It has been an honor and privilege to serve the member consumers of Holy Cross Energy as a member of their board of directors since 2012. I am seeking reelection to the board to continue the work that my fellow board members, Holy Cross’s skilled and professional staff and I are engaged in to lead the responsible transition to a clean energy future.
Holy Cross is a not-for-profit, rural electric cooperative serving the Eagle, Colorado and Roaring Fork river valleys and governed by an elected board of directors. Directors are elected from and by the member consumers. Holy Cross provides electricity to nearly 60,000 homes and businesses and generates nearly $135 million in annual revenues.
As an electric utility not motivated by profit, Holy Cross is motivated to serve member consumers by providing safe and reliable electric service, a progressively decarbonized power supply, affordable electricity competitively priced and member consumer programs that foster efficiency, conservation and renewable power generation. Over the past few years, Holy Cross has kept its electric rates unchanged and in the lower third of all Colorado electric utilities; kept the lights on 99.9% of the time; returned over $10 million in member equity to member consumers; developed a strategic plan to provide 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030; and ended 2020 receiving 44% of its power supply from renewable generation.
I live in Basalt and am a lifelong resident of this region. For more information, please see www.gardnerbradford.com and www.holycross.com/robert-gardner/
I ask for your vote. I will continue to dedicate my experience, knowledge and understanding of Holy Cross’s member consumers and service territory for the benefit of the member consumers of Holy Cross Energy. I also ask you to join me in reelecting another nine-year incumbent director, Kristen Bertuglia of Vail. More information about this committed, intelligent and thoughtful candidate can be found at www.holycross.com/Kristen-Bertuglia/ and www.KristenForHolyCross.com
Ballots for this election were mailed to member consumers on May 10 and are due back by June 9.
I would like to address the issue of vaccines today and call for compassion and mutual respect on this issue.
I am not a Republican, never have been, and am probably more of an Independent than a Democrat, but I mostly vote Democrat for what that’s worth.
I am a person who is hesitant to get the “vaccine.” There appears to be many of us, it is now being revealed in the media, as the pressure to get vaccinated increases. So, I would like to share reasons to not get vaccinated, and why it should not matter to those who are vaccinated, and why we should be respected.
Before that, I would like to say that I am happy for those of you who have chosen to get vaccinated, that you can hopefully feel safe.
Reason 1: Having had COVID-19. it is a known fact that natural immunity and antibodies occur in an individual who has had a disease. Even with the flu, one is immune to variants for a long time (years) after having had the flu. It is hard to rely on the promoted idea that we only have a few months immunity from COVID-19 and variants when information keeps changing. For example, we can now enjoy the outdoors without a mask – wow!
Reason 2: Having a robust immune system and/or being at an age that is at very low risk. Many of us are young, healthy and not in any of the categories that are at risk, with no underlying co-morbidities, not over 65 years old, not obese, and taking healthy doses of vitamin D (Dr. Fauci reportedly takes up to 9,000 IU/day!), Vitamin C and zinc, known to deter COVID-19.
Reason 3: The FDA has only approved the “vaccine” for emergency use. Yes, Pfizer is applying for FDA approval at this time, but the injection is currently only authorized for emergency use at the time.
Reason 4: Underlying conditions. There is not sufficient data on the effects the “vaccines” may have on pregnancy or auto-immune issues, to name a few of the underlying conditions folks may be hesitant to risk further complicating.
Reason 5: On the CDC website is a section called VAERS, where people enter adverse reactions to receiving vaccines and it is not comforting. Some people allege that false info is being added there. Although that may be so, I would imagine there are plenty of people who don’t even know about or take the time to report there.
At this point, I would like to say the reason I say “vaccine” is because only the Johnson & Johnson vaccine has some of the actual COVID-19 disease, the other two (Pfizer and Moderna) use gene therapy. So, in scientific terms, they are not technically a vaccine. It is theorized that the use of the term is to begin to normalize the idea of gene therapy for use in future “vaccines.” But that is another conversation.
I hope that this clarifies the stance of the vaccine hesitant, nearly 50% of the U.S. population at present. The notion that we are irresponsible does not correspond to many of us. If we are concerned enough about our health to take vitamins, stay healthy and take supplements, study scientific information about gene therapy and the lack of information on long-term effects and thus prefer to wait, we should not be made to feel irresponsible. The argument that it is for “the greater good” is also not relevant. If you have been “vaccinated” and do not feel safe, what is the point? You are just as likely to catch COVID from another vaccinated person as a non-vaccinated person. You will not get a worse reaction from an unvaccinated person.
We respect your decision and applaud your response to needing to feel safe, and we hope you can respect ours.
Re: Climate action
The Sopris Sun published a piece by Will Hodges on April 29: Tell Governor Polis to enact his own climate action roadmap. SB21-200 would set the Air Quality Control Commission up as project manager, a hot topic among environmental activists across Colorado. According to Kim Miller, CEO of the outdoor company Scarpa North America and a member of Governor Polis’ outdoor recreation advisory council, “It’s creating a lot of angst, I’ll say it like that…”
Hodges goes on to state, “The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gives the world only a 50% chance of staying under 1.5°C of warming if we reach carbon neutrality by 2050 (we’re at 1°). For a 66% chance of averting catastrophe, we must be at net zero by 2036.”
Polis is set to veto climate legislation that would otherwise effectively protect Colorado citizens, families and communities from environmental deterioration. Perhaps Colorado citizens should revisit his ability to protect them.
Polis’ roadmap, provided in January, ensures that established goals, specific to sectors, would be enforceable to limit pollution. Polis should support his initial plan by implementing his ambitious roadmap that concludes, “Greenhouse gas emissions would be cut 26% below a 2005 baseline level by 2025; 50% by 2030 and 90% by 2050.”
Take action to ensure elected officials are held accountable, protecting Colorado’s future, by supporting SB21-200. Protecting public health is a top priority which the Governor has a professional responsibility to address. Consequences of dirty air and climate change continue to deteriorate quality of life and Colorado natural ecosystems, not to mention associated human health-hazard.
Take action by emailing firstname.lastname@example.org or calling 303-866-2885.
Lately, denigrating law enforcement officers seems to be the “woke” thing to do. This holds true for most of the letters about the City Market snafu with Michael Francisco. I think most of the blame goes to the store’s hyper-sensitive gas jockey and the manager who managed to call the police instead of managing the situation. There was no reason to call the police, but since they were called, they did what City Market asked. This is where Mike misdirected his anger at police and should have been smarter. I’ve found that arguing with cops, DAs and judges is counter-productive. You never win. The police were just doing their job. If any racial bias was on display, the facts point to City Market. They and they alone should be the ones apologizing to Mr. Francisco. Police do a dangerous and thankless job, protecting and serving the public faithfully. They deserve our thanks and respect.
Re: Ascendigo Ranch
It’s not about AUTISM…
It’s about FIRE and WATER
This concerned Missouri Heights resident wants to know why our Garfield County officials would consider risking their current constituents’ security for an entity that hopes to build an incompatible facility in an unsuitable location.
Since 1980, I have lived in Missouri Heights and witnessed more fire and less water become undeniable realities for those of us who reside here. Both conditions are intensified by steadily increasing winds. Currently, our winds are serious enough to make some outdoor activity unpleasant if not impossible. Residents are praying we don’t have another fire this summer.
In this local climate, Ascendigo is applying to build their 126-acre camp with campers including children. Safety is paramount with any camp. Why would Ascendigo put their own clients’ safety in jeopardy?
The potential adverse effects of this Ascendigo camp are many, but the most threatening are risking water security (already strained) and increasing wildfire danger. Those are the facts.
Re: re: Ascendigo Ranch
We are writing regarding the controversy surrounding the Ascendigo project in Missouri Heights. On one hand is a proposed ranch and outbuildings maxing out at 45,000 square feet that would provide much needed services and joy to people with autism and their families. On the other hand is land zoned for up to twenty-one single family houses. At a conservative 4,000 square feet per house, that totals 84,000 square feet. Taking into consideration construction and environmental impacts to the land, we’d go with the ranch.
Cathy O’Connell and Fred Venrick
A walk in the sun
Good for the body and soul
Savor every step