Letters to the Editor
Some Background On TPP
Dave Felice’s September City Matters column about Flobots raging against the TPP highlighted the creative efforts being made to counter the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. But what is its background and how will it affect us?
The TPP was negotiated in secret but with significant corporate input and some from civil society. Members of congress, however, were denied access to the documents for years. When the drafts were made available, members had to go to a secure site to read them and were not allowed to take notes. This is in contradiction to Art. I, Sect. 1.8 of the Constitution, “The Congress shall have the Power … to regulate Commerce with other Nations…”
The TPP goes well beyond the provisions of previous trade agreements. Among its more onerous provisions:
• Each signatory government would have to conform its domestic policies to the TPP’s terms.
• The “Investor-State Dispute Resolution” mechanism would allow corporations to demand compensation for loss of “expected future profits” and bypass domestic courts. (More than $440 million has been paid to corporations under NAFTA-style deals.)
• Companies would have special rights and protections to offshore investments and jobs.
• The import of meat, fish and poultry not in compliance with U.S. safety standards would be allowed, and food labels could be considered “trade barriers.”
• Drug firms could challenge medicine pricing for Medicaid, Medicare, and the Veterans Administration.
• New Wall Street regulations would probably be rolled back and bans on risky financial products prohibited.
• Internet Service Providers would be required to “police” user-activity and cut people’s access, thereby jeopardizing internet freedom.
President Obama wants the TPP passed in the lame-duck session. An educated public must deny him this legacy.
Harriet Mullaney, Park Hill
Harriet Mullaney is a member of the Denver Justice & Peace Committee and former member of its advocacy committee.
Flobots Should Rally For TPP
I read Dave Felice’s column condemning the Trans-Pacific Partnership with awe. The band is a great example of exactly why the TPP should be approved by Congress.
The column never does summarize the document buts huffs about secret deals. Go to www.ustr.gov and read the actual text for yourself. See how many of the 30 TPP chapters would actually benefit the Flobots.
Flobot music? That intellectual property is better protected under TPP. Flobot Pacific Rim tours? TPP makes it easier, faster and cheaper to get concert equipment through customs. Flobot name, logo, web site design? All are recognized as proprietary under TPP.
Park Hill small businesses have a safer shot at doing business under TPP too. Banking will be easier. Data transmission will be protected. And products like microbrews will see more efficient and cheaper customs approval. Heck, I’m a small Park Hill-based business owner that does work in Vietnam and Japan, two TPP countries. I see how TPP will make it easier for me to make money and get paid.
Is TPP an immediate panacea? Hardly. How well or quickly it is implemented will make all the difference. But approving TPP should not be a question. It’s really in the best interest of the Flobots, Park Hill and the U.S.
You devoted 25 paragraphs to this column. You must consider it a major neighborhood issue. As such, I am happy to be one half of a Greater Park Hill News-sponsored public debate. Keep it in mind.
Kip Cheroutes, Park Hill
Don’t Let Corporate Execs Rule
I have joined with other activists to protest the TPP (TransPacific Partnership) for nearly three years now. I consider it the most damaging piece of legislation to be foisted on the American public in decades.
The damage it would do to every sector of our national economy and our freedom is so great that it had to be kept secret for several years. The 600 multinational corporations who wrote it still want us to remain ignorant of its dangers. As Jonny Rabbit of the Flobots said, in last month’s Greater Park Hill News, “An uninformed electorate can be duped. A disengaged electorate can be ignored. But an engaged, informed electorate can determine the path that its leaders must take.”
We are informed now and find it incomprehensible that any elected representative would have such an indifference for the nation and its people that they would hesitate to oppose it (you can find all the information you need at Flushthetpp.org). Briefly, it would allow corporations to violate all our laws that don’t promote their profits. Then they could sue us for even having them under a process called Investor-State Dispute Settlement. Since the tribunal that makes the decisions would be composed of corporate execs, they will and do rule against countries with no recourse to a higher court.
Yet, after many demonstrations, petitions, letters of opposition, hundreds of scholarly articles, global resistance and the petitions that Rock Against the TPP concert attendees hand delivered, Reps. DeGette, Perlmutter, and Polis claim to be undecided as to their decision should the TPP come up for a vote. Call them and tell them to announce their opposition to the TPP, or be opposed by their constituents.
Laura Avant, Park Hill
Don’t Get Steamrolled
I am writing in concern of the proposed Historic Landmark Designation of my home and 700 other homes in Park Hill (see past GPHN coverage of this issue over the past several months at greaterparkhill.org). I have been a resident of Park Hill since 1979. My present home is my third home in Park Hill.
I don’t understand why another, more cumbersome, layer of bureaucracy needs to be added when planning for any changes to the exterior and or yard of my home (windows, doors to the outside, the list is long). Do we not already have zoning laws in Denver? Isn’t Park Hill already a historic neighborhood?
The process for the Landmark designation seems tilted to the pro-Landmark side. My understanding is that three people who live in the affected area was all it took to apply for the designation. Stopping this march to increasing the burden put on the individual homeowner in adding or improving his property will take a lot more effort and be more costly if this area is landmarked. It is expensive enough to make home improvements without having a commission determine what building materials must be used.
I hope that neighbors in the affected area don’t get steamrolled on this issue like we were on the City Park drainage issue.
Tony George, Park Hill
Don’t Legislate Taste
I have lived in Park Hill for 44 years in four different homes. Three of the four are located within the proposed Landmark Historic District boundaries, including the home in which I currently live.
I am opposed to the historic designation for several reasons, the first being that I believe the current zoning code is adequate to preserve the neighborhood as I know it and placing my home within a historic district will restrict my property rights.
We have made modifications to each of the homes we have owned, most of which would have not been permitted if my homes had been within a historically designated neighborhood. We believe that the improvements we made are tasteful, but that is our opinion. Others may not agree.
It is my belief that those who want to designate my part of the neighborhood a historic district are trying to legislate taste. What I find tasteful may not be tasteful to my neighbor and vice-versa. Additionally, I am not in favor of adding another layer of bureaucracy to the process of making renovations.
The persons making the decisions about what is or is not acceptable consist of nine people who are appointed, not elected. The residents can make their preferences known, but really have no say. If the petition is approved by the Landmark Commission, City Council will make the decision, not the people who live within the boundaries. This is not my idea of democracy.
The typical “starter home” is now upwards of 1,600 square feet plus a basement and at least two baths. Many of the homes in Park Hill do not meet this standard. If we want younger people, with or without children, to move into this neighborhood, they are going to have to be able to make changes to their homes that will be to their liking.
If the cost of making these changes is increased because they have to meet certain additional “historical” standards, they will either choose different neighborhoods, or will move to a part of the neighborhood that is not part of the historic district.
Judy Wolfe, Park Hill
Editor’s Note: We love your letters, and give preference to those that address an issue that has been covered in the newspaper, or a topic that is Park Hill or Denver-specific. Please keep letters to 300 words or less, and send them to editor@greaterparkhill.org. Include your full name, and the neighborhood in which you live. Deadlines are the 15th of each month, for the following month’s issue. All past issues can be read at greaterparkhill.org.