Open forum

Fairview

Time for change is now

Moving to End Sexual Assault (MESA) is in full support of the Fairview High School students who are challenging rape culture and who want to build a culture of consent. The phrase “boys will be boys” is an excuse used to permit and facilitate rape culture. Rape culture is more than physical sexual violence; rape culture is a culture where sexist jokes are the norm, a place where sexual violence is allowed, unchecked, and a space where people are not held accountable for their actions.

There is nothing manly about putting down women or making them feel unsafe. Masculinity is having the strength, the courage, and the integrity to stand up to your peers, and to speak out against misogyny, rape culture, and sexual violence.

MESA believes survivors, and we believe that Fairview has the capability to change the culture of their school and provide support to their students. MESA offers anonymous support is available through MESA’S hotline at 303-443-7300, or through texting BRAVE to 20121.

The time for change is now.

RAYMOND GARCIA

Texas abortion law

A draconian piece of legislation

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has upheld one of the most restrictive abortion bills authored by the legislature in Texas and signed by Texas Gov. Abbott. The Party of Trump (formerly known as Republican) have been masters at framing this as abortion rights when the real issue is truly a woman’s right to choose.

There is a dramatic difference between the two with one supported by the conservative/evangelical right and the other by women across the country demanding control over their own bodies. The fact that

73% of the Texas legislators are male explains a lot in passing this draconian piece of legislation. With this legislation would it be asking too much that the border wall being built between Mexico and the U.S. be modified to incorporate the entire state of Texas to enclose these Neanderthals?

As an aside and mentioning the border wall, has the U.S. government gotten any reimbursement from Mexico for construction of the wall? Asking for a friend but Mr. Trump did insist they would pay.

RC LLOYD

Bedrooms

A vote for stability

One measure on this November’s ballot, Bedrooms Are For People (BAFP), will make it legal for one person to live in each bedroom of a home, plus one. As Boulder housing prices soar and the pandemic continues, voting yes is a small, concrete step we can take to provide housing security for more of our neighbors.

Under Boulder’s current maximum of three unrelated adults per home in most of the city, our average household size is about 2.2 people. These limits do not apply to related adults, and apply no matter how big the home is. Portland, Oregon allows up to six unrelated adults to share a home, and the average household size there is about 2.4. In Seattle, those numbers are eight unrelated adults and an average household size of about 2.1.

These and many other examples illustrate that higher occupancy limits do not lead to an increase in average household

To Write the Forum

The Camera welcomes readers’ letters. Timely topics of local interest are given first preference. All letters are subject to editing. Our guidelines:

• Maximum length for letters is 300 words. Maximum length for guest opinions is 700 words

• Name, full address and daytime phone required

• No anonymous or “open” letters

• No name-calling or ad hominem attacks

• Each writer limited to one letter or guest size. Instead, higher occupancy limits provide security — having your name on the lease removes the threat of arbitrary evictions, and the ability to buy a home with chosen family makes home ownership accessible to more people. These things are especially critical now, when the people who are most affected by the economic uncertainty of the pandemic are also the most likely to be living in housing situations that currently qualify as over-occupied.

Opponents of BAFP are stoking fears of drastic change, but those fears are unfounded. As other cities have shown, we can provide housing security for more people during this unprecedented time and make our community more resilient and inclusive without meaningfully increasing average household size.

RACHEL VECCHITTO

CU South

Benefits versus costs

Look at the authors of the letters to the Camera on CU South, and you’ll quickly see the pattern. Almost all in favor are either from the city’s weak negotiating team who have let CU run roughshod, or people who benefit directly from the weak flood mitigation in the proposal: 2,300 residents of Frasier Meadows.

The reasons for this are clear: the city can’t acknowledge their own ineffective negotiating skills, so they have dug in their heels on a terrible bargain. The Frasier Meadows folks get all the benefits while the rest of us are getting sold out. This has nothing to do with NIMBY; This deal is ABIMBY – ACRAPY: All the Benefits in My Backyard – All the Crap in Yours.

It’s not complicated: flood protection for Frasier Meadows has driven the annexation from the start. No one denies that. And here’s the trade-off for the surprisingly weak protection in the draft agreement (100-year flood protection in the era of Megastorms, which is barely 30% protection based on the city’s own 2013 flood analysis): 7,000 more pollution-spewing vehicles on already-gridlocked South Boulder throughways, a 3,000-seat sports stadium, 750,000 square feet of classroomand-office space, a meager 5 acres out of 308 for affordable housing, and no enrollment cap at CU to guarantee any real reduction in our affordable housing deficit — along with about a 2/3 reduction of precious open spaces at the gateway to the city.

In a nutshell, it’s all the benefits in the backyard of Frasier Meadows, and all the crap everywhere else. Everyone will be impacted by this backwards deal that’s guaranteed to exacerbate already serious climate woes though much better alternatives abound. It’s ABIMBY – ACRAPY through and through. Contact Council@bouldercolorado.gov and tell them to toss this inequitable deal.

Editorial cartoon

Dogs shouldn’t pee on our president

IDEBRA BIASCA am shocked and disgusted by your choice to publish Aug. 27 the shockingly disrespectful and gross cartoon of dogs walking away from having just peed on our president’s feet the day after the slaughter of 13 U.S. servicemen and scores of Afghans at the Kabul Airport. You could disagree with Biden’s choice to end our 20year engagement in Afghanistan without being so cruelly insulting to our commander-in-chief. Shame on you.

CARA ANDERSON opinion in any rolling 30-day period

• Submissions must be sent by email. Attachments are discouraged. PDF attachments are strongly discouraged. Write or paste your letter directly into the email window

To reach us:

• Send letters and guest opinions to openforum@dailycamera.com

• Call the editorial department at 303-473-1354

• Send questions to Julie Marshall at jmarshall@dailycamera.com