Country Side HOA

to bbw

i'm curious if you saw the post directed at you in the last board, to big bad who?? This guy is great!!

By Cheryl

TO BBW

Plese, BBW, another identity.

I have to admit; that I first I regarded you as manipulative person who wanted to infiltrate this group; degrade their efforts with derogatory slurs; and seek the end result of having them repeal the initiative. Personally, this was repulsive to me; and I wanted to put signs up in front of your house (who knows, we could be neighbors!!); screaming in America we are previliged to have free speech.

Now that you have given me a different perspective; I have actually gained respect for your views. Again; you and are respectively disagree; but are moving forward without the "waste-products".

I wish to thank you for two things; first responding in a fair manner; secondly; acknowledging through your silence that the comments of Berens and
Stovall may have fallen out of the realm of "ethical" as we understand it on this board.

BBW, the vote taken in 96 was a "NON-BINDING VOTE." The CC was under no obligation to participate in this vote. The vote was a response to an ADVISORY QUESTION; not an affirmative vote for a city. If you choose to read the wording as a go-ahead for the council to act; your choice.

You still have two questions to answer. Why was the first feasibility study (August 20,1996) NOT presented to the public; Why was the second feasibility study (presented Feb 21, 1998) NOT Presented to the public; one as being asked for; two when it was completed. The best direction that the council could give to us; considering the fact they had already directed city staff to prepare for State presentation; was go to the library and get the feasibility study.

As for the meeting count....this is a stretch and you know it. There were minutes taken at the vision, master planning, strategic planning meetings and these are public record. As for the ward meetings; those directly called for the purpose of working as volunteers in forming the county (AFTER THE ISSUE HAD BEEN APPROVED BY STATE ASSEMBLY); the attendance at all of them ran from 0-5 (not including the council members). Was this not the council's first sign of apathy in the city; or on my behalf, betrayal?
CBLG has more participation as a group; even though 10 were council members; at least 20 citizens participated (AFTER THE ISSUE WAS APPROVED AT STATE ASSEMBLY). If you want to count all of the meetings as you stated; than you are playing with fire. I can guarantee that the time spent discussing lot sizes in a community and the design of the town center did NOT include a discusssion of BF as one county;nor did the parks and open space elements, the environemntal elements..you can fill in the elements as well as I. You try this angle; and you can be creamed. Officially, study sessions of the county are just that, study sesssions where the council is forbidden from taken formal and legally binding action by the council for the city. My challenge focuses on the actions of the council between the study session of Feb 21; the Feb. 24 directive of the council to the city staff; and the trip to the state assembly. Where was the public meeting posted in BF. Our accepted chain of communication is the Enterprise. I have never heard of a public hearing notice in one place on a consistent basis except the Enterprise.

BBW, I apologize; but, I have another issue which I have to give attention to; I will get back to you, later however. Welcome back.


By BR Anonymous

Enterprise In the News...

Check BF news on line: probably tomorrows headline after the meeting at the state. DiCero blocks petition....
BBW; this is another example of information to the citizens after the fact; the same as the feasibility study and the rush to the State Assembly. Unfair; unfair, unfair. IF the council is the voice of the people; where are the people?

By Br Anonymous

To BC

I ask that you think outside the jail issue on the following. We all agree it was the catalyst that got us involved. It was the catalyst that brought up the repeal issue. Frustration about a jail cannot sustain the energy going into this campaign.

What we have learned about the flawed process spurs us on.

In some respects, repealing Broomfield county does right a wrong. It is wrong when laws or constitutional changes are created on half truths & manipulation of our system.

The community will be better for it by uncovering & bringing to light the injustice. Our entire system of government is weakened when such shenanigans are tolerated & brushed aside.

If we are successful, and the county issue is brought forth again, by Broomfield citizens (and for the benefit of Broomfield citizens) and Broomfield citizens are allowed to vote on the real issue & not by smoke & mirrors... by deciding with ALL the information available & knowing ALL the repercussions, that would be fine.

One reason for our effort is to send a message to ALL politicians. Rules are there for a reason & citizens are watching.

I do not agree with turning a blind eye if the 'wrong' is outside of my border. That kind of thinking causes horrendous out of control wars (in the worst of cases).

Your quote: "Change the leadership -- address the problem at it's source" and "Legal action is a repercussion." Interesting avenues.



By Ann