11.7 C
New York
Thursday, March 23, 2023

Emphasizing peace in Ukraine; people prefer single-family housing; learning not to trust developers

Carl Brady: Conflict: U.S. should emphasize peace, not more war, in Ukraine

As the war in Ukraine drags on, casualties continue to mount, among both armies and especially among the Ukrainian civilian population whose homes and infrastructure are also being destroyed. One would think most would want it to end, but instead many, including our own country, are egging it on.

It is almost akin to a civil war in some respects. Ukraine was part of Russia for almost 300 years before the communist revolution. Then for another 70 years it was a partner of Russia in the Soviet Union. After the Soviet Union break up, Ukraine has been wooed for membership by both the EU and NATO, neither of which are particularly friendly toward Russia. With over 1,400 miles of shared border, this made the paranoid despotic leader of Russia more and more nervous and was likely a contributing factor to Russia’s invasion.

Some try to depict the conflict as a struggle between democracy and autocracy. Russia is an autocracy, but describing Ukraine as a democracy is quite a reach. Since its departure from the Soviet Union, Ukrainian politics have been rife with corruption, assassinations and partisan prosecutions. They’ve experienced parliamentary fistfights, scandals and unlawful constitutional tinkering. Ukraine’s recent history is that of a deeply troubled state.

The ongoing destruction and loss of lives from the Russian invasion cannot be ignored, but the emphasis should be on stopping the war by bringing the two warring parties to the peace table. Providing billions and billions of dollars worth of military equipment to enable Ukraine to fight on when in truth its government is not that much different from Russia’s is not the answer to stopping the death and devastation. And continuing to poke the Russian bear given the very real risk of a nuclear confrontation is insane.

Carl Brady, Frederick


Glenn Murray: Growth: People in Boulder prefer single-family housing

Some people just can’t stand that folks in Boulder are pretty happy with it. In his zeal to correct them, Stan Oklobdzija, in a recent guest opinion, resorts, in my opinion, to just making stuff up. If he really thinks that Boulder became a pioneer in urban development with the Blue Line and a vigorous Open Space program on the “basis of race” then his ignorance of Boulder history is profound, indeed. The reason it’s difficult to build new housing is not because it’s “majority-White”; it’s because people here, starting over sixty years ago, did not want a lot of new housing — even if, as was the expectation, the houses would be filled with White people.

Oklobdzija also claims, without evidence, that Boulder homeowners are resistant to new housing because it will “dilute” the value of their assets. Nonsense. Single-family homes rise in value in denser neighborhoods because of scarcity. People, especially those with children, prefer single-family housing.

Oklobdzija thinks that if we don’t build “dense multifamily housing” our streets will be choked with cars (this, from someone who lives in California), as if his suggestion wouldn’t make things worse. He predicts that we will be a “declining” community (doesn’t sound so bad, really) of “extravagantly wealthy seniors.” Ageism aside, none of those seniors is going to last forever, especially the ones backcountry skiing and ice climbing. And what extravagance? High-end Subarus?

Anyone who thinks that more housing will solve the problem that “56% of Boulder’s 104,000 workers live outside the city limits” needs to have a better grasp of the issues of balancing jobs with housing. That and better transit would alleviate the problems he imagines without destroying Boulder’s quality of life. California? No thanks.

Glenn Murray, Boulder


Casey Cook: Housing: Boulder can’t blindly trust developers

So now our community loses out on 100 affordable housing units because the City of Boulder took some developer’s word they would build them in exchange for permits to build the ultra-rich 311 Mapleton project? The city was warned the deal had no teeth in it but believed the old “Trust Us” routine. Hey, City of Boulder I’ve got some oceanfront property you know where that I’d love to sell you.

Casey Cook, Boulder

Source link

Related Articles

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Stay Connected

0FansLike
3,743FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Latest Articles