I would like to clarify a few things for Craig Chisesi, since he seems somewhat forgetful of the past.
First, in his Dec. 4 letter Mr. Chisesi claims that the 2000 election was stolen. If that is the case, then how would he classify the Supreme Court's opinion to uphold Obamacare, since many of those same judges ruled on that decision? It seems he likes to have it both ways.
Regarding the budget surplus that Mr. Chisesi speaks of, I will own the fact that if the Senate and House had not been controlled by Republicans at that time and that they forced President Clinton to accept welfare reform, we would have never had that surplus.
As far as 9/11, does Mr. Chisesi really want to go there knowing that Clinton had the chance to take out bin Laden eight to 10 times, according to Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA who used to head up Alec, the CIA Counterterrorist Center's Osama bin Laden unit. Scheuer's assertions were verified by the 9/11 Commission investigation, which showed numerous missed opportunities by the Clinton administration relating to opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden.
Regarding the housing crash, Mr. Chisesi might want to check the facts. Rep. Barney Frank was the principal advocate in Congress for using the government's authority to force lower underwriting standards in the business of housing finance. Anyone who knows anything about the crash understands that loaning money to people who couldn't repay it caused the crash.
Mr. Chisesi speaks of Katrina. If the press would do their job, we would see the massive failures that are occurring with Sandy, but that would make their guy look bad.
He brings up Iraq and Afghanistan. Does he you understand the type of government we have? The Senate and the House approved and backed President Bush on those actions, including a majority of Democrats.
Finally, the dirty air comment was a slap at the gas industry and those who make a living by working for these companies. One would hope these folks do research before spending money at businesses that want them shut down.
The currently proposed relocation and new alignment of the Colorado Highway 82 Bridge in Glenwood Springs should not be implemented because:
• The new alignment will push greater volumes and higher speeds of vehicle traffic into and through the center of Glenwood.
• The proposed new traffic interchange and roundabout will confuse and endanger vehicles and pedestrians.
• The proposed interchange location will forestall the future possible location of a proper Highway 82 bypass and interchange.
• In combination with the proposed Highway 82 and Grand Avenue Access Control Plan, even more volumes of traffic at greater speeds will fill Grand Avenue.
The Colorado Department of Transportation is charged with providing for moving the greatest volume of traffic at the highest speed as safely possible, which is understandable, but that does not respect the necessary and desired values of the citizens of Glenwood Springs.
The current existing Highway 82 Grand Avenue bridge and associated accesses should be retained and improved for traffic safety and movement, and to retain options for locating a true Highway 82 bypass and interchange. The idea of creating a Sixth Street plaza is really great, but that effort can wait until a true bypass solution is reached.