|
|
to BBW
What is so great about our process is taking issues such as this to the people. (Blows your "great leadership" ideals all to hell, eh?)
Your position is Broomfield elected officials were acting as ordinary citizens. But we all know they were not just ordinary citizens. They hold special power and responsibility being elected officials and duty bound.
The fact remains citizen groups are not bound by law to hold public debate. Your compatriates are just chompin at the bit to cut CVELG and their efforts off at the knees. You continue to push for information.
The time for debate before the public is just before the November 2000 election. In the meantime, CVELG will continue to ask Colorado voters to review the county formation.
By the way: We find your insistence now that our involvement is inappropriate, when the county formation was taken before the entire state. Why? What is wrong with giving the voters a more informed look at the issue?
And, what citizen led group in Broomfield will fight the repeal effort? Or can we look forward to Broomfield elected officials leading the charge again?
By CCACCC
|
|
|
|
|
|
To CCACCC
Seems to me you are applying a double standard again. It's okay for CVELG to lead an initiated effort, but it's not okay for Broomfield citizens. You are also ovelooking the fact that not only were Broomfield elected officials involved, so were Broomfield citizens. It seems that you have a very narrow view of what elected officials are supposed to do and not supposed to do. I commend them for standing up for what they believe and for being highly visible while doing so. That is true leadership. Say what you want, but the fact is at the statewide election Broomfield voters voted 62% in favor of the city/county. Broomfield voters are very informed. You are attempting to work against the will of Broomfield's voters. Why? For petty, parochial reasons.
Leadership? I'll match Broomfield's leadership against that of any other area city, including wherever you live. Broomfield is a progressive city with a tremendous future and great citizens.
By BBW
|
|
|
To Br. Anon.
Broomfield's leaders did not try to stop CVELG's petition process. The city manager believed that the proposed ballot title did not adequately address the financial impacts involved. After the title setting board amended the ballot title and summary consistent with his requests, the appeal was dropped. There was no appeal to the supreme court.
From what I see, Broomfield is doing very well financially, far better than most area cities. The point regarding county facilities - jail and courts - is that these facilities are mandated by state law. If the city/county amendment is repealed, should Broomfield be reimbursed for the cost of these state mandated facilities? That's the question.
I think you know I don't condone a heckle approach. I am opposed to what CVELG is doing because it is contrary to the expressed will of Broomfield's voters. It is interesting that CACCC - whoever that is - has no real understanding of Broomfield and its voters. While you and I may disagree about the city/county matter, we know that Broomfield has a strong citizenry. Only time will tell what they will do regarding CVELG. As some on this board say, maybe they will do nothing. Then, again, maybe they will.
No, I don't expect CVELG to hold public hearings. The point I was trying to make is that CACCC is using a double standard: what CVELG is doing is okay, but it's not okay for Broomfield citizens to do the same thing. Why not? Because Broomfield's elected officials were involved. I strongly disagree with this diatribe. Broomfield's elected officials stood up for what they believe. They were highly visible in doing so. They were there for the world to see and to challenge. To me, that is leadership and it is also courage. They have my admiration and respect.
Worry is not what my position is about. It's that CVELG is working against the will of the Broomfield people. I will fight against that. Somebody on this board asked if I would like to cut-off CVELG at the knees. The answer is yes. I think what CVELG is doing is petty and very wrong.
By BBW
|
|
|
To BWW
We are definitely at odds; but I challenge you to answer this question.
The end of March,1998, headlines in the Enterprise "Action group pushes for new county--City leaders launch campaign to put measure on the statewide ballot". During the meeting at the municipal center each city council member promised to find at least 20 people interested in forming the new county. THe name of group was chosen to be CBLG.
As for attending council meetings 1996-Feb 1998. Only the council knew that the feasibility study was complete..the citizens were waiting for input from the council; why go if nothing is ready. After all, the ballot question did read: "Question 2A- City and County Adisory Question,": Shall the City of Broomfield consider placing a question on the statewide general election ballot tht awould amend the Colorado Constitution to authorize the creation of a city and country."
Borrowing from one of your favorite resources of information, in the August 27 council minutes; Roy advised "this is an advisory question only, and would not obligate the City to action." As a matter of fact special care was taken in deciding the wording; "of Broomfield" was deleted after "City and County"; "seek to place" was replaced with "consider placing".
This was well-publicized; no obligation-- a question only; no action to be taken without further input from open forums with the citizens. We said do the study; and get back to us.
BBW, even you admitted it was an assumption on the council''s part that this could be used as a vote for the county. Why the hurry; my research shows both Mayor Berens and Interlocken involved. How about resolving the issue of the Northwest Parkway?
Look at the financial price we are paying in terms of interest rates for a stupid road to increase Interlocken''s value. And I am not forgetting this is to relieve traffic at the interchange. Will BF residents be given free passes at the toll booth; or is this another way to take money from BF citizens. When the NW was planned, there were to be no exits into neighborhoods; now there are at almost every road! Free passes; or more money to increase Interlocken''s property.
What is the truth? A city government bought and cowering to the needs of Interlocken regardless of the interest rate paybacks and toll roads; or a citizen driven initiative; without the city government as the organizers?
By Br Anonymous
|
