Anti-urban renewal ballot question is a bad idea
In The Villager article about Littleton’s anti-urban renewal election (“Littleton urban-renewal backers form organization,” Dec. 17), one of the backers of the anti-urban renewal campaign cites the Breckenridge Brewery and the King Soopers remodel projects as evidence that redevelopment is feasible without incentives. However, both of these exciting projects are receiving financial incentives from Littleton—and when completed, both investments will deliver enormous benefits to Littleton residents and our quality of life. The anti-urban renewal proposal that Littleton voters will face on March 3 would pile more risks, costs, time and unpredictability into future investment decisions by developers and the city alike, and require special elections that would cost Littleton taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars to conduct. And when the additional risks, time, costs and unpredictability become too much to bear, it’s likely that those investments simply will go elsewhere, and economic development opportunities for Littleton will diminish. That is not how we will keep Littleton strong for the long-term. That’s why the anti-urban renewal ballot question is a bad idea. Vote “no.”
The Democratic Party is no longer Democratic
More than a decade ago, extreme leftists seeking oligarchical dominion took control of the Democratic Party.
In their exclusive focus on ideological goals, they discarded the principles of liberty that have guided American greatness for two centuries: government accountability, rule of law, property rights, individual freedom and responsibility, consent of the governed.
There is nothing “liberal” or “progressive” about their governance, as detached as the pharaohs and as ancient as the pyramids. Ramming through unread legislation and executive directives that contradict the public interest is not democratic.
Unless the Democratic Party realigns with the American people, they may become known as the Autocratic Party.
Cuba policy is right move
Your editorial on the normalization of relations with Cuba shows political savvy and a deep understanding of international relations. Over five decades of estrangement and what did we accomplish? Fidel was succeeded by Raoul and Cuba is still a Communist enclave. Obama’s decision to lift the sanctions is one of the few positive steps taken by this administration in the field of foreign relations. We should have known that sanctions and boycotts do not work. They did not work against Fidel Castro, neither did they work against Saddam Hussein, in the 1990s. Sanctions it is proven, whether against Castro, or Saddam, punish the people and empower the dictator. The Cuban people suffered enough and so did America’s businesses who were doing business in Cuba.
I wholeheartedly supported President Kennedy’s decision to boycott the Castro Regime and I had numerous friends who were involved in the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion. But I believe that if President Kennedy were still alive he would applaud the decision by President Obama. Surely, if President Nixon, who initiated the policy of normalization with Communist China were still around he would also endorse President Obama’s decision.
I am sure that many of my conservative friends will take issue with my views on this subject, but it behooves us to learn from the lesions of history and from our previous policy failures. I strongly believe that there are no eternal enemies and no eternal friends, only eternal national interest. And it is in our national interest, especially in this Hemisphere, to bury old rivalries and to give a small chance to the enslaved people of Cuba to begin the process of emancipating themselves from the yoke of Communism. Normalization of relation with Cuba would allow some relaxation of human rights on the part of the Castro Regime at worse; and would bring the Cuban people in contact with freedom loving Americans at best. Cubans will have a chance to see how their compatriots who came to America live and to witness the miracles of liberty and free enterprise.
As to Americans of Cuban origin are concerned, and this includes Sen. Marco Rubio, they should rejoice that the people they left behind and the generations of Cubans who never knew the meaning of freedom and individualism, may start to demand the return of their individual rights and freedoms that Fidelismo robbed them of.
Former U.S. Ambassador
appointed by President George H. W. Bush
2016 All Rights Reserved. Villager Publishing |