company to drill off of our coasts in the gulf, but we are not allowed by misguided enviros and NIMBYs who dont want to see an oil derrick from their pleasure boat off the Florida Shore.
Posted by Dravur on August 27, 2007 02:41 PMThanks for your comments Dravur. At least you are willing to discuss the issue. A lot of times I don't bother to reply to a post if it is some silly name calling like CA puts out but a reasoned conservative perspective with worth a read and reply.
We walk a fine line between overprotection and exploitation. There is a history in this country of corporations abusing the environment for the bottom line. Superfund cleanups are necessary because of irresponsible for-profit corporations. The is the fatal flaw of unregulated capitalism. Short term profits will trump long term investment with Joe Nachio being the poster child for the greed is good crowd. The assumption that government is bad and can't adequately provide public goods and services is in my mind naive at best.
I liked your point about Switzerland and commercially using the whole tree. I also agree that the Forest Service needs to be more receptive about private contracts on public land. Supposedly our Colorado delegation to Congress both Repubs and Dems are readying legislation for dealing with the Mountain Pine Beetle. I say supposedly because I've been calling since April and it still hasn't been introduced. I have requested that the Forest Service be allowed to issue cutting permits for private entities and allow federal employees like Hot Shot crews that aren't on the fire line to cross over and work on private property if it is warranted.
I have to disagree with you that our forests are being badly managed. I have friends in the Forest Service who are career foresters and they care about the land and its future. In a lot of cases they are hamstrung by a lack of funds because the money is being spent in Iraq. The simplest example I can think of is grading Rawlins Pass in Gilpin County. The road is in terrible shape because there is no money for the bulldozer. I'm afraid we are going to lose the health of our forests because there is no money for thinning to fight these beetles.
Posted by Wes on August 27, 2007 05:41 PMWes... I used ...badly? with the question mark as I have no real opinion on whether they are being run badly or not. I do know that in "general" the .gov does not handle things efficiently and throwing more money seems their only answer.
In all honesty, the forests seem well managed but I have no frame of reference to how they would be poorly managed. So, they may very well be managed well.
You do have a point that there are people who would take advantage of any program and try to destroy the very thing we want to save, but there are people who could do it and that's where the oversight needs to step in. What I want to see is a private company, motivated by greed to be able to make a profit and do what needs to be done, meanwhile keeping the forest safe and as pristine as possible.
I am not an anarchist and want total government freedom. There are things that the.gov does need to do and I am willing to trade off things for it, including part of my paycheck for infrastructure. I have my limits and in general, they lean towards more freedom for all rather than less.
Posted by Dravur on August 27, 2007 08:20 PMThanks Dravur.
I'm one of those optimists who believes we all love living in Colorado and hope that there is a will and a way to keep our forests health for the long term.
One of the solutions I'm hoping gets traction is the use of volunteer groups for fire mitigation tree thinning projects around their communities. Like volunteer fire departments these groups could obtain grants and funds to buy chippers and thin areas around subdivisions and critical habitat. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with me. Later gator.
Posted by Wes on August 28, 2007 09:54 AM