Don’t overlook the consequences of logging
On Oct. 21, the so-called “Fix our Forests Act”–introduced by Sen. John Hickenlooper—passed out of committee and will soon be voted on by the full Senate. As a recent graduate of CU Boulder, I’m concerned about the devastating effects this bill would have on public lands and the lack of critical media coverage surrounding it and logging across Colorado.
Under the guise of wildfire protection, “Fix our Forests” expands the amount of logging on public land. Unlike home hardening, logging does nothing to protect communities from wildfire and lets government agencies ramp up cutting in public forests. It would undermine the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act by eliminating environmental assessments and would take away the public’s ability to challenge projects.
Who is this bill for? The science surrounding the efficacy of forest “thinning” for reducing high-severity wildfire is dubious at best, with some experts claiming it might increase the size and severity of wildfires. I struggle to understand how limiting regulations and reducing community input would somehow increase safety. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this bill is being passed after the White House issued an executive order for immediate expansion of timber production and rolled back the “Roadless Rule.”
I applaud Sen. Michael Bennet for voting no on this bill, but it still may become law. It’s crucial that media outlets report in a balanced way on the consequences that such logging in the name of wildfire will have on our forests and communities.
Colin Norman, Boulder
Action Center plans: Don’t ‘ block the work of angels’
Re: “Lawsuit to stop Lakewood’s Action Center’s growth is misguided,” Nov. 2 news story
I was disheartened upon reading the article about the Action Center’s plans to repurpose Emory Elementary. The limited perspective was on naysayers, who called the deal “unethical” and complain the Action Center would receive a sweetheart deal; the neighborhood did not know about these plans.
I attended a City of Lakewood Ward 3 meeting where the Action Center provided posters, gave you an opportunity to speak to potential health providers and other partners who would occupy the space and listen to Action Center CEO, Pam Brier. This is no secret.
At that same meeting, I witnessed Anita Springsteen shouting at City Council members and at CEO Brier. I could not believe the lack of respect for these public servants.
At the City Council meeting on Oct. 27, community members, including clergy and people of faith, spoke passionately about their support for this transaction. Did the reporter attend?
It also did not appear that the reporter read the public comments on Lakewood Speaks — the city’s online public forum — that showed overwhelming community support. One of the comments from an Action Center flyer that describes The Commons at Emory project states, “Let’s promote a caring community where everyone knows they matter.”
Yes, let’s promote a caring community that centers on stories about visionaries like the Action Center leadership who want to build a collaborative system of care for individuals and families in Jefferson County. Let us not raise the profile of those who cannot see beyond themselves and want to block the work of angels.
Pauline Nunez, Lakewood
City Council bent rules for Lakewood project
Re: “Lawsuit to stop Lakewood’s Action Center’s growth is misguided,” Nov. 2 commentary
Ben A. David Hensley — after touting the value of the Action Center, which I have heard no one dispute, and disparaging the character of the plaintiff, attorney Anita Springsteen — actually states, “The Colorado Open Meetings Act should be an important way that we hold government accountable to meaningful transparency and not a legal technicality …” Sorry, Rev. Hensley, that is exactly what Springsteen is trying to obtain. On the very issue of property acquisition, Lakewood City Council was to vote on the project on Oct. 27 but was prohibited by the temporary restraining order issued by the judge hearing the case. It is the proclivity for the council to bend the rules that is at the heart of the lawsuit. Let the court decide.
C. Greenman, Lakewood