PDA

View Full Version : pueblo chamber pathetic



caronski
07-17-2007, 09:22 PM
I just read about the Pueblo Chamber of commerce jumping ont the DOD welfare gravy train by supporting the environmental studies for the pinon Canyon expansion., I just can't believe that Chamber of commerces (both co springs and Pueblo) can't seem to find the ability to groom new business for their cities other than the Military. They try and shame the rural folks by saying their not patriotic but they rub they're greedy little paws anticipating the big dollars generated by the military business.. granted money from military business will go to whatever towns serve military installations but it's so perverted to have people talk about dollars by the neccessity of having a military force and what a boon it is..Like buzzards circling a carcass.. no not only circling the carcass but eagerly cajoling the coyotes to kill the prey so they can all swoop in.. and claim they're patriotic... it's hideous.. the folks in the southeast are our neighbors as well and they contribute a lot of dollars to our states economy.. They also come to the big towns and shop too..Both Pueblo and El paso counties didn't want the expansion in their back yards when they had the opportunity.. but now they'll willingly turn they're backs on their neighbors and steal their water , resources, lives and dignity so they can be ' a big town " too..Big Deal.. if the military gets it's obscene 415,00 acres I wonder who's military it will be.. The global Imperialists? This isn't American and the declaration of indepence made a statement about overbearing egotistical military of the realm..imposing it's will on the people..
History is repeating itself.. welcome to the land of the Torries...it sickens my heart that all our world cares about is making a buck in the guise of " patriotism"

large
07-18-2007, 08:28 AM
now they'll willingly turn they're backs on their neighbors and steal their water

Watch it there, farm boy/girl, it isn't Pueblo who wants to "sell" their water to the northern Water Buffaloes and then whine to Pueblo about sharing theirs . . (Re: Super Ditch, in today's Paper)

You are kind of off base with all your rants . . The ditch owners in the valley sold their water to Aurora and Colorado Springs, creating a double impact, drying up farming, and lowering the flow of the Arkansas, creating high salinity in the water that the towns below Pueblo require for Potable Water . . Pueblo didn't have a Damned thing to do with that . . and as a matter of fact, The Pueblo Water Board, as a member of two different conservancy districts, advised that those rights not be converted and sold at the time . .

Your rant about Global Imperialists is a tad off base also . . Wasn't it just last week that the Chieftain ran a series of articles about the "Renewable" power (Wind Turbines) in the Lamar Area, and positively they were affecting the economy of the area? What a great benefit they were to the ranchers and the property taxes each wind turbine generated besides electricity? Certainly didn't have a damned thing to do with cows . .

It turns out that the Turbines, lock, stock and barrel, are owned by a partnership of two foreign companies, Shell(Dutch) and PPM(Scottish) . . Yeah, those damned global Imperialists!

As far as anyone, or everybody, being in it for the "Buck" . . show me anyone involved who isn't . . Yourself included. It's more about "lifestyles" and how the buck is generated, as well as the potential for "More Bucks" from a new source than the "Less Bucks" from a older source . . The Pueblo Chamber, weighing the investment choices, chose the one that would bring the most money in the long run. This is no more than speculation at this point, but politically it has great impact. No matter what the Politicians say, they have more voters wanting military expansion than not . . guess how this will go in Congress . .

Again, a lot of this bitter talk and rumor is no more than that, with certain landowners playing a shell game with the Army and their neighbors . . and the people who are going to get hammered are the little guys, again, or as always . . but there's not a hell of a lot anyone can do about that.

Why?

Because, no matter, sometimes Life just isn't Fair . . .

oopsie
07-18-2007, 08:45 AM
I had the same reaction, Caronski. What's patriotic about forcing people to sell their homes? Seems very un-patriotic to me.

I was also disturbed the article about the Army taking back the Depot. I don't know much about it, but I do know time and money has been put into attracting new businesses to the Depot, to create jobs. Can could they co-exist with the Army? If not, what happens to them, and their employees? The article made it sound as though this would be great, because it might create a few jobs. Jobs have already been created. Let's try for more private industry jobs! What's with all the sucking up to the military?

large
07-18-2007, 10:07 AM
What's with all the sucking up to the military?

Lessee . . The military puts their lives on the line to protect you from the harm other governments can (and might) inflict upon you (as well as me). Private industry doesn't do that . .

As far as the "Depot" goes, I have worked there when it was the Pueblo Ordinance Depot, and it put far more into the local economies of all the small towns, as far east as Rocky Ford as well as Pueblo in general, than it ever will as warehouses for odd and assorted companies. That being said, probably the biggest reason they can make demands regarding that property, is because they still own it!

As far as the debate about future land acquisition, it's going to be hotly debated by many. Some will have facts, some will use emotion, but look for facts before stating opinion or rumor . . and leave the emotion completely out of it . .

Zen Curmudgeon
07-18-2007, 01:59 PM
Lessee . . The military puts their lives on the line to protect you from the harm other governments can (and might) inflict upon you (as well as me). Ahem . . .soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines put their lives on the line in defense of the USA. The "military" is another thing altogether.


Private industry doesn't do that . . The folks at Blackwater (http://www.blackwaterusa.com/) and I shared a chuckle over this comment.

ZC

large
07-18-2007, 04:06 PM
Ahem, Soldiers, Sailors, Marines etc. are part and parcel of the United States Armed Forces or "Military" if you choose . . should you want to apply a wikipedia definition, go ahead . .

As for Blackwater and other private security agencies being paid by numerous contractors in the Horn of Africa, The Middle East and the Phillipines, whatever . . Congress disavows any support for them or their actions . . and while they are probably a necessary component of overall globalization, they have no obligation, whatsoever, to defend the citizens of this country. They are no more than mercenaries at this stage of the game . .

Again, you choose to argue definitions, but not the issue . . Here, give me ANY reason why the Army can't say . . "We changed our minds and want to keep the facility" . .

Most other private and governmental agencies reserve that right. Often liquidating damages are paid in lieu of continuing a contract . .

Zen Curmudgeon
07-18-2007, 08:31 PM
Again, you choose to argue definitions, but not the issue . . Here, give me ANY reason why the Army can't say . . "We changed our minds and want to keep the facility" . . Jeebus, large, you don't know what my position is on this topic (because I haven't said), so why the belligerent tone?

My minor, snarky point is that you tend to chide others for wishful thinking, but when called on your unsupported assertions, well, that's different, isn't it? By and large (to make a pun) it isn't "the military" that bleeds and dies, it's that classmate, neighbor, acquaintance, friend, family member, loved one. Hence, it isn't those members of the armed services who are pursuing acquisition of Colorado acres - it's the military bureaucracy. Bundling the two in arguing for your side is not a kosher tactic since clearly these two parties have little in common. You argue that the two are ideologically twinned without offering facts in support. Thus your own criticism rebounds, and believe me, I know how that can sting. ;)

ZC

large
07-19-2007, 07:18 AM
Look, bedpan boy, there were no unsupported assertions made in my statement. The military is comprised of people who start at the bottom and end up at the top. At one time or another, 99% of those in the Military are in situations of rank that will place them in harms way, should events require. The "Military bureaucracy" is made up of a large share of those people, with Civilian Oversight from both Congress (budgetary and logistical) and the Executive Branch for direct command . .

The problem with the "Military Bureaucracy", as you refer to it, is that the Military structure of command and responsibility is totally linear . . an example was seen during the "Walter Reed" fiasco, when commands were changed, nothing the old command said or did was retained, and anything promised or left undone was no longer viable to the new command. Everything changed, not necessarily because it needed to, but because the new command decreed it to be so. (however, today, perhaps, it is probably exactly the same as it was prior to the Congressional Outcry and continual face time, same priorities, just new names, but no new money)

So it is with the Pueblo Chemical whatever. It changes it's name everytime it changes it's command. Anything and everything the old commander said and did doesn't count anymore, "That was the old commander, We're the NEW Command!" . . And when dealing with the Military in general, the Army, or a Battalion Commander, that's pretty much how it works.

The Military (or whatever YOU choose to refer to it) has done this for almost as long as "A Military" has existed. This, my nitpicking friend, is not unfounded assumption!

Also your statement that it "isn't the Military that Bleeds and Dies" is pure Bull$hit . . obviously you were never in the military. If one of your company is killed, there's 250 men who feel it, usually from the C.O. down to the last E-2. In most cases, this is the same at least to battalion level, as most combat battalions attach people from company to company for different purposes, depending upon the mission . . Lessee if this comes closer to something you can handle . . The "Military" is an Organization, the O-3, the WO-2 or E-5 are the individuals that make up the Organization . .

Again, no unfounded assumption here either, other than perhaps assuming you haven't served in the Military. That doesn't make you a bad guy, just one making unfounded assumptions . .

I also might mention that while nitpicking for a bibliography, you didn't answer the direct question I asked, which was . . "Here, give me ANY reason why the Army can't say . . "We changed our minds and want to keep the facility" . . which, I believe, is the root of this discussion . .

Oh, one other thing . .

I don't necessarily believe the Army is handling this correctly . . but like many other details in this war on terror and the training and deployment of the Military, Mr. Bush and Mr. Gates hasn't called me up and asked my opinion. EVER!

Based upon that, the general situation is the one that exists and it's the one we deal with. Numbers and statistics gained, based upon those actions are what we judge and debate about. Arguing general definitions is a waste of time, literally, as we haven't touched upon Mr. Slyhoff and the Chamber's decision but once in reply .

While you might argue it, any comment I have made in this particular thread dealt with the direct posting of a reply, and I find nothing either unsupported or without fact . .

Mousekill
07-23-2007, 10:01 AM
There is nothing inherently imperialistic about the military. It is a tool maintained and sanctioned by the elected civilian government. I’ll admit I haven’t read the Constitution since I was in college, but I believe the military is mostly voluntarily maintained since the only military force required by the Constitution is the National Guard (the “militia”). As long as our elected government chooses to maintain a standing military, the members of this military are owed the training, and equipment needed in order to successfully execute whatever the civilian elected government dreams up for them to do. This takes a lot of money to do right. I see no reason why it is wrong to hope this money will be spent in Colorado as opposed to some other state.

large
07-26-2007, 12:08 PM
Lessee, cowgirl, I was born on a farm in Western Kansas, grew up doing farm and ranch work when I was a kid on the Eastern St. Charles Mesa, even rodeo'd a bit when I was younger . . And I still know lots of farmers and ranchers . .

And you're definitely in it for the buck, because that's what you do for a living . . if that's not true, then you're calling your lifestyle something other than what it truly is . . or should be.

As I said, detach the emotion before you start your debate . . which, apparently, you have done neither . .

I have never said you didn't "Love Your Soldiers" . . and I have said I didn't necessarily agree with how the Army and the Government is doing this . . On the other hand, in the last 5 years, there have been sales of land to people who say one thing and intend fully, I believe, to do something else. There's lots of money at stake here and there are people who own large tracts of land that may retire from the proceeds. While they may eat dinner with you and sympathize across the table with your concerns, they may well be the key to the Government's getting exactly what they want . .

But I want to touch on another thing, being as how you pretend to be so righteous . . wasn't it El Paso, Pueblo County and the National Guard that came down and dug you people out of your snowbanks last Winter?

And aren't you from the same group of people who have told us annually about how close to "hand to mouth" the Ranching Industry in S.E. Colorado is? How, because of weather, cattle prices, reduced government subsidies and increased beef imports, you people are close to going out of business?

Based upon the above two paragraphs, don't you think the little caution: "Be careful what you wish for, as God has a funny way of turning the page!" is kind of apt? Basically, it sounds like God has sent the U.S.Guv'mint to save you from all that!

As for the S.E. Colorado Farmers and ranchers boycotting Pueblo and Colorado Springs, or at least declaring there to be a Boycott . . that just may make continued development and the desire for the money the Army would bring that much more desirable . . again, I remind you, be careful what you wish for! . .

Apparently, when you attended school you didn't learn to count . . Because, as I inferred, the money the DoD shows promise of distributing in the El Paso/Pueblo County Areas is far greater than the money currently being spent by the agricultural sector . . as well as . . there being far more voters in those two counties than all of the rest of the S. E. Sector of the state . . historically, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, based upon the fact that Northern Colorado and the Denver Metro Area gets first dibs on all the state money and construction. Pueblo has now become the South extension of the Front Range and Walsenburg will soon become just another suburb . .

I'm not saying this because I hope the Army has it's way . . I'm just stating known facts, and were I a betting man . . I'd have to bet on the Army and the Politicians!

large
07-27-2007, 10:03 AM
Where do you get your information at?
1st off we dug out of the blizzard ourselves, we did not receive any money or help in any kind from Pueblo, El Paso county or ANYWHERE for that matter. I speak for myself AND my neighbors and that is fact. I was quite shocked that you made that statement...can you direct me to where you came up with that?

Secondly, our bills are paid, as for me I am on my last payment for my cattle, even after making my payment the past few years I still had a nice chunk of profit left over. It's real funny how so many city folk like yourself can sit back and think all us ranchers and farmers are poor. How do you think these ranches have stayed in the same families names for all these years? That is a no-brainer!

Basically, two sources. First, the news media, primarily, the Pueblo Chieftain . . There's over a weeks worth of newspaper articles about the digging out after the "Great blizzard" and the resources used. The equipment both driven and trucked into the S.E. part of the state to "rescue" marooned Farmers and ranchers, and the N.G Helicopters dropping hay and other feed to stranded livestock for over a weeks time . .

And I still talk to people who work and live in the Ag sector . . as I said, I came from there. Water, Development encroachment, Cattle and Diesel prices are always conversational subjects. The Army/Ag dilemma is, of course, discussed and seems to be a mixture of opinions . .

As for the "hand to mouth" economics, it's a continuing complaint, coming from the agricultural quarter, basically, all of Eastern Colorado . . I dunno how true that is, as most of the farmers and ranchers who constantly complain can afford bigger and newer vehicles and homes than I, but that's a moot point.

Probably, they just have better relationships with their bankers and owe them more . . Agriculture, on the whole, has always been a "Boom and Bust" situation, so one's never sure when it's "Good" or "Bad". An old friend of mine who serviced equipment for many area farmers once said, "For those guys, it's always Bad, you only know they've had a good year when they buy a new Cadillac and a new GMC Pickup in the same year."

Now, as for your statement, "Ok as for me doing it for the buck...no I do not look at it that way" . . C'mon, this is more Bullsh*t than testimony . . Most people, Farmers and Ranchers included, work at difficult jobs for perhaps a myriad of reasons, "loving their jobs", being one of them, perhaps, but mostly, we work at what we do because that's what we know how to do. IF, one can love what they know how to do, that's fine, but I know people who farm and ranch, or work at the Steel Mill, not because of any other reason than that's what they know how to do . . and as for the agricultural entrepreneur, it's "Self Employment" with a large investment, and variable conditions for a return . . So, contrary to your statement, It's about the "Buck" first, and the love of it second . . Why else would everybody down there want some of those "Windmills"? It certainly isn't because they just like to see 'em out in the "South Forty"

I'm an artist, and I like what I do, but if I don't make enough money to provide a living, I don't give a damn how much I like it, I'd better go sell pencils, flip burgers or something that'll make a "Buck" . . I'm probably one of the fortunate few who can change careers and have worked doing things that I enjoy . . But I can guarantee you, when changing professions or going into another type of endeavor, I always considered the "Buck" first . . Eating is a habit that is hard to break, eating good is even harder!

And . . You're bitching at me for doing no more than "Reading the Tea leaves" and stating the obvious . . Do you send Mike Daniels hate mail for predicting a hail storm that damages your property? I'm just looking at the information and commenting upon it . . 50 years or so of hearing about the trials and tribulations of the Agriculture sector in this and the surrounding states . . Again, the big farmers and ranchers selling their water and land to developers at the expense of the little guy, all the while standing with the same "little guys" and decrying the process . . It's not me you need to be mad at, Lassie, it's probably your big neighbor . .

Mousekill
07-27-2007, 10:28 AM
I don't understand where these soldiers are supposed to train. I keep hearing how the Army and the federal government have more than enough land to train our forces.

The active Army's firing ranges and maneuver areas are pretty much booked solid leaving many active units unable to schedule time on needed ranges. When they are lucky, they may be able to schedule some of these ranges on National Guard, Navy or Air Force facilities. When this isn't possible, they either have to improvise some sub-standard training or just do without. National Guard and reserve units that used to rely on these active posts for training are now being scheduled out of training and are forced to fend for themselves.

While many Army posts are large, the whole post is not a single trainign area. Part of it is carved off for the garrison and dudded impact area. Still others aren't usable because of unfavorable terrain or environmental restriction (endangered species, wetlands, etc). What's left is divided into firing ranges and maneuver ranges. And the maneuver ranges typically end up supporting several units at the same time, so instead of hundreds of thousands of acres available to a training unit, only a small fraction of that is available for any exercise. When a post is looked at like this, units typically do not have the land they need to meet training requirements. Units generally make do with what they can get, but there are very few places they can train and completely comply with the standards. But the Army does not have plenty of land available.

Transering other federal land to Department of the Army could be an option, but there isn't much of that available around the large Army posts. Creating new posts in the middle of existing federal land isn't very workable since the cost of creating an entirely new large Army post from scratch is incredible. Then there is the law that prohibits the creation of new dudded impact areas, so much of the live-fire training would still require traveling to other posts.

It takes a lot of room to train ground combat forces, and with the new brigades coming to Carson, training ranges will be at a primium. I can understand not wanting to be forced to sell to make way for new training areas, but these soldiers have got to train somewhere.

large
07-27-2007, 11:04 AM
Mousekill, asking sensible questions do little here . . we're dealing with emotion and heresay, but little fact . . Not to mention, when tongue in cheek is applied, those that it's applied to frequently have it go over their head . . on the other hand I really don't have a very high tolerance level for stupid or unfounded statements . . and there have been some doozies here . . like the military isn't the military . . and those soldiers who die aren't representative of the "Military" . . somehow they belong to another organization . . orrrr . . "they can go to White Sands" . . "they have lots of land elsewhere" . . and numerous other factless statements . .

Again, I don't have a very positive view of how the Army, or the Government as a "Hole" has handled this or much of the rest of their BRAC planning . . Far too much shortsighted or hurried planning, which sometimes leads me to believe that there's a "Blonde" somewhere giving the BRAC their information . . Moving anything larger than a regiment to another post is a pretty big deal, and one would think that they'd have thought about this a lot longer than they seemed to have.

Not to mention, if anybody knows about the need for training areas it should be the Army . . and that's where long term planning and purchase might be necessary, because, while at the outset of WWII, there were millions of acres available, without a great impact on any nearby cities and towns . . it's little different now . .

Another thing though, that tends to make me very cynical, is the rural people who are willing to sell to a land developer who will turn their beloved pasture and prairie into streets and houses that need water and resources that isn't there, but bristle at the Government just wanting to drive a few tracks over the same prairie . .

That's happening all up and down the front range and now clear out onto the Eastern prairies . . high density Suburban development . . E.G. Some of the same people who screamed and cried, threatened to take up arms, if Ray Wells started building his "Super Slab" and encroached upon their lifestyles, have since either divided and sold their precious "ranches and ranchettes' to developers or sold off portions to buyers who will increase the density and require more "Wal Marts" out there (One just opened!)

So much for their precious lifestyles among the coyotes and prairie dogs . .

ButwotthehelldoIknow?

Mousekill
07-27-2007, 12:01 PM
I can sympathise with not wanting to give up land. I would love to get out of DC and go back to Southern Colorado, and I would especially like to live out in the middle of nowhere. And if I did live have some land in the middle of nowhere, I'd be pretty irked to be forced to sell it to anybody, especially the Army.

At the same time, I understand that these soldiers have to end up in somebody's back yard and Fort Carson is a better choice than most. The bases on the East Coast are mostly out since the East Coast is close to a giant stripmall and property values anywhere near the Bragg's and Stewarts are stupidly high. Irwin is a special use post and stationing brigades there would interfere with their NTC mission. I'm not as familiar with Hood, but their bursting at the seems already, so adding the additional brigades there would probably cause a meltdown. Bliss is getting some new brigades, and I'm guessing that if more were sent there, it would require some sort of expansion and I'm guessing the ranges and garrison facilities will already have to have a seriosuly extensive overhaul/expansion to handle the new units. White Sands has hardly any training capactity and no ranges facilities at all and the garrisons would have to be completely overhauled (or entirely new garrisons built) if we stuck brigades there.

I don't understand or agree with many of the big BRAC closures. It seems to be a common assumption in the Army Training community and has been for some time that the Army's training footprint will continue to grow as systems shoot farther and move faster. So, how do we handle this fact? We BRAC some of our posts. Granted, several of these posts have been turned over to the Guard so they aren't completely lost. But that means active units can no longer be based at these posts and it also means funding and staffing of these posts drops so their capactiy drops.