Erring on the side of folly

Susan Griebel’s letter “No man is an island” (Monday, May 25) was elegantly spot-on. First off, I believe the U.S. economy must be allowed to restart, sooner rather than later. To do that safely and to avoid a possible rebound in coronavirus cases and deaths, everyone needs to do their part.

Even the so-called experts constantly being interviewed on the major television news channels can’t agree on the efficacy of face mask use. Listen to 20 authorities on the subject and there will be 20 opinions. No one seems to really know whether masks offer protection against the spread of the coronavirus. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has flip-flopped on the mask issue. Thus, I’m continually stunned when I go to the grocery store and see half of the shoppers, young and old alike, not wearing a face covering.

So I pose this question to those individuals refusing to wear masks when out shopping in enclosed public spaces: Why are you so arrogantly, selfishly and ignorantly erring on the side of folly rather than considering the possible potential benefits not only to you but to your fellow human beings? Maybe, just maybe, the life you save by being responsible is your own, or someone you dearly love, or some stranger you pass in a grocery store aisle.

James Petrenas

Colorado Springs

Cities ruined due to poor zoning laws

We lived in a Colorado Springs suburban area before moving to a downtown neighborhood in 1989. We are retired educators of modest means, prudent and law-abiding citizens who thought R-1 single-family zoning provided some protection under the law. The Accessory Dwelling Unit law about to be passed by the City Council will in effect change our zoning to R-2 two-family by inviting homeowners to add an apartment for nonfamily members to their home.

We question that the city government, which is chronically short of money, can adequately monitor the ADU ordinance, especially the architectural design of additions for apartments and the inevitable conflicts over parking, noise, numbers of people and unintended consequences. Turning neighborhoods into apartment districts appears to be a cheap way for the city to institute infill. Why should property owners in R-1 zones pay for this? What happened to the conversation a few years ago about infill in the immediate downtown area that would include a wide range of housing options and price ranges? Were the lots that sat empty for years simply place holders for much more lucrative investments that ignore room for tiny homes, low-income housing and more suitable ADU opportunities?

Over the years, so many great cities have been ruined due to poor zoning laws. Colorado Springs has the chance to avoid this. Please keep our single-family neighborhoods single family and thereby keep single families living in Colorado Springs.

Pat Doyle

Colorado Springs

Respecting the theoretical bubble

Thank you for publishing Joe Barrera’s thoughtful opinion regarding the new field of criminal health conduct. Writing about executive protective edicts to keep us all safe, Joe has come to the conclusion that “If you harm my life (or threaten my health) because of your refusal to follow COVID-19 rules, then I must act to force you to respect my right to life.”

In this new society, everyone has a theoretical protective bubble (and the governor knows how to define that for everyone). I am required to act as if I am the bringer of death. I can commit crime without inflicting harm, but by acting in such a way as to threaten the theoretical bubble.

Within this new society, people who join together to form cities are criminals. They want to live close to family and friends. They want to work closely in a team to help fellow city dwellers with their hopes and dreams. These criminals want to work shoulder to shoulder in their churches and civic organizations to uplift each other and the less fortunate. Shame on us.

All hail the reclusive bachelor rancher and farmer, the mountaintop guru, and the cave-dwelling hermit. These are apparently, the only people who truly love and respect their fellow man (and the theoretical bubble).

I’m not certain how this new society moves forward. Cities must be disbanded, or isolated so that they do not threaten the worthy isolationist. Intimate activity will be outlawed, so there will no longer be children. Thankfully, this will likely mean the demise of humanity. The Earth can return to its pristine and natural state prior to the human infection.

OK, I might be pushing this one theoretically. What world do we want to live in?

Eric Swanson

Colorado Springs

Life should not trump happiness

The U.S. Declaration of Independence held as Creator-given unalienable rights life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and it is the basis of our identity and the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. During the recent COVID-19 epidemic, I believe state government leaders have clearly ignored the co-equal value of these rights in believing life trumps the other two rights. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not second class rights compared to life, and government does not have the right or power to so decide. Let me explain.

These rights are co-equal. Life is not more important than liberty or happiness. All earthly life is temporary and is not more sacred than liberty or happiness unless you don’t believe in a God or an afterlife.

We are individuals, but we are also members of our larger society, and there must be some limits to our individual liberty. The same is true of individual happiness. We work and play according to individual choices to support ourselves and also to contribute to a larger society, but we also experience some bounds and limits in this freedom. But life should not trump the happiness of a good economy.

Therefore, the government needs to stop trumping liberty and the pursuit of happiness in favor of life, and let the individual and society figure out the correct balance of these Creator-endowed freedoms in our individual lives.

Joe Lenhoff

Colorado Springs