This is the only statement which we can make related to a post from Jason in a private group on Facebook. There is no “context” to be parsed or question to be asked by what he meant with his post. What he thinks about a good percentage of the population of Grand Junction and how he views many businesses cannot be taken in error.
The statement made by Jason Nguyen shows he despises and desires the economic ruination of many of the constituents he claims to represent. And if the members of the Grand Junction City Council, especially Jason’s two like-minded cohorts Anna Stout and Scott Beilfuss, don’t denounce his statement above and beyond the meaningless phrase “in the strongest possible terms” and call for his immediate resignation, then they should resign along with Jason.
Because there is no way any elected official could support the following statement which appeared on the wall of a Facebook group named the Grand Valley Streets Alliance and stay and serve in their elected office while claiming to represent all the people.
Jason’s statement:
“I think a list of businesses that came out strongly against this project is warranted. I’d suggest anyone who cares about safety not spend money at these places.”
Respondents to Jason’s post went as far as saying the City Council should supply members with a list of the businesses who spoke up at council meetings against the Fourth and Fifth Streets pilot project. If we had to guess, they’d also want the names of anyone who answered a survey or wrote emails or letters to council against the project.
What’s next Jason, mandated signs in their business windows or patches on the clothing of those against your, and our previous left-leaning gang of five on city council, pet projects?
It appears from the responses on this Facebook group’s page, the cycle-shorts brigade is ready to roll into action – even demanding it. We imagine it a tight-knit group in more ways than one.
Barely a week ago our publisher, Craig Hall, appeared on a local vlog – Mesa County Compass, which would now be boycotted if Jason and the skin-tights had their way – and said the following about the (outgoing majority) gang of five on council who hastily voted to spend nearly a quarter of a million dollars for a project that should have been passed on to the newly-elected council for its direction: “I think these five members want to do what they want to do, when they want to do it, and with whoever they want to do it with.”
And when they are told no, it appears the inner narcissist comes out with a vengeance.
Jason’s statement on Facebook proves this to be true in the way he, and one could surmise they, wanted to govern: As authoritarians under the guise of consensus.
Being elected doesn’t give anyone the right to do whatever they want. Nor does winning an election give anyone the power to retaliate against citizens who disagree with them as the people exercise their First Amendment rights. The redress of government is guaranteed in our Constitution. Yes, even against little dictators in Western Colorado.
There is no room on the Grand Junction City Council – or any government entity at any level, although we sure seem to elect a bunch of them every November – for petty, vindictive, anti-citizen, know-it-all, zealots.
Jason said as much about you and us and our friends, families and fortunes when he said actions against us are “warranted.” As history shows, retaliation-based, warranted actions by the government never turn out well for most citizens. Labeling those against the pilot program “anti-safety” is just another way to do it.
As we see it, two things are warranted by Jason’s post: His resignation forthwith and our taking the screenshot of his post to the district attorney to see if any legal actions against Jason are “warranted.”
Originally published in The Business Times and reprinted here in full.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.