F aced with yawning budget deficits, state legislators are looking for new revenue sources. Many think hiking cigarette excise taxes is the pain-free answer, but they’re wrong.

This year, Utah and New Mexico have already raised cigarette taxes by $1 per pack and 75 cents per pack, respectively. In 2009, 14 states plus the District of Columbia implemented cigarette-tax hikes. At least 20 states are looking to do likewise in 2010, including Georgia, Kansas, New York, and South Carolina.

Lawmakers claim such tax hikes generate substantial revenue while discouraging smoking. Yet the history of cigarette taxes shows otherwise. Any revenue increases following cigarette-tax hikes have typically fallen well short of projections.

Following the District of Columbia’s 50-cents-per-pack hike in October, cigarette-tax revenues are projected to fall by nearly $8 million in 2010. And during the two years since New Jersey increased its tax by 17 cents a pack, the state suffered a $24 million loss in cigarette-tax revenue. These examples are not anomalous.

According to a Chicago research group, just 16 of the 57 state-level tobacco tax hikes implemented between 2003 and 2007 actually met or exceeded the revenue projections. Perversely, cigarette taxes also make state governments dependent on tobacco use. If lawmakers are counting on steadily increasing cigarette-tax revenue to close budget gaps, then they’ll need to recruit more smokers or hope for higher daily smoking rates.

Why don’t cigarette taxes deliver as promised? Some people respond to higher prices by never starting to smoke or by quitting. That’s a healthy decision, but one that individuals can make on their own. Many of those who don’t kick the habit simply go elsewhere to buy cigarettes.

In New York, for example, many smokers shop at local Indian reservations, where cigarettes are sold tax free. District of Columbia residents flout their tax increase by traveling to low-cost neighbors Maryland and Virginia. There is also the “underground economy” for illegal purchases of cigarettes, and with each new tax hike that market grows.

When politicians single-out this politically unpopular industry for further tax hikes, they are trying to balance state budgets on the backs of the poor. Nearly one-third of the nation’s smokers have incomes below the federal poverty line. When cigarette taxes rise, low-income folks bear more of the burden than wealthier people.

Proponents of regressive cigarette taxes dismiss concerns about their impact on the poor by citing the costs to the state of treating smoking-related illnesses. But whether cigarette smokers cost the state more money is debatable — some studies suggest that smokers actually cost health care systems less than nonsmokers because they tend to die quicker and younger.

By this logic, cigarette taxes should only recoup the net costs smokers impose on society. But a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that smokers “pay enough taxes to cover the net costs they impose on others” as far back as 1986. Piling on more taxes simply makes the tax system more unfair. The average state cigarette tax is already $1.38 per pack. And that’s on top of the dollar tax the feds levy.

As the record shows, cigarette tax hikes fail to deliver revenue according to promise, and they punish those who can least afford to pay higher taxes. Politicians’ addiction to cigarette taxes also causes state legislators to avoid better ways of cutting budget deficits and restoring their economies to health such as reducing government spending, lowering taxes, and implementing policies that promote job creation.

Lawrence J. McQuillan, Ph.D., is director of Business and Economic Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. Contact him atLMcQuillan@pacificresearch.org.

Approximately 10,600 properties in more than 100 subdivisions in unincorporated Boulder County are served by more than 150 miles of paved roads. My house in the South Meadow subdivision, near 75th and Jay, is one of these properties. By the county’s own reckoning, many of these roads today are in need of significant repair, as they have been neglected for the past 15 years or more.

Boulder County owns these roads. The county “accepted for maintenance” the paved streets in South Meadow on June 13, 1985. For the past 25 years my neighbors and I have paid property taxes to the county, expecting in good faith that the county would in fact maintain these streets and keep them in good repair.

The County Commission would now like the affected property owners to pay for most, if not all, of the additional costs to make the repairs to these same streets that they allowed to deteriorate for these many years.

The county claims today that there is a distinction between “maintenance” and “rehabilitation.” Repairs such as asphalt overlays now fall into the category of “rehabilitation,” and the county has abdicated its rightful responsibility to pay the costs for “rehabilitation” of the paved streets that the county owns in unincorporated subdivisions.

When the county accepted the streets in my subdivision, there was no such distinction between “maintenance” and “rehabilitation.” The county’s operational definition of “maintenance” in 1985 included asphalt overlays, for example. From the best information that I have been able to gather, the county first made this distinction between “maintenance” and “rehabilitation” in the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan in 1995. It appears that they introduced this distinction in order to push the costs of “rehabilitation” onto “the users benefiting from these improvements” — the property owners such as myself.

The county today freely admits that it did not communicate this change in policy effectively to the affected property owners. This admission is no consolation indeed to those of us who are now surprised to discover that an obscure policy detail that was adopted in 1995 without our knowledge or consent has been a cumulative burden that the county is now expecting us to pay. Some might argue that this policy amounts to a de facto tax increase to all affected property owners without a referendum.

If the County Commission in 1995 chose a calculated course of action to abdicate their responsibility to pay for the “rehabilitation” of these streets, it is unconscionable that they made no more specific plans to collect the additional necessary taxes to insure the proper repair of these streets during the intervening 15 years. What exactly was the county’s plan — to let the streets fall into utter disrepair and then surprise the property owners 15 years later? Even if the county had a valid argument that the costs should be borne by the property owners in the unincorporated subdivisions, the streets still belonged to the county, and it was the county’s responsibility to insure their proper maintenance (and rehabilitation).

Boulder County has failed to do right by the owners of the 10,600 properties in the more than 100 subdivisions in unincorporated Boulder County. The county should bear the entire costs of bringing the more than 150 miles of paved roads in these subdivisions back into a state of good repair. If it is necessary to raise the county property taxes to pay for these repairs, then the county should hold a referendum to raise the taxes of all county residents, not just those in the unincorporated subdivisions. At the very least, the county should grandfather the commitments made to accept streets for maintenance prior to the adoption of the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan in 1995.

It simply is not fair to change the rules and insist on back-payments for 15 years of neglect and mismanagement.

We, the citizens of Boulder County, deserve better than this.

Greg Klinkel lives in unincorporated Boulder County.

Would the Boulder County Commissioners please be more responsible with how they are spending the taxpayers’ money, rather than to continuing to waste it on indulging their apparent religious bigotry? (See p. 3).

Millions of dollars have already been spent in the county’s battle with Rocky Mountain Christian Church. The original trial and two subsequent appeals have confirmed that the county unfairly treated an expansion request from a church in comparison to a nearly identical request from a secular institution.

Now the commissioners are considering taking this same case to the U.S. Supreme Court? Enough already! Please be better stewards of our money!

Christi Derr, Boulder

Choose Romanoff for improved education

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff is the choice for people who value education. From his undergraduate years until today, Romanoff has been committed to delivering the best education from pre-school through higher education.

With a Yale education, Romanoff could have directed his many talents to make large sums of money. Instead, he went to Central America to teach English in rural Nicaraguan high schools. He then worked for the Southern Poverty Law Center, getting and giving an education about fighting hate and bigotry and seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society.

As a policymaker, Romanoff worked tirelessly to expand educational opportunities for Colorado’s children. He led the fight for high-quality early childhood education and he sponsored the Building Excellent Schools Today Act, which helped many rural crumbling schools suffering from health and safety risks.

Likewise, Romanoff has been a champion of higher education, ensuring the doors of Colorado’s community colleges and universities remain open to students from low- and middle –income backgrounds.

Romanoff is the only candidate in the U.S. Senate race who has actually taught — teaching 15 years at community colleges and the University of Colorado in addition to teaching English several years ago.

He will continue his fight to strengthen our schools by ensuring a wide array of choices — with strong measures of accountability — within the public-school system. He will work to expand access to higher education by increasing the availability of work-study funding and other forms of financial aid.

As a public school teacher of 28 years experience and parent of two kids attending Colorado colleges, I am delighted to cast my vote for Andrew Romanoff, the education candidate.

Shari Malloy, Longmont

Who is Andrew Romanoff, really?

I know that U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff is favored by the left in the Democratic Party. I just have a few troublesome concerns regarding his credentials for that position.

Although it is ancient history now, I never saw him at any of the anti-war rallies at the state capitol during the early days of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He was inside the building but not outside on the streets. This seemed to be his pattern when in political office. He played it safe. Now he wants us to believe he will go to Washington and overthrow the establishment.

The Mike Miles’ campaign in 2004 was for many of us a defining moment. Romanoff was no where in sight during that struggle. I remember what a blow it was to the campaign when the Democratic Leadership Council, through its Colorado arm, threw the big money to Ken Salazar and effectively ended Miles’ race.

Romanoff didn’t have a problem with big money then. He was co-chair of this Rahm Emanuel group. His recent conversion to the anti-PAC money camp appears to be making a virtue of out of an inconvenient fact: He knew he was not going to get PAC money. I see a double irony here when people compare his campaign to Mike Miles’ campaign.

Then there is the immigrant issue. I heard Andrew Romanoff claim at a Democratic Leadership Council conference in Denver that he was proud to have led the battle to adopt the strongest anti-immigrant legislation in the United States. While the legislative honors have passed to Arizona, the Colorado legislation caused serious problems in our local communities and was so poorly drafted that leaders of nonprofits feared they would be held accountable if unknowingly they provided services to undocumented immigrants.

Ask yourself, “Who is the real Andrew Romanoff?” before you vote.

Beverly Springer, Longmont

'BLOOMIN' LOVELY' A lilac-hued clematis stands against a white fence in a Longmont back yard. Darlene Davis, Courtesy photo

Jones will bring experience to statehouse

Primary ballots were mailed to registered Democrats last week. Many Longmont voters have an important choice to make for who will represent you in the Colorado State House of Representatives in District 12.

While we have two outstanding candidates, I am supporting Matt Jones. Here’s why: Matt previously served in the Colorado Legislature and has the experience to work hard for us as soon as he steps through the capitol door. He also has proven leadership skills, which will make him an effective legislator for Boulder County and give us a strong voice in critical state issues, such as education funding.

On a personal note, I like the fact that Matt has beaten cancer twice and has the grit and stamina to fight for the important things in life. He also knows what it is like to have a serious diagnosis and not have health insurance. This real, life-threatening experience will make him the perfect person to implement the new national health care initiative for the State of Colorado and provide Coloradans with the necessary access to doctors and hospitals.

Matt also has extensive experience in clean-energy initiatives and how they can create new jobs; he is dedicated to keeping our schools funded and performance measures high; and ensuring that the higher education remains affordable for our young adults.

Please cast your vote for Matt Jones.

Karen Benker, Longmont

Emery the experienced choice for surveyor

I want to voice my support for Jason Emery, our current Boulder County Surveyor, who is running for re-election to his final four-year term.

Jason has served this community with distinction for the past eight years. Many people don’t realize just how much the surveyor does to serve the public because the work he does isn’t always out in the public eye. As surveyor, he has been very diligent about making sure that the public’s interests regarding property boundary locations aren’t overlooked, especially while the county plans projects that could easily disturb property monumentation that has been established over the past 100-plus years. Without someone watching out for this aspect of various projects, monumentation defining property boundaries could easily be overlooked and destroyed thereby throwing many property boundaries into confusion.

Jason has also been terrific about serving the community of professional surveyors in Boulder County, keeping us informed about changes and upgrades in regulations and documentation availability so that we can do our jobs more efficiently and more thoroughly. Over the past eight years he has spent untold time and effort developing relationships in the professional surveyor community and the Boulder County government. Jason is a man of character and distinction.
In my humble opinion, it would be a serious mistake not to take advantage of his experience and expertise for another 4 years before the law requires us to elect/hire an inexperienced new surveyor who will need time to create what Jason already has at his disposal.

Earl F. Henderson, PLS Zenith Land Surveying, Inc.

Who matters more, King James or soldiers?

For weeks (far too long) Americans (sports fans and non fans alike) hung on every breath of NBA star LeBron James and his decision regarding where he would play basketball for the upcoming season.

James garnered enough print ink to refloat the Titanic and was featured on a one hour special on ESPN (one of the highest television-rating coups in the network’s history) to announce his world-changing decision. He was treated as royalty to 13,000 adoring followers when entering the sacred ground of his new home, Miami, to play for the Heat.

Meanwhile during the first few days of July in Afghanistan, 33 of America’s best and finest paid the ultimate price in the fight against the Taliban yet gathered barely one column inch of print recognition in most newspapers.

Of these two stories one is deserving the attention of the masses. Unfortunately that story shouldn’t be about an overpaid and pampered professional basketball player.

RC Lloyd, Longmont

Agriculture still thrives in Boulder County

The view of the Rockies from Famuer Rasmussen’s sugar-beet field is nothing short of spectacular. If it weren’t for the Boulder County Parks and Open Space department’s agriculture tours, I would never have known what a richly diverse agricultural community continues to thrive on Boulder County’s open space.

Along with 50 other eager learners, I had the pleasure of attending the county’s first tour on June 14, and hope to make the upcoming three, which will be Tuesday, Aug. 10, and one in September. The tours are free, including luxury bus transit to and from the farms, snacks, water, and commentary by county staff and the farmers themselves.

On the June tour, we were treated to fascinating presentations by Mark Guttridge, at his Ollin Farm on 95th Street in Longmont, Famuer Rasmussen, Jr., at his beet/corn/barley operation east of Longmont and Dan Lisco, at his horse operation near Niwot. The upcoming tours will feature more organic farms, livestock and row-crop facilities.

It’s all free of charge, and registration is available online at www.bouldercounty.org. Or you can call Vivienne Jannatpour, the county open space department’s communications specialist, at 303-678-6277.

I wholeheartedly recommend this wonderful opportunity to all your readers.

Paul Sheldon, Hygiene

We can’t be bribed with our own money, right?

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the publics money.” — Alexis de Tocqueville.

Not to worry, though. We free and brave Americans have far too much character and intelligence to be bribed with our own money.

Don’t we?

Richard Bland, Longmont

The Longmont Ledger welcomes readers’ letters and guest opinions. All letters and opinions may be subject to editing. Letters should be 300 words or less guest opinions no more than 700 words. Name, full address and day phone are required. Letters and opinions must be submitted electronically. E-mail to editor@longmontledger.com

In the recent Ledger online about contaminated raw milk from the Billy Goat Dairy in Longmont, there are several negative comments about raw milk that require a response.

The first is from the Colorado Health Department spokeswoman stating that the department “cannot guarantee” the safety of raw milk. This is obviously true; however, neither can it guarantee the safety of any food, including most of the highly processed, chemically preserved or enhanced items for sale in a neighborhood supermarket.

Raw milk consumers are passionate about the health benefits of drinking raw milk and are convinced that its benefits far outweigh the small risks. The risks are indeed small: of 60 raw milk dairies operating in Colorado since 2005, only one has been shut down for health violations.

The second statement is from a “food safety advocate” who remarked that “pasteurization works” and that raw milk “makes kids sick.” It is very distressing that two children were hospitalized as a result of drinking the contaminated goat’s milk. But it doesn’t follow that all processed food is safe and that all farm-fresh food is unsafe.

There are thousands of raw-milk-drinking families who have experienced the profound health benefits of consuming raw milk from local, pasture-fed, traditional dairy cow breeds. Raw milk is a perfectly balanced, easily digested food, full of probiotics, enzymes, vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids.

Sarah Volkman, Boulder

Liberal arts programs promote real wisdom

I am disappointed at the recent trend of devaluing “small” programs, usually liberal arts, at universities. Such programs require student to be thinkers.

Sure, it’s nice to be potentially more employable by having a unique degree, but the real benefit of these programs is becoming an organized thinker. The ability to analyze, synthesize, follow an argument, form an opinion, filter important vs. minor facts, see the whole in the parts, evaluate perspective, contextualize information, and express oneself intellectually in a variety of mediums can be applied to any career or endeavor.

That kind of wisdom is always in demand.

Emily Limbach, Longmont

Bennet supporters: Join Backbone Express

Talk about whiners! Seems to me the primary campaign of U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet has the whiner market cornered but they like to act as if the whining is done by the (Andrew) Romanoff campaign.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. It’s the Bennet supporters who are whining because their man isn’t getting another free ride. They ought to be thanking Romanoff because until he got into the race, it wasn’t possible to get Bennet to take any firm positions.

From the beginning, former Colorado Speaker of the House Romanoff has taken the high road, just as he has done throughout his decade-long career of public service to the people of Colorado. Bennet tries to make it up there sometimes, but he’s too weighed down by pockets full of the campaign cash he’s getting from bailed-out banks, discredited insurance companies, big oil and high-powered lobbying firms in Washington, D. C.

Consider this: Despite the millions of barrels of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, The U. S. Senate, with Bennet’s help, voted on June 15 to preserve a set of tax breaks for the oil and gas industry.

Loopholes enable companies like ExxonMobil to avoid paying income taxes altogether. Last year, when ExxonMobil recorded the highest profits of any corporation in history, the company actually received a tax refund!

In his 2011 budget request, President Obama proposed repealing more than $35 billion of fossil-fuel subsidies in order to decrease the deficit and advance a clean-energy economy. Senate Amendment 4318, offered during debate over the “American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010,” would have done exactly that. But a majority of senators — including Bennet — voted no.Hardly a surprise, given his list of contributors, but still very disappointing.

If there are Bennet supporters who are really tired of whining, join the Romanoff campaign and jump aboard the Backbone Express.

Bob Miller, Longmont

The Longmont Ledger welcomes readers’ letters and guest opinions. All letters and opinions may be subject to editing. Letters should be 300 words or less guest opinions no more than 700 words. Name, full address and day phone are required. Letters and opinions must be submitted electronically. E-mail to editor@longmontledger.com

There are more than 150 miles of paved roads in more than 100 subdivisions in unincorporated Boulder County, serving approximately 10,600 properties. Many of these roads are in poor condition because they are more than 15 years old and have never been resurfaced or repaved. The longer these roads continue to deteriorate, the more costly the repairs become to fix them.

This is a major problem for residents of these subdivisions, and the Board of County Commissioners has asked the Transportation Department to work with subdivision residents and property owners to identify ways to fund the necessary improvements and to develop different approaches for the reconstruction of these deteriorating roads in a timely, cost-effective, affordable, efficient and fair manner.

We formed a work group of interested residents nine months ago to begin addressing these issues. We’ve also met with neighborhood associations and sought public feedback through a variety of means, including an extensive survey where every subdivision household was mailed an invitation to participate.

Here is what we concluded from the feedback:

First, most people want something done, soon. Second, many property owners are willing to contribute to the solution, but feel the costs of repairing the roads should be kept as low as possible in these difficult economic times. Third, almost everyone is frustrated with the lack of communication about the county subdivision road reconstruction policy which requires the repair of subdivision roads to be paid for by subdivision property owners. In these cases, many believe they have already paid taxes for this purpose, and therefore feel the county bears some responsibility for the poor condition of the roads.

Many subdivision property owners were surprised to learn that they currently pay about $89 per year, primarily from gas and auto registration taxes, for maintenance and reconstruction of all county roads and receive $79 per year in maintenance services(plowing, patching potholes, etc) for their subdivision roads alone. This means that the average subdivision household contributes about $10 per year for the operations, maintenance and reconstruction of non-subdivision roads in the county, while the average taxpayer who lives in a town or city pays $89 per year for the maintenance of the same county roads (since they receive no county funds for maintenance of their local municipal roads and the county does not contribute to their repair).

Based on the feedback we’ve collected, county staff has developed two potential options for the creation of a local improvement district to reconstruct these roads. Both options will improve all paved subdivision roads. The first option spreads the work over five years and the second option spreads the improvements, and costs, over 15 years. Depending on the option, the total cost per household ranges from approximately $400 per year for five years to approximately $125 per year for 15 years.

While the majority of the cost of rehabilitating local subdivision roads would be borne by subdivision property owners, the county would participate by reducing the total cost of the program by loaning money to the improvement district at a low interest rate, taking on responsibility for rehabilitation of collector roads in subdivisions that provide access to schools, churches, or provide key through connections that are used by more than subdivision residents, and would use county personnel and equipment for those improvements that can be done more cost effectively by our crews.

We will refine these options based on comments we receive over the next month (please e-mail your thoughts and questions, or if you would like to schedule a presentation at a neighborhood meeting, to subdivisionpaving@bouldercounty.org, go to our Web site, or call 303-441-3900).

Before making any decision on the creation of a local improvement district, however, the county commissioners need to see a strong indication of support by potentially affected property owners.

Without that support, the Transportation Department will continue to maintain subdivision roads to the best of our ability, but the roads themselves will continue to deteriorate and costs will increase significantly.

Eventually, each subdivision will be responsible for repairing their own roads, either through an individual local improvement district or some other payment structure, leading to greater costs for more substantial repairs and poorer economies of scale.

In late July or early August each owner of a potentially affected property will receive a mail ballot advising the commissioners on whether they support proceeding with creation of a local improvement district to address rehabilitation of these roads. We strongly urge subdivision residents to carefully consider their options and respond to the advisory ballot.

To find out more about this issue, please visit the Boulder County Transportation Web site at: www.bouldercounty.org/transportation/SubdivisionPaving.htm

George Gerstle is Director, Boulder County Transportation Department.

First, the failure of the Soviet Union proved that central planners cannot pick economic winners and losers. The “vibrant” economies of Cuba and Venezuela continue to provide ample evidence on a daily basis. American history shows that free markets result much better resource allocation decisions.

Second, the government cannot create wealth, it can only redistribute it. With all the excitement about money arriving from Washington, we need to remember that we will all pay more in taxes. A few million here and a few million there; pretty soon trillions seem to have disappeared.

Third, the funding came with pomp and fanfare regarding the creation of jobs. What promise do we have that these jobs will not end up in China? What is so special about the manufacturing of this commodity as compared to numerous other commodities? Nobody has explained why “green jobs” are better. If these jobs are so good, why doesn’t the private sector create them?
Finally, how did President Obama select this particular company? This industry? Was there an extensive review by the business experts serving the executive branch? Were thousands of worthy applications carefully considered? No, U.S. Rep. Betsy Markey and U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet are down in the polls and this is an election-year boost from the publicly financed Democratic Party campaign fund.

The words of former President Gerald Ford are appropriate: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Thomas Kegel,  Longmont

SUBMIT YOUR PHOTOS To have your photos considered for publication, please email them to: editor@longmontledger.com. Photos should be at least 1MB in size, horizontal preferred. Please include your name, phone number and email, your city of residence and information about each photo. 'MOUNTAIN HIGH' : Water tumbles past flowers against a granite background above Lake Isabelle in the Indian Peaks Wilderness. Cathy Young, Courtesy photo

Afghans doing pretty well on our tax dollars

Being well aware that letters to the editor generally cover subjects of local concern, the following shows sufficient evidence to suggest the following subject is of local concern. U.S. tax dollars are at work. Unfortunately, just not here at home.

In the United States education suffers for a want of resources while at taxpayer expense schools go up and teachers are hired … in Afghanistan. Numerous cities, counties and some states face bankruptcy while in Afghanistan city and regional governments have easy access to American tax dollars.

In Afghanistan U.S. taxpayers bankroll public services and payroll for civil servants. At home, meanwhile, public employees are being furloughed without pay, thus denying or delaying needed services.

Afghanistan is a country without a modern road system but never fear, they are getting one. However, the United States watches its own modern road system fall into serious decline and disrepair as it wants for maintenance.

As the U.S. government builds bridges to somewhere in Afghanistan, our bridges are becoming bridges to nowhere as a result of safety concerns.

For the American taxpayer there’s no “double the pleasure-double the fun,” To wit: What is good for Afghanistan is also good for Iraq. The quality of our lives and the survival of this democratic republic pivots on the question, “Is the ongoing price here at home worth the cost of these neverending wars and society building in distant lands?”

The Golden Rule states “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” There is a growing body of evidence showing that we must prioritize and first do for ourselves what we are presently doing for others.

RC Lloyd,  Longmont

Meeting Thursday about airport concerns
I live near Airport and Nelson roads in Longmont and was invited to a 4th of July BBQ next door. As we sat in the backyard, the constant drone of a skydiving plane drowned out our conversation. These planes flies nearly every day of the year. Does Mile-Hi Skydiving Center realize how the noise levels affect those living in the cities of Longmont, Hygiene, and rural Boulder County?

Please put yourself in my shoes. What will happen if the airport extends the runway, bringing in loud corporate jets and increased air traffic? What if Mile-Hi Skydiving is allowed to add two more planes to their fleet? Already, the cacophony begins every morning at 6:30 a.m. and lasts until late in the evening.

When I called to make a noise complaint several weeks ago, I was told by the airport manager that when I bought my home, I should have signed a waiver stating that I knew I was moving next to an airport. Then he said that the City of Longmont should never have issued permits for development in this area. Who is he pointing the finger at? Is the airport being a good neighbor? Apparently, I should have known better than to buy a home in southwest Longmont.

There is a growing group of people who are concerned about the direction that the city is taking in regards to the airport expansion. If you care about noise and pollution in your neighborhood, smart economic growth, preserving the nature and charm of your community, property values and rights, and a political process that includes you, please attend our Community Meeting being held on Thursday from 7 to 8 p.m., at the Longmont Public Library, 409 4th Ave. For details, visit http://longmontairportcare.com/events.html

Teresa Foster,  Longmont
Agriculture still thrives in Boulder County

The view of the Rockies from Famuer Rasmussen’s sugar-beet field is nothing short of spectacular. If it weren’t for the Boulder County Parks and Open Space department’s agriculture tours, I would never have known what a richly diverse agricultural community continues to thrive on Boulder County’s open space.
Along with 50 other eager learners, I had the pleasure of attending the county’s first tour on June 14, and hope to make the upcoming three, which will be Tuesday, Aug. 10, and one in September. The tours are free, including luxury bus transit to and from the farms, snacks, water, and commentary by county staff and the farmers themselves.

On the June tour, we were treated to fascinating presentations by Mark Guttridge, at his Ollin Farm on 95th Street in Longmont, Famuer Rasmussen, Jr., at his beet/corn/barley operation east of Longmont and Dan Lisco, at his horse operation near Niwot.

The upcoming tours will feature more organic farms, livestock and row-crop facilities. It’s all free of charge, and registration is available online at www.bouldercounty.org. Or you can call Vivienne Jannatpour, the county open space department’s communications specialist, at 303-678-6277.
I wholeheartedly recommend this wonderful opportunity to all your readers.

Paul Sheldon,  Hygiene

Correction
A May 14 story, “Slot-car racing stays on track in Longmont,” incorrectly asserted that Slot Car Speedway houses the only commercial slot car tracks in Colorado. Rainbow Curve Raceway in Estes Park also has a track available to the public.

The Longmont Ledger welcomes readers’ letters and guest opinions. All letters and opinions may be subject to editing. Letters should be 300 words or less guest opinions no more than 700 words. Name, full address and day phone are required. Letters and opinions must be submitted electronically. E-mail to editor@longmontledger.com

F ireworks, parades, picnics — that’s the traditional Fourth of July for many Americans. But for those of us lucky enough to have been born in the classic half of the last century — pre-1950 — this holiday once celebrated a vibrant nation, victorious despite sieges from war, internal strife and loss of spirit during too many of its years.

These days we’re sadly back in the bloody mire of war, our economy’s paralyzed and black gold gushing from a mile beneath the waters of the Gulf of Mexico destroys sea and shore life across the southeast rim of our country.

It feels so long ago that we as a nation decided a black man was the right person to be president. President Obama’s inauguration brought tears to my eyes, for I can vividly recall an evening in 1966, watching as garbage and rocks were hurled at Martin Luther King, Jr. on Chicago’s Northwest Side.

America, seemingly on a roll after that 2008 election, is again drifting and starless and sad. News that President Obama had fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who had been in charge of the war in Afghanistan, brought back memories from my New York City high school days of the 1951 ticker-tape parade for Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who was dismissed by President Harry Truman for insubordination during the Korean conflict.

We seem to have lost our one-ness. Through two world wars and lesser strife elsewhere, our citizenry and sacrificing soldiers determined that this country and its ideal of democratic government would not perish from this earth, as President Lincoln described during the savage Civil war.

Years back, the Fourth of July was a serious commemoration of effort and achievement demanding hardship, pain and loss. History’s pipers had been paid in the terms of Winston Churchill: “Blood, sweat and tears,” their dark memories countering picnic moods of pride and celebration.

Today our leaders slam BP for fouling the Gulf coastline, not admitting that the government must share the blame because it did not adequately enforce restraints on irresponsible drilling. Who can we believe in any more?

How have we lost that national togetherness of just less than two years ago? And where is our pluck — that old-timey word for guts — that got George Washington and the Continental Congress through a divorce from those lords of sea and land in Great Britain, in the earliest days independence? Where is the steel we showed, along with our allies, in defeating Hitler, and bringing down the Japanese Empire some 65 years ago?

When events have hit our nation hard, we’ve always become one populace, united for what’s right and willing to work at it. Today we seem scattered in disillusion and chaos, unsure of what right even is.

Are we and our leaders foundering? Are we back into the last century’s days of hopelessness and resignation and dark? Must we gloomily watch the American parade falter and fail? How do we fix that, as the people before us always were able to, so our kids, and their kids, can still have the dream?

Michael Keating lives in Longmont.

I just want to know when Longmont’s City Council member will take it upon themselves to actually do the peoples’ business?

I think there has been for more than enough vindictiveness, false pride, egoism, political agenda, personal revenge and trickery to last four terms each. With the (non)-economy we now have, how do we see our elected leaders spending their time? Building? No; tearing down. Mostly each other. That’s how progress is made; you betcha.

Regardless of sticks and stones etc., names can hurt — hurt the citizens who elected all of them. It is reaching the point where I fully expect duels in council chambers any Tuesday now.

My message to the not-so-magnificent-seven is: We need level heads at City Hall. Unify and grow up.

Gregory Iwan, Longmont

Co-ops would aid medical marijuana

Throughout the U.S., in states where medical marijuana is legal, there are cooperatives among patients and caregivers that are not attractive to law enforcement or noticeable to the public-at-large.

Colorado’s Amendment 20 was written at a time when cannabis clubs existed in California, Canada and Europe.

Coloradoans who farm and ranch are quite familiar with agricultural cooperatives. They are non-profits designed to support agricultural business, which tends to be families, in communities. Co-ops may be designed in a number of ways, but to simplify for this example: Cannabis patients and caregivers could create a local co-op in which membership is by investment of capital, equity, or real estate for a specific known value of percentage.

Marijuana is locally grown by the members and consumed only by the members. Knowledge transfer and skills are developed within the co-op, which benefits as a whole. Quality is a self-contained issue.

Co-ops exist in Colorado now and have for a while. Since they don’t sell or buy marijuana, they are not attractive to law enforcement. But if noticed, they’d be perfectly legal. No drugs are sold, everyone in possession is a certified patient.

Unfortunately, municipalities may have difficulty in taxing a co-op. Most home-rule towns exempt farms from certain use and energy taxes, and making a change in dealing with co-ops to seek marijuana taxes will create a negative fervor with farmers and ranchers.

If you’re a serious patient or caregiver, take a serious step towards your own health and overall well being. Start an MMJ co-op.

Paul Tiger, Longmont

Bennet supporters: Join Backbone Express

Talk about whiners! Seems to me the primary campaign of U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet has the whiner market cornered but they like to act as if the whining is done by the (Andrew) Romanoff campaign.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. It’s the Bennet supporters who are whining because their man isn’t getting another free ride. They ought to be thanking Romanoff because until he got into the race, it wasn’t possible to get Bennet to take any firm positions.

From the beginning, former Colorado Speaker of the House Romanoff has taken the high road. Bennet tries to make it up there sometimes, but he’s too weighed down by pockets full of the campaign cash he’s getting from bailed-out banks, discredited insurance companies, big oil and high-powered lobbying firms in Washington, D. C.

Consider this: Despite the millions of barrels of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, the U. S. Senate, with Bennet’s help, voted on June 15 to preserve a set of tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. Loopholes enable companies like ExxonMobil to avoid paying income taxes altogether. Last year, when ExxonMobil recorded the highest profits of any corporation in history, the company actually received a tax refund!

If there are Bennet supporters who are really tired of whining, join the Romanoff campaign and jump aboard the Backbone Express.

Bob Miller, Longmont

The Longmont Ledger welcomes readers’ letters and guest opinions. All letters and opinions may be subject to editing. Letters should be 300 words or less guest opinions no more than 700 words. Name, full address and day phone are required. Letters and opinions must be submitted electronically. E-mail to editor@longmontledger.com

A westering sun  beams through broken clouds, casting silhouettes and shadows at Golden Ponds.
Marissa Shevins,  Courtesy photo

Letters to the editor

‘Fair’ campaign rules wasteful, contentious

Have our municipal elections in Longmont suddenly become so corrupt and rotten that we need a draconian version of the already confusing state and federal fair campaign laws to bludgeon our neighbors over the head with, in case they step out of line? (Ledger, June 13).
I don’t think so. But that’s what the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act seems to be turning into — just another political weapon.

Forming the city election committee may have been a good idea, but it quickly became immersed in the same old political infighting. The best remedy is to put this subject of political wrangling back into the judicial system, where it belongs.

When an attempt is made to criminalize every little detail of campaign contributions, the matter of fairness arises — the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And that’s where the government authorities are expected to be involved. It’s their job, not a committee’s, to examine, investigate, and prosecute any alleged electoral wrongdoing.

Besides, the LFCPA eats up a remarkable amount of city council’s time.

Councilwoman Sarah Levison, in a recent opinion piece, took conservative blogger Chris Rodriguez to task over his LFCPA criticisms, probably bringing hundreds of new hits to his Web site Longmont Advocate. Rodriguez, as his writings show, is perfectly capable of taking care of himself — mentally, physically and ideologically. Most big boomer letter-writers around town have attacked him and failed.

But Levison didn’t stop there. Rather than debating the issues of fairness that Rodriguez raises over parts of the LFCPA, she uncharacteristically questioned the personal integrity and honesty of her four fellow council members, accusing them of “disassembling the LFCPA,” causing the city “to go back to a closed door review” where “the council now can effectively shield campaign finances from public scrutiny.”

I say uncharacteristically, because I didn’t think she could be that extreme. Yet those are her words. Although she apologized, I do not know why the four targeted could not be expected to react. But that’s what we’re into, with this contentious campaign law stuff — in Longmont.

Percy Conarroe,  Longmont
Hidden Gems wilderness a gift to children

I have listened to the voices for and against the proposed Hidden Gems wilderness plan in western Colorado. What has struck me are the egocentric reasons behind the rationalizations of those who oppose the plan. I think we need to step out of our own realities and accept our responsibilities as stewards of our mountains, our country, and our planet.

Our mountains: As our population continues to grow, we need to realize is that we are not alone; others live here. We need to respect our biodiversity. Indeed, we need to grow up, not out. We are only passing through. If the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico teaches us anything, it is that we cannot take what we have for granted without forethought and care.

Our country: America is what it is because of the land, the wildness. Americans grow up with a can-do attitude because they have a place to test themselves, a place that makes them think outside the box of society. The American spirit, the American heart is there because of the land.

Not everyone can touch it, but all Americans know that we are not settled; we are wild, brave, and unstoppable because we have this place called home that keeps that spirit alive.

Our planet: The North American continent and the planet are alive and moving. They are home to massive wildlife and human migrations annually. We need to recognize and acknowledge that we are just a part of this planet. We are entering a new time in the history of the world. Let us step up and control our unending wants and desires. Let us step up and say that here and now we accept our planet and care for it as we should and as we can.

The Hidden Gems wilderness proposal is one small step in caring for our mountains, our country and our planet. Our children’s children will respect us more, and thank us for our wisdom and our gift. Let us think of something bigger than our own selfish desires. We should all support the Hidden Gems and urge our leaders to do the same.

Curtis H. Green,  Avon

Medical marijuana benefits patients, sales taxes

Gov. Bill Ritter signed HB 1284, which sets regulations for medical cannabis dispensaries in Colorado earlier this month. While many of the regulations are needed and sensible, 1284 was signed with an addendum by Ritter that local communities could ban dispensaries, therefore denying access to probably thousands of the estimated 100,000 people currently waiting to be approved as medical marijuana patients.

While I’ve read multiple times that there are more than 1,000 dispensaries operating I’ve yet to see attribution for this in any paper. I have serious doubts about its accuracy.

In Longmont we have eight or nine dispensaries — were the three in the downtown area a contributor to the recently reported rise in sales-tax revenue? They have been a bona fide contributor to sales tax, check with the city revenue office if you would prefer.

I would guesstimate there are upward of 1,000 to 1,500 registered patients in Longmont — myself included. I would urge the City Council to have the compassion to consider those without transportation or who are primarily home-bound when deciding the future of the medical marijuana businesses in Longmont. As for Council member Katie Witt’s proposal to take it to the voters — this should be a non-starter as it is a constitutional amendment and frankly I do believe there will be some lawsuits as move along due to the Ritter provision.

Extending the moratorium until next year is priceless. It will no doubt take the state government that long to figure out what they have to get accomplished, while the benefit is that is gives Longmont a serious length of time to tackle to issue for Longmont in a thoughtful, provoking and honest debate. But a city of 85,000 should be able to afford the right to conduct a dispensary to those who can conduct business within the framework established. Asking Longmont patients to spend their money and contribute tax revenue to another municipality is not forward thinking but rather it is archaic in 2010.

Steve Wells,  Longmont

Bill Ellis is a writer who lives in Longmont.