I am very disappointed the Garfield Commissioners ignored the pubic outcry and approved MRI's application for a waste transfer station. The sad and ironic fact is MRI cannot really use this transfer station. We have two local landfills, and the distances from this site to the landfills are too short to make this facility either practical or economically viable.
The only hauler that can benefit from this transfer station is Waste Management. WM operates the landfill in Montrose, where they have negotiated lower dumping fees for their trucks. This enables WM to transport trash to Montrose for less than it costs to dump locally.
MRI cannot realize these same efficiencies or cost savings, making the transfer station more valuable to WM than it is to MRI. I believe the owners of MRI will sell this facility to WM, netting themselves a small fortune. Meanwhile, Carbondale will be left with an unnecessary and unwanted transfer station for decades to come.
Unfortunately, there will be many side effects, including truck noise and congestion, air, water and noise pollution, and lower property values. It is also not the best welcoming sign at a major entrance to Carbondale.
The two area landfills will also suffer as their revenues dry up. If WM does take over, all the trash currently going to the two landfills will be coming to this facility - about 300 tons daily.
If MRI cared about Carbondale, it would have withdrawn the application when it became clear there was no public support for it. Common sense tells you there is no benefit for such a facility in this location. Most likely it will extract a heavy cost. For those who do not want trash coming to Carbondale, I suggest finding a hauler that goes directly to the landfills.
During this grieving period from the tragedy in Newport, Conn., we are all asking ourselves what can I or we do to take a first step in stopping the love affair some people have with guns.
Ask yourselves what makes a person think, "I need a gun?"
Then I would ask the Post Independent, would they be willing to sacrifice the money they receive from running the advertisements in the want ads for sale of firearms?
I know we all want our freedom to choose, but now is the time to build a better, kinder, loving society.
The terrible shooting in Connecticut happened the same day the Post Independent published a cartoon depicting Santa being shot by a man in his pajamas standing in his living room. In the cartoon, the man states, "It all happened so fast. I walk in and there's this big guy with a beard. We look at each other. Then he winks and reaches into his bag ..." The shooter was holding a gun that had just been fired, and Santa is lying on the floor with toys around him.
Was this cartoon supposed to be funny? Do you people not realize how many people are killed every day by a gun? It's in very poor taste, Post Independent.
Sonya L. Doyal
Editor's note: Cartoons on the editorial page are not always meant to be funny. They are sometimes sarcastic comments about our society, which was the intent behind the cartoon in the Dec. 14 edition.
It certainly did not take President Obama long to begin stirring the gun control pot. In fact, the bodies of those children executed at Sandy Hook had not even been removed from the school when the anti-gun rhetoric began.
More of the "never let a crisis go to waste" mentality. So what do we do to defend our right to bear arms as afforded us by the Second Amendment of the Constitution?
First of all, let's get past the hysterical reaction to this event and consider some facts.
The worst school massacre in America occurred in Chicago in 1958 when a student set fire to his school, killing 92 students and three teachers. No guns involved. Also of note, Chicago has one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, yet has one of the highest murder rates in the U.S.
In 1927 in Michigan, a man set bombs in three schools, killing 45 mostly second- and sixth-graders, including himself. No gun involved.
More than 2.5 million times every year, Americans use guns in self-defense. Of those, 400,000 claim they probably would be dead had they not pulled their gun, according to criminologist Gary Kleck.
In 1996 in Scotland, a man killed 16 children in a school. That insanity resulted in the right to own a handgun taken away from citizens of Britain. Gun-related crime has increased by 89 percent since then.
Consider the fact that most mass killings take place in so-called gun free zones such as schools, malls, theaters, etc. The type of person who commits these crimes is sick for sure, but not stupid.
Guns are not the problem, and in many cases are the only way to stop mass killings. Taking away your right to own a gun will leave only the bad guys armed.
Please let your representatives and our governor know that taking away your freedom to own a gun will not be tolerated.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
In 2012 an estimated 225 children in the United States will die horribly at the hands of drunk drivers wielding automobiles. Where is the hue and cry for automobile control? Should we pass stronger legislation to prevent access to automobiles by the mentally incompetent? More crimes, including murder, are committed using cars than any other tool. Shall we make it a crime to use an automobile in the perpetration of any crime?
I find it quite curious that we would infringe on the constitutional rights of millions because we don't have the courage and moral will to properly and openly discuss mental incompetence and deal with the specific individuals with problems.
The revered Ronald Reagan certainly thought that the mentally ill belonged on the streets among us and he turned them out in droves - an economy measure, if I recall. Those who think we spend too much money on health care might want to revise their thinking.
Furthermore, let's take the considerably lesser risk of violating the rights of a very few people in a small identifiable group instead of wholesale violations of the clear constitutional rights of the many. Let's not knee-jerk over this absurdly entangled legislative cliff with the rabid anti-gun governors of Illinois and New York, among others.
One other unpleasant truth: The mother of the Sandy Hook shooter knew her child was mentally ill. She taught him to use firearms. She kept firearms in the house and allowed him free access. The person at fault here is not hard to discover. The brother must have known as well.
So, once again, the country is led to blame an inanimate object for this and is told more laws will fix the problem and incidentally punish all of the law-abiding citizens who own and use firearms. These various gun control schemes will cost far more, cause more public conflict and be considerably less effective than dealing with the human mind behind the sights.