.....Advertisement.....
.....Advertisement.....

Letters

  • All about Ashley Pond

    Dear Editor:
       The original pond would collect water in the wet months, and it could be useful, especially for livestock and wildlife, and if fortunate in the winter it would have enough ice to cut blocks from for the ice house.  In the early 20s, a pipe was built from Los Alamos Creek and a pump installed so that the pond could be kept deeper and prevented from turning into a mud pit in the dryer months.  The Los Alamos Ranch School was in a continual process of improving its property and the effectiveness of its operations.  The depression that we play on, and sit upon, and watch kids roll downward on represents the depth of the pond when water was pumped from the canyon.  

  • Bright future for Trinity Site?

    Fill the Trinity Site space with solar cells and sell the energy into the local grid.  Forgive the cliché, but we could “kill two birds with one stone.”
    Many consider human driven climate change and increasing consumerism to be among the greatest threats to our future. A solar trinity site would help reduce both threats and provide sustained revenue.
    Using the “Los Alamos National Laboratory/Los Alamos County Renewable Energy Feasibility Study” as a guide, six acres is required to produce one megawatt of solar energy. Google searches of existing US solar power plants average ten acres per megawatt.  

  • CB Fox supports Trinity Site

    CB FOX unequivocally supports the Trinity Project. We have since its conception and continue to do so.
    It’s been suggested that more competition via the arrival of new brand name retailers at the Project will harm CB FOX. We patently do not subscribe to that notion, but instead are certain that significantly increased retail choice will significantly increase retail traffic in Los Alamos.  
    And RE: the prediction that the internet will dominate and destroy, CB FOX has not in all the years the internet has gathered in increased sales nationally, CB FOX has not been hurt by it and in fact the opposite is true: we have grown at a better than 8% clip every year since 2007.

  • Trinity Site too much of a gamble

    Jorg Janssen’s letter of Jan. 22 reviews very well many of the problems that the proposed Trinity Sites faces, but an additional point seems to me to be worth making.  Retail stores in Los Alamos have to compete with the Internet, which is exceedingly convenient for anyone with a computer at hand (i.e., almost everyone).
     It is fast, cheap, offers a broad selection and is available at all hours.  Purchases can be readily returned.
     Late the other night I needed a book urgently and found it on Amazon.  In a few minutes I was very pleased to have it on my IPAD for under $5, a surprisingly low price, and without shipping cost or tax.

  • Time for Trinity to move forward

     I am in favor of adoption of the county ordinance to lease the Trinity property to North American Development Group so that the project can move forward.  I have served as a volunteer on the county’s Trinity Advisory Committee and have in-depth knowledge and perspective on the history, objectives, alternatives, and trade-offs inherent in the project  This is a complex project and it required answering many questions and addressing many issues.  The questions and issues I have seen raised in the recent public discussion are good ones.  I have seen none that were not fully considered by the work of the committee and county in making the recommendation to proceed.

  • Letters to the Editor: T-board meeting illegal

    On 1/12/2012, the Transportation Board (T Board) held a meeting from 5:30-8:30 to receive the final TAC report.  At the beginning of the meeting, the T Board chair announced that the meeting would end at 8:15 to give the board an opportunity to examine a rough design for NM502 sketched by Kyle Zimmerman.
    This item, clearly new business, was not on the agenda (attached).  The public input time was shortened, contrary to what was publicized in the paper, to provide time for this presentation.  Because there was a quorum of T Board members attending this  presentation, it became a “de facto” T Board meeting, not announced, and thus in violation of the Open Meetings Act.  As I was speaking to the T Board chair after the

  • Trinity Site is nice for a park

    I agree with James Rickman (Strip mall unsustainable, ViewPoint, Jan. 18), however, in the 32 years I’ve lived here, I’ve come to realize that when the Los Alamos County Council and other county politicians get a grandiose idea in their craw it takes a major uprising to wake them up.
    I would like to see that uprising against the Trinity Site. I have to many questions and to many reasons why we shouldn’t spend our money on this harmful and unnecessary monument to our politicians.
    I think the Trinity Site would make a very nice park.

    RD Little
    Los Alamos

     

  • Double check incentive

    In the Jan. 20 story in the Los Alamos Monitor, it was finally revealed that one  of the Trinity Site options included a Walmart.
    However, the idea was discarded because Walmart wanted a “big incentive” to come into the community.
    Did anyone calculate what that incentive would be? Did anyone calculate the rise in gross receipts tax revenues that would be garnered from a Walmart as opposed to another Smith’s?
    Might the difference cover the “big incentive?”
    The people of Los Alamos already spend 70 percent of their money off the hill. Isn’t the idea behind  the Trinity Site to recapture some of that money?

  • A grand compromise

    I am encouraged by progress in the golf course redesign process, but as an open space advocate, I feel the revised designs still leave much to be desired.
    Alternative 1, with its limited appeal to golfers, seems like a short-term solution that will quickly lead us back to this very same discussion.
    On the other hand, Alternative 2 standing alone is a clear lose for open space: it destroys a substantial amount of ponderosa forest with trees up to 350 years old.
    However, I do see the core of a grand compromise, one that would end the slow erosion of our remarkable and unique interior wild land while also offering golfers the quality course they deserve.

  • Win-lose venture

    After the county signs a contract with NADG, Smith’s will control two-thirds of the shopping on the north side of Trinity Drive and all of the shopping on the south side of Trinity Drive and east of Knecht Street.
    That’s a pretty good deal for them but not a good deal for the community.  
    Competition is supposed to help a community thrive.  How can the county council and school board seriously consider a contract that gives one private company control of so much public property when it already controls a good-sized chunk of commercial property?

    Patricia Max
    Los Alamos