Site Map | Archives

Home › Opinions › Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor: Feb. 16

related linksMore Letters to the Editor
related linksMOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

related linksTRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.
STORY TOOLS

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

In defense of Brian Colón

Like Tribune Editor Phill Casaus — (Re: "Show the Dem chairman mercy for taking blame," Tribune, Feb. 9) — I have a lot of respect for Brian Colón for being so quick to accept full responsibility for the caucus mess.

However, I have my doubts about whether he was, indeed, fully responsible. It seems to me that while he did make a grave mistake in underestimating what voter turnout was likely to be, in respect to the other problems — the changes in polling locations for most voters, the shortened polling hours and the casting of a large number of provisional ballots — he was making the best of a bad situation, because of a seriously underfunded mandate to hold this caucus with far less money than would have been required for it to run smoothly.

It would have been expensive to send a letter to every registered Democrat informing him or her of the changes. Volunteer Democrats tried to fill in this gap by going door to door to let other voters in their wards know where to vote, but there certainly weren't enough volunteers to reach every voter this way.

As a volunteer for the Obama campaign, I was made anxious by the fact that fewer than one in 10 of the voters I spoke with in the days leading up to the caucus knew about the changes in polling hours and location.

Given these problems, I found it bizarre that the robo-call we got from Gov. Bill Richardson reminding us to vote failed to mention that for most voters, their caucus sites would be different than their usual voting sites.

Because of confused voters not knowing where to go, the party decided to count provisional ballots cast by registered voters who mistakenly went to the wrong site.

Colón deserves great credit for his commitment to count every vote. In the next caucus, we need to round up volunteers earlier, work on getting out absentee ballots ourselves instead of outsourcing the job to some California company that appears to have failed to have gotten absentee ballots out to many voters who requested them, and have robo-calls informing voters of their caucus sites and hours.

Rather than scapegoating Colón and then changing his position to be a paid, full-time position, as some have suggested, we need to put enough money into the caucus to enable it to run smoothly. Otherwise, many of these problems will happen again.

I think Colón has handled the aftermath of the caucus chaos extremely well, and I hope that he stays on as our chairman.

Jennifer Enoch

Albuquerque

• • •

Nuclear power will not save us

Since global warning and CO2 emissions have finally come into public awareness, the nuclear energy industry has been going full speed to direct public policy for government funding and legal protection to build new nuclear power plants.

The selling card is that nuclear power is a clean power and does not produce greenhouse gases. This is a misleading public relations campaign, putting lipstick on a pig we buried years ago.

First, nuclear plants take a minimum of 10 years just to build. Most climate experts say we have at most 10 years to make major changes before irreversible damage is assured. The extraction, processing, transporting, guarding and disposal of nuclear fuel and construction of the massive plants all produce greenhouse gasses.

Nuclear power has been shown by the Rocky Mountain Institute to be the most expensive way to reduce CO2 emissions — 10 times more costly than energy efficiency and alternative-energy technologies we have today.

After 50 years, we have yet to find a good way to dispose of nuclear waste.

The cost overruns of the past are still there, as is shown by the new-generation nuclear plant being built in Finland, which is running well over budget.

France's largest and latest-generation Superhelix plant produced essentially no appreciable electricity over its 14-year life and cost the government over $5 billion.

The Bush administration's global energy policy has been to negotiate with France's nuclear research arm, AREVA, to contract with the United States to build and design new reprocessing plants. Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel has been touted as the solution to deceasing uranium supplies, which have increased in price more that tenfold over the last seven years.

The problem is that reprocessing in France has proved to be so expensive and polluting that, of the two processing plants in Normandy — the UP1 domestic reprocessing and UP2 international reprocessing plants — only UP1 is still reprocessing, solely due to government mandates, despite it being a financial disaster. The international owners of UP2 — Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Holland and Japan — have let their contracts run out because of the more costly process of reprocessing.

Of France's 58 nuclear plants, only a few can use the reprocessing fuel, so France has developed one of the largest nuclear waste storage problems worldwide. From France's two main nuclear storage sites — in the La Hague area and Champagne — there have been major leaks into the ground water and no apparent way to clean it up. . . .

In a free market, without huge government subsidies and legal protection from lawsuits, the nuclear power industry would not exist in the United States or France. . . .

At a tenth of the cost, we could be tackling global warming through energy efficiency, using off-the-shelf technologies and decentralized alternative-energy sources. Ultimately, this is where we will have to go when uranium supplies dry up, as oil is currently doing. . . .

Nuclear plants do not lend themselves to power fluctuations, as they are only able run at constant output. We do not want to trade an addiction to oil for another to nuclear, which has major economic and pollution issues.

Gordon Eatman

Sandia Park

• • •

Where to build a sports arena

(Re: "Arena plan on guv's mind," Tribune, Feb. 12.)

Albuquerque really needs an arena in an easily accessible location to host high school basketball and volleyball, do concerts and hold other special events.

But it would be foolish and wasteful of our limited tax dollars to put it in Downtown, as Mayor Martin Chavez and Gov. Bill Richardson's Sports Authority chief, Brian O'Neill, desire. We also don't need to have it accommodate 10,000-15,000 people, as these Downtown-first people want, to handle a major professional franchise.

We won't be misled into thinking that a pro team will ever locate — much less be financially viable — here. . . . The attendance dollars are just not there. This is a University of New Mexico basketball town, and to ignore this would be fiscally irresponsible.

The Scorpions hockey team in Rio Rancho is having a very hard time putting people into the new arena there, and the NBA-backed Thunderbirds basketball team scarcely has a nominal crowd attending its games at Tingley Coliseum — a decrepit facility built for rodeos.

The planned relocation of the State Fairgrounds' race track to Moriarty or elsewhere would offer a great opportunity to use the fairgrounds' race-track land for the new arena — but for something built in the 7,000-to-10,000-capacity range. It would also provide a great anchor for the future revitalization of District 6. I had also previously proposed looking at the financially troubled Winrock Mall in the Uptown area as an alternate location.

I urge the mayor and governor to break away from this Downtown-first mind-set . . . and do something sensible. . . .

Silvio Dell'Angela

Albuquerque

• • •

Why real grass beats artificial turf

This is a response to your article, "Artificial turf, real money," Tribune, Nov. 29. There is much more that needs to be said. . . .

It seems as if our elected officials and their appointees spend our tax dollars without any conscience or concern. Most of these people have never been responsible for a payroll or anguished over paying bills associated with running a business.

Case in point: Highland High School has a brand-new, synthetic-surface, $900,000 football field. Mind you, this field has to be paid for soon after it is installed.

A business owner would say: Now, if I invested that $900,000 at 9 percent to 10 percent per annum, I would have $80,000 to $90,000 dollars every year to grow real grass, which would be many times safer for the athletes. . . .

It would be 60 degrees to 70 degrees cooler on hot summer days — not the 130-160 degree temperatures of synthetic surfaces. . . .

It would never have to be flooded with water and vacuumed to remove dirt and other blown-in debris, which is much more labor intensive than mowing. Grassed fields are the least expensive to maintain, other than plain dirt.

The Tribune article stated the new field would save 2 million gallons of water per year. That's only $8,000 per year at the most expensive water rate. . . . A grassed football field can be watered, fertilized and maintained for less than $30,000 per year. That's 30 years of maintenance for $900,000 — and the synthetic field needs replacing every 10-12 years. Who's the smart one now?

Guess what? I still have my $900,000, and I've pocketed $50,000 to $60,000 from interest income. It's a no-brainer, but the people spending your tax dollars just can't see it from a point of view of common sense. . . .

The taxpayer is scared into thinking we are running out of water and therefore must spend millions to preserve what water we do have, but it's just a ploy to spend, spend and spend. Simple question: If we are running out of water, why are we building hundreds of new homes every year? . . .

Don Crismore, Stone Gate TurfGrass Ranch

Moriarty

• • •

Bush deserves his comeuppance

(Re: "Lefty lies," column by Jeffry Gardner, Tribune, Feb. 9.)

Your columnist Jeffry Gardner is entitled to his opinions, but he should get his facts straight.

He suggests that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Does he mean that the killing and maiming of tens of thousands of Americans and Iraquis is justified by questionable rumors?

The first George W. Bush election was marred by a host of questionable actions by Florida officials: poorly designed ballots resulting in miscounts, denial of voting rights to some registered voters, and closing of streets leading to polls in poor neighborhoods. The Supreme Court rushed to judgment instead of allowing time for reviews and recounts. According to a report in Vanity Fair magazine, all the law clerks were shocked.

The same questionable practices existed in Ohio during the second Bush election, with another one added: impossible voting hours for many working citizens. Elections should be held on weekends, and every effort should be made to maximize citizen participation.

The Bush administration deserves its low approval.

John M. Pickering

Albuquerque

• • •

Warm support for a protester

I appreciate Carrie Seidman's front-page story on Chuck Hosking ("A simple act of protest," Tribune, Feb. 9).

Hosking's dedication to his principles is certainly extraordinary, and I respect his choice to speak out against "a crime against humanity."

It is truly unusual for a newspaper to highlight an event of this nature. Thank you.

The people working at Kirtland Air Force Base have witnessed his protest of their production of weapons for 25 years. There are many others who respect his statement and, in comfort, support his continued dedication.

I hope Hosking knows and that it helps a bit to warm his many trips and his stand outside the gates of Kirtland.

Thora Guinn

Albuquerque

• • •

How City Hall did it right

The Albuquerque Area Professional Organizers would like to thank the city of Albuquerque for its support and cooperation in the Recycle-a-thon event held Jan. 26 in the K-Mart parking lot on Carlisle.

The painstaking care and attention to detail displayed by the Department of Solid Waste team, especially those on-site Saturday, were outstanding.

When we discovered that the parking lot was being paved less than one week before the event, Clean City Manager Scott Ruiz sent a supervisor to get a verbal agreement with the paving company that they would preserve a strip in the southwest corner for us. The city's recycling bins were removed for the paving and not re-sited by the Solid Waste Department until 6 a.m. Saturday. Chief of Security Mark Sheppard provided a security detail to ensure a smooth operation. And last but not least, Mayor Martin Chavez's chief of staff, Barry Bitzer, shored up our efforts with invaluable who-to-call-for-what advice and assistance.

Karen M. Payne and other members of Albuquerque Area Professional Organizers