Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: Downing

Re: “Downing

This supreme court decision was and still is the most destructive force unleashed against American democracy as we have known it to be. Unless it is repealed somehow, many think (myself among them) that the enormously rich will constantly cow the masses and beat the middle class into an undeserved oblivion. Meanwhile, the ignorant majority will grow increasingly desperate, angry and depressed - a nation of renters. What a legacy the court leaves for our children.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Boomer on 03/12/2012 at 6:55 PM

Re: “Downing

beautiful; however, our showoff woodpecker has never left us - we have them every day for the last two months. seriously, they (?) have two young ones with them now. Yaik, Yak, Yak they go all day.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dr. Richard E Dale on 03/08/2012 at 4:32 PM

Re: “Downing

Shame, shame on you. I suggest you read the Supreme Court's document before you write this blather. The Citizens United petition only dealt with a specific instance of gov't censorship. In deciding in favor of C U, the Court, on its own volition, decided to re-visit prior precedent cases regarding campaign money & free speech. That had nothing to do with C U. And just what does the GOP primary have to do with network tv content? I only remember one add aired a few times. Your remote control does have a mute button. I'll use mine when the Obama garbage hits the airwaves.
Maranabob

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by marana bob on 03/01/2012 at 3:08 PM

Re: “Downing

you had me at the Republican party tearing itself to shreds......you lost me when you think rational people want more of their money redistributed to people they don't know.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by moyla75 on 03/01/2012 at 1:21 PM

Re: “Downing

Gee Renee the networks have been loseing customers for years ever since cable came into existence for the exact reason you write about;commercials advertising annoying messages ruining the mood of the best of shows.Pay the extra buck,get cable and watch a classy OLD movie on TCM and enjoy NO commercials......

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Bob Cap on 03/01/2012 at 8:05 AM

Re: “Downing

CJH is the incessant pro-Rosemont poster on Starnet.

Posted by Downtowner on 02/23/2012 at 1:05 PM

Re: “Downing

How dare you Tucson ....you backwater dusty town...to question and resist the demands of our transnational 1%, for more profits!!! By the way, did we mention that there will more tax payer funded jobs created cleaning up the mess we are gonna leave you behind?

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by mike s on 02/21/2012 at 6:50 PM

Re: “Downing

IF the mine were approved, the copper goes to China.

Also, the number of jobs and businesses lost would be a far greater deficit than the (inflated) number of jobs related to the mine.

This mine could mean total disaster for Tucson and Santa Cruz County. Why would we take that chance? And if we did, why would we do it for the greed and benefit of another country?

5 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by anonemuz on 02/07/2012 at 10:07 AM

Re: “Downing

I am sorry but I still believe that the US Forest Service should approve the mine. Our NIMBY's want copper, oil and timber but not from their back yard. So where do you propose we acquire the natural resources from? Oh I know, let us buy it from our enemies overseas and pay through the nose for commodities the US needs. At least in the US, we do have better safe guards concerning the environment than do foreign countries.

0 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by watchdog on 02/06/2012 at 7:54 PM

Re: “Downing

LaMar----
As to the policies of older mines--I hold in my hand a magazine ad from 1969. It shows the ripping and scraping process for the Twin Buttes Mine and it's a very ugly photo, trust me. The caption is "100 Million Tons down--100 MillionTons to Go--to New Anaconda Copper"

The article states: "Anaconda crews, working around the clock at Twin Buttes, AZ, are midway in the biggest pre-production stripping job in history. giant scrapers, 100-ton dump trucks and conveyer belts more than a mile long are linked in the modern operation. In mid 1969 a large copper ore deposit will be ready for mining.

Copper in the earth's crust is plentiful. But to pry loose copper from LOW GRADE (emphasis mine)ore bodies you must be an expert. Anaconda is. We have the specialists bold enough and imaginative enough to do the job. New mines like this at Twin Buttes will yield the copper vital to the complex needs of a growing population and economy.

Here, twelve miles of dikes were built to hold waste from the concentrating operation. Along these dikes, we are planting native shrubs, grass and cacti to blend with the landscape. Anaconda's NEW, BOLD approach(emphasis mine)to mine development at the Twin Buttes project includes a healthy concern for our neighbors."

Does any of this sound familiar? Is anything growing at this, now out of production mine, now owned by Freeport McMoran? What about the two pit lakes. I'm now looking at a Google Earth photo and I see nothing but a wasteland with two pits of, no doubt, polluted water.

Rosemont Mine will be the same. Nothing will grow on those tailings piles. Nothing will grow in that top soil without lots of water. Besides the top soil is less than 12 inches and much of that would erode, awaiting use to cap the waste piles. The area would never be reclaimed.
Reclamation is a hoax, the same as that claimed by Anaconda in 1969.

5 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by jom on 02/05/2012 at 11:12 AM

Re: “Downing

LaMar, You have way too much faith in Rosemont. They have already shown they are undeserved. Who will they sell to, the first opportunity they have to move on? They are not in this for the duration, they are in it to put the project together, get the permits, sell out and move on.

An open pit mine is an open pit mine. You can (attempt to) plant every color and variety of rose bush in the world around that pit, but it will still be an ugly, huge, toxic pit. The tailings will still be blowing in the constant wind, for all of us to breathe and suffer the effects of.

You obviously think you stand to gain something from this project. Otherwise, you would not be so quick to dismiss the jobs depending on a CLEAR night sky or our strong (and ever increasing) tourism industry. A suggestion? start reading the 24,000+ comments on the FS/DEIS website. You will get a really good idea of the intelligence and reasoning behind the vast majority who have written to oppose the mine.

Rosemont would not produce enough for the US to make a blip on the copper radar screen. We don't need it now, and if we need it in the future, maybe there will be a way to do it without devastating our national forest, and putting our precious water and air at risk.

10 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by anonemuz on 02/05/2012 at 9:58 AM

Re: “Downing

Yes, we all use copper every day. However, copper is 100% recyclable. It's not oil, and it's nothing to get hysterical about. those deposits will still be there in a 100 years or in a 1000, when mining methods will be Even Better. It's silly to pretend that this is about scarcity. It's about money.

9 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Renee Downing 1 on 02/04/2012 at 1:51 PM

Re: “Downing

I have visited the site more than once. They plants will grow on the tailings once they are capped with the topsoil that was removed and stored. Again, if you read the requirements your comments are baseless. Further, if you looked at the requirements in place when the older mines in Arizona were permitted you would see they have been following their requirements according to those older permits. It is not reasonable to blame Rosemont for the results of other mining operations when those operations are indeed following their requirements. As to experience, any company or mine is the sum of the people employed there. The people at Rosemont are not only experienced but they are quite honorable people. Don't forget the Rosemont employees are likely to be living closer to the mine with their families that 99.99% of those opposing it. If you want to know who REALLY cares about the environment at the mine site, look to the employees and their families. Most of the employees will plan on retiring from the mine and staying in the area. And I am quite curious as to ALL THE JOBS that might be "lost" if the mine proceeds? This mine will provide good jobs for several people outside the mine for every employee in the mine. There will be far more people visiting the mine for business than visit that same number of acres for tourism now. Again, just because you don't like mines because of what you have seen as a result of mines permitted during WWI or earlier, don't judge this mine by those outdated standards. Just think of how much copper we all use in some fashion every day.

3 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by LaMarTEK on 02/03/2012 at 10:50 PM

Re: “Downing

If you think sticking a few plants on top of a mine tailing is somehow going to repair the damage done to Davidson Canyon and Cienega Creek, then you are a fool...

And if you're don't know where either place is then you simply do not have an informed opinion on the mine, you've sucked up Rosemonts crap in one big gulp...

Wheres their track record? Oh that's right they don't have one but somehow this doesn't bother you either?

8 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by bwilde on 02/03/2012 at 10:34 PM

Re: “Downing

CJH, I have one word for you: SUPERFUND. More costly to taxpayers than any lawsuit you have in mind.

LAMARTEK, Why are mining jobs more important than the thousands of jobs that would be lost if this mine were approved? they aren't. If I need a job, it will not be at the expense of my health, or at the expense of my friends and neighbors who are already suffering the loss of property values, or at the expense of the hundreds of businesses' related to tourism.

The 1872 mining law was not about open pit mining. There is no value in polluted water and air. As far as the "nursery" Rosemont is building? NOTHING grows in mine tailings. This inexperienced company wants us to believe everything they do will be so much different with this project. No matter how they (or you) try to sugar coat this mine, it would be nothing more than a toxic dump in a National Forest.

16 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by ANONEMUZ on 02/03/2012 at 9:52 AM

Re: “Downing

Is that right Lamartek? Just like the tailing piles near Green Valley were capped and replanted? Silicone dust from the Green Valley tailings regularly blows around and ruins the yards of people living near that toxic waste. There is no history of mining operations that supports your notion about Rosemont being okay. There is a LOT of history that shows just how destructive open pit copper mines and their mountains of tailings actually are in Arizona.

15 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Ricardo Small on 02/03/2012 at 1:21 AM

Re: “Downing

CJH, I am not an environmental group, and I am not planning to file a lawsuit. I can't afford to.

I do not want an open pit copper mine in the Santa Ritas along the Sonoita Highway. Such a noxious operation would destroy a place I love and have loved since I was in high school almost 50 years ago in Tucson. I've hike, hunted and photographed where that Canadian company ... Augusta Mining ... wants to dig and place the tailings.

If an environmental organization, like the Center for Biological Diversity wants to file a lawsuit, and there is a form of cost reimbursement available through that process, I think that's great. Whatever amount environmental groups receive, it is way less than miners received at taxpayer expense through the archaic mining law that lets miners gallivant all over public land, punching holes into hills and valleys, then privatizing ownership through patent claims after spending mere pittances of development costs.

Furthermore, today's mining corporations receive highly favorable tax deductions that reduce the taxes they pay.

How can you gripe about a relatively minor amount of money going to environmental groups, when billions of taxpayer dollars have enriched mining corporations for almost two centuries?

Your attack of the Center for Biological Diversity encouraged me to donate money to that organization.

17 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Ricardo Small on 02/03/2012 at 1:16 AM

Re: “Downing

Anonemuz & others: 8% moisture is wet enough not to be dusty. Read the EIS and read the air quality standards and you will see that Rosemont has a very strict limit on fugitive dust that can leave the site. Read the mine plan and you will see that shortly after the tailings are placed they have to be capped and replanted with native species. Check out the large nursery that Rosemont has already planted to start cultivating plants for the re-vegetation. The natural area will NOT be destroyed FOREVER as stated. While topography will be changed somewhat, the re-contouring and re-vegetation will make the mine appear very natural 10 or 20 years after the mine is closed. YOU say YOU don't need the copper don’t need the jobs, well lucky you. Other people DO need the jobs and the country does need the copper whether consumed locally or exported. We need the VALUE created by the mine.

5 likes, 13 dislikes
Posted by LAMARTEK on 02/03/2012 at 12:59 AM

Re: “Downing

Did you know that many environmental groups like the Center for Biological Diversity are paid millions by the U.S. Government (under a little known provision in U.S. law known as Equal Access to Justice Act) for the costs they incur in filing thousands of frivolous lawsuits every year. Their strategy is to file as many lawsuits as possible, making it impossible for the Federal Government to respond in a timely manner. If the Federal Government is unable to respond in a time manner, the environmental groups are paid for the costs they incur whether their case has any merit or not. This only encourages them to do it over and over again. The more lawsuits they file, the more they are paid.

Unfortunately, it has gotten so bad that the Federal Government often concedes the case, because they don’t have the time or funds to contest all of these frivolous lawsuits. And this results in a financial drain that takes money out of real programs that could actually protect the environment.

My question to you: Are these environmental groups really interested in protecting the environment as they claim or are they only interested in milking the American taxpayer for all they are worth?

Link:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2011/05/16/legislation-to-stop-litigation-abuse-by-litigious-environmental-groups/

7 likes, 13 dislikes
Posted by CJH on 02/03/2012 at 12:14 AM

Re: “Downing

The basic problem is we no longer have local democracy. If we the people who live and work and raise our families in Southeastern Arizona could VOTE on whether this mine should open, the vast majority would vote NO. All the local governments who represent the people of the area have come out against the mine. The city of Tucson opposes the mine. The towns of Patagonia and Green Valley oppose the mine. The governments of Pima County and Santa Cruz County oppose the mine. The southern Arizona Congressional Delegation opposes the mine. The Tohono O'Odham Nation and the Hopi tribe oppose the mine.

We like to think we live in a democracy. But we do not. We live in an Empire. Where the capital of the Empire two thousand miles away DICTATES to us what we can and can't do. The Forest Service is not spineless. They are merely doing their job which is to follow orders from the capital, locals be damned.

It's time for this country to return to local rule by local governments elected by the locals, and get the capital of the Empire out of the picture.

8 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by pimaCanyon on 02/02/2012 at 8:29 PM

© 2014 Tucson Weekly | 3725 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation