Please Login or Register. Clerk didn't recommend $4 million purchase Why should taxpayers pay more for ambulance service? Burns are necessary for agriculture Posted 2 days, 4 hours ago in General. No Ratings Yet) Loading. The ones who have moved here because they were impressed by the serene rural atmosphere and all of the lush green fields. Over a century ago this valley was nothing but gullies and swampland.

Our grandfathers and grandmothers moved here and started to shape this valley and make it what it is today. Leveling fields, draining swamps and constructing canals and laterals that we are now using to water our lawns. Agriculture has sustained this area through all the energy booms and busts. The burns are not just something we do because we like it. They are a necessity. Without them, the ditches don"t drain and the weeds and bugs would take over the crops that we grow.

They don"t" take from the soil as you think they do, they help enrich it. It is the only cost effective way to manage the farm grounds. We might be able to cut back on some of this if every one would maange their own properties and help to keep the weeds from blowing across our fields. Be patient, friends.

In another five years when the last of us has finally succumbed to progress, when we finally realize that they only way to stay afloat financially is to plant some more houses, you won"t have to smell our smoke anymore. Then people can sit on their decks with their big eight passenger SUV in the driveway (with its 18 cup holders) and as you flip your $20 burger on the grill and sip your $10 bottle of beer, you can look out over all of those vast fields of houses, take a nice deep breath of carbon monoxide and say, "Man!

Isn"t it nice that we don"t have to put up with those pesky farmers any more?" TONY AND SHELIA PLSEK Grand Junction This entry was posted on Saturday, April 5th, 2008 at 10:53 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

However, other than the massive development here in the valley, there has been another change that you present day farmers may not be aware of. There has been almost a ten-fold increase in land under agricultural production. Now wait a minute before you get a rope. I have proof. During the Reagan administration, the government proposed to give amnesty to 300,000 illegal alien farm workers. When all was said and done, that number became 3 million. There was no shortage of farm workers then.

That brings us to present day. The government proposes giving amnesty to 30 million illegal aliens. The reason given: a critical shortage of farm workers. What else could have caused this except a ten-fold increase in agricultural land under production. Recently we have heard all three remaining candidates for president, both Democrat and Republican opine that the illegal aliens are just here to take jobs that no American wants. Come to think of it, do you guys have any proof that you are really farmers? You are Americans, aren't you?

What is it exactly that keeps you on a job that no American would want? Love of the land, pride and an independent spirit, the urge to produce something real in a virtual world, or maybe you just feel an obligation to put food on the table of those who complain about you, rebuke you, and call you rednecks and hicks. God Bless you and God Bless America. Being an "oldtimer" in this valley I get so frustrated.. Burning the fields, ditches is necessary as you all have nicely explained, and to me it heralds the arrival of Spring!

To all the newbys who don't like the way we do things here? West.. East.. As more and more people grow up in smothering urban environments they lose sight of the importance of agriculture. They think their food comes from City Market. There are extensive urban grids all over the country. If these city pansies can't handle the smoke from agricultural burns then they should move to one of them after all a subdivision is a subdivision.

In my profession, for all the good I try to do there is always a prevailing oath to follow that says & 8216;do no harm'. No one argues that agriculture and irrigation are not important to this valley (not that all burning can be easily categorized as serving either purpose), but your arguments hold less and less water as the urbanization of the valley increases. That is to say, you are sharing this space with others. That is to say that the economy of selfish practices really spells greater costs to your neighbors, the community and the world around you.

These costs are to health, environment, property, quality of life, tourism, and community servies. The practice of burning is archaic, and like many things needs to change as times have changed. Burning has not been allowed in many parts of the country for a long time due to the & 8216;costs' mentioned above.

Please, step out of your comfortable well worn shoes and have some consideration for your neighbors who are eating your smoke first hand and for the valley that traps and swallows your pollution; for your friends and fellow citizens who suffer health consequences and increased medical bills; for your fellow tax payers and fire department who have to come to the rescue when your fire goes out of control; for the poor soul who burns his own house down, not to mention his neighbor's home; for the clean air that we all like to breathe and that affords us the expansive vistas that we cherish; for the world which now grapples with the potential catastrophic consequences of global warming and atmospheric carbon dioxide overload.

Important keywords of article: the, of the, for the, all the, the valley, and the, over the, in the, the world, the country

After rushing to aid Wall Street, Washington can't very well refuse to help out struggling homeowners on Main Street. Congress is now making headway on a series of proposals aimed at bolstering the housing sector, while the White House is readying its own moves.

Here's a look at what's in the works: What are the different proposals? Senators Christopher J. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) 7,000 tax credit for those who buy a home in default or foreclosure, a $10 billion boost in the value of bonds that states can issue to help borrowers refinance, and tax credits for money-losing homebuilders and other businesses.

In addition, momentum is growing for separate legislation that would directly aid struggling mortgage holders. Which one will have the most impact? Policymakers are especially concerned about the roughly 9 million homeowners who are "underwater"-meaning their houses are now worth less than the value of their mortgages.

While many can afford to keep making their payments, others cannot shoulder the high interest rates but are unable to refinance because of the negative equity they now have in their homes. To help those folks out, Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) 300 billion in new, cheaper loans. A similar bill backed by Dodd to provide $400 billion in guarantees is before the Senate.

The Administration, too, is considering its own version, though analyst Jaret Seiberg of the Stanford Group expects it the guarantee to be smaller. How will these measures work? Underwater homes would be reappraised at current market values. Under Frank's plan, homeowners would be issued new mortgages for 90% of the new value of the home, and the government would get a 5% stake to compensate for the risks it is taking.

The holder of the old loan-whether it is a bank or an investment pool that holds mortgage-backed securities-would be paid 85% of the home's new value. Doesn't that mean big losses for lenders? Absolutely. They would have to recognize losses on underwater mortgages right away. But lenders stand to lose far more in foreclosures.

What's the taxpayer cost? That depends on the ultimate size of the program. The estimated cost of providing $300 billion in guarantees would amount to $10 billion up front. The government would recover much of that through fees and its stake in the loans. But the real risk comes if prices keep falling below the newly appraised values.

Then homeowners could still default, and Uncle Sam would be on the hook for loan losses. How many homeowners will the programs help? No one really knows, since they all depend on how many lenders volunteer. Also, criteria for eligibility may limit the impact of these measures. Under Frank's version, only those who took out loans between January, 2005, and June, 2007, would be able to participate. A spokesman for Frank says some 1 million could be helped.

But a recent study by UBS ( UBS ) estimates only 463,000 subprime borrowers-the hardest hit group-would benefit. Sasseen is Washington bureau chief for BusinessWeek. Reader Discussion Post a comment about this story in Reader Discussion.. No Points. No Credit Report or Processing Fees. Liberty Mutual Insurance Quote Affordable Auto, Home, & Renters Insurance. Quality Insurance.

Affordable Rates. Chase FreedomSM Cash Visa Signature Get $50 after your first purchase. 3% Cash Back in your top 3 spending categories. Apply Now! Award Winning Wine DVD For those who get dispirited when selecting wine. A simple solution is the "Wine Fundamentals" DVD. Buy a link now!

Important keywords of article: the, of the, in the, the government, on the, the value, the hook, the newly, the risks, the programs