Proposition HH will provide relief
Re: “Prop HH is a money grab,” Oct. 15 letters to the editor
Regarding the letters in last Sunday’s Open Forum, I plan to vote for Proposition HH and hope the majority do the same. I have no idea what the situation might be with the writers of the anti-HH letters, but for me and a lot of other homeowners, the assessed value of my home is skyrocketing next year (over 60%). That means that, all else being equal, my property taxes will also skyrocket to the point where they may become unaffordable. My appeal for a reassessment went nowhere, as it did for most other people in Arapahoe County. My only hope is for some help with Proposition HH.
With all due respect to the lovers of TABOR, I’ve always believed that it should never have been passed, as it short circuits the way our democratic republic is supposed to work. We elect people to represent us with the hope that they will make the best decisions for us. TABOR often hamstrings their efforts to do things quickly and effectively. If enough people do not like the decisions their elected representatives make on their behalf, they can be tossed out in the next election. That is how our system is supposed to work.
I hope Proposition HH passes.
Paul Ruzicka, Aurora
Thoughts on the speakership
Washington is broken.
As Republicans continue to debate leadership and demonstrate they can’t get their own house in order, how does the public think they can run the country while nothing is being done in Washington? I realize the term compromise doesn’t exist in their language, but Democrats have an opportunity to push for someone they could live with and work with other Republicans to secure the speaker role.
Democrats, find a Republican you can back and join forces with Republicans to get the votes rather than being a block of votes that don’t have a chance.
Dave Usechek, Parker
If anybody can be speaker of the House, even the grifter Trump, then why not nominate Liz Cheney, someone who respects the Constitution?
Tom Sabel, Lakewood
I’m disgusted.
Observing the current fiasco in the House of Representatives, our representatives — on both sides of the aisle — have demonstrated that they are more loyal to their party than to the United States of America. It’s worth repeating. Party loyalty is more important than loyalty to the United States.
They forgot that they were elected (supposedly) because of their character, wisdom, and purview, to work with one another to enact laws for the betterment of the United States — not the betterment of their respective party, district, or state.
Compromise — recognizing that the other party also has good ideas and incorporating those ideas — made us the best nation on earth. We have lost our founding fathers’ vision, and we have lost our way.
Curt Anderson, Broomfield
Why let bitcoin mines take so much of our resources
Re: “Chinese bitcoin mines bring national security concerns,” Oct. 16 news story
Reading The New York Times article was most disappointing … in our country’s leadership. How can we allow wealthy Chinese firms or individuals to build Bitcoin mines in our country?
China banned them from doing this in China, so they come to America and somehow gain approvals for these?
Energy is a national treasure, not something for politicians to barter to the Chinese. There is no development gain opportunity for American cities, counties or states to allow Bitcoin mines. And they present a security risk, as the article points out.
Congress needs to immediately stop any further development, and existing “mines” need to be taxed out of existence. Energy and electricity cannot be wasted on non-Americans.
Voters need to stop voting for any and all incumbent candidates. They are the problem with America; they somehow get re-elected and allow these and similar non-American activities to weaken our great country.
Rod Brown, Centennial
Putting planet first
Re: “Energy firms, green groups and others reach agreement,” Oct. 13 news story
It is so refreshing to see these large organizations overcome the “Not Invented Here” or NIH — barrier to cooperation. NIH refers to a well-described tendency of policymakers in large organizations to resist cooperation with or endorsement of policies generated by experts in other organizations, even if their mission statements have substantial overlap. The climate crisis, in particular, demands that policymakers in all organizations addressing it must set aside these habits, whether based upon ego, risk avoidance or simple bureaucratic inertia. I congratulate the participants in this negotiation for putting the health of the earth and all creatures on it above their parochial organizational concerns.
Gary Stewart, Laguna Beach
