To BBW

First; I never called you a social suck; I said my guess is that maybe you are a social suck; it is not a direct accusation; second, I suggested you now may be meeting in dark, secret smoke-filled rooms; did not say that you were; and third, I never denied the progress of the community.

However; it is rather pitiful that Ward one and two have to form a special committee to receive attention from the council on neighborhood needs. And I will be sold on the idea that special attention is not being given to Interlocken. No where, have I ever stated that Broomfield is not a progressive community.

My copy of the vision, dated August 1994; shows a total of 28 members on the Task force; six of which are or have served as council members; one a wife of a council member; three from one family, two from another family, and a city employee (now deceased) and two facilitators. The board of directors is one council person and his wife (same as noted above); the chief of police, two members from the same family (same as noted above); the wife of a prominent city employee,the city employee who is now deceased, and a total of 12 members; six of who held dual positions on the board and task force.
Thus far we have 34 people who worked on the vision; and said a city/county should be a consideration. Of this; six were councilmemers; one a wife of the council member; three were direct employees of the city; and one the wife of a prominent city employee.

On the Master plan we have all the council and the mayor, plus 10 citizens; the strategic plan; 5 councilpersons and the mayor and 5 citizens. In total out of 65 positions; 27 were held by council, the mayor, spouses, and city employees.

The point in looking this up: Because so many of the same people served on these committees; could there have been room for bias; I am not saying there was bias; I am raising the possibility. I have nothing against the persons who served; the make-up of the committees; each ward had at least one representative; and prominent groups within the community were represented. I appreciate the council and mayor involvement; I feel it is important as a community working toward growth.

I bring this forward for one reason: the master plan had 35 community meetings; the straategic plan had 6, I do not know the number on the vision; but I do remember attending one; the feasibility study had NONE. And the cost to the citizens has never been greater. The impact of the feasibility study affects every household in BF; the decisions to use private financing through COPS has left out the community spirit; and not one meeting involved citizens. Period.

Go back to the Master plan; it is a beautiful plan. Read the section on the Town Center; tell me if this is the town center we see now. Read the section on open space; tell me where it has been protected. For heaven's sake, we are still fighting to keep the field. Look at 112; that area is now an office complex; look at Boulder county; that has been eliminated from our boundaries because of the county (save reminding me of the falsehood that it looks good on the map; it will not be part of BF when the county forms and we loose the priveleges to all Boulder county open space areas afforded to us now), you have the imformation I won't name all the areas here; where is the standard being met on lot sizes (not in the Broadlands!); where is one village center as envisioned by Calthorpe?



By Br Anonymous

To BBW... cont

I could have this discussion with you for hours, I am certain you have enough experience to understand what I am saying. With the energy, dedication, and time devoted to creating the vision, the master plan, and the strategic plan, I truly believed our council was dedicated to adhering to the standards. The standards have been changed, compromised, and re-written for individual cases too often for any of these three vital works of our history and future to be totally meaningful. Council lost the details as a reference point; and statyed in generalities.

I suspect you are a council member or one of the volunteers who worked on some or all of these works. I talke nothing away from the thousands of hours that council and volunteers put into the creation and adoption of the these documents. Just follow them. This was my motivation for supporting council in the past; and will support council in the future.

I willfully disagree wit the council on the presentation and communication of the feasibility studies.

No matter who, how, or when it was done, there were so few citizens involved in the intitial request for it; we deserved the integrity of public meetings; we deserved the right to establish our voice; accept, reject, or add new input, we deserved the right to establish our ovice in a separate vote from the state (Why was this excluded from the ballot proposal after it was offered by the Secretary of State--group meetings could have been held, this could have been a community question only, and it would still have made ballot when you wanted it); we deserve the right to discuss costs and form into groups at round tables..just as wer were given this opportunity for the vision, master plan, and strategic plan. We could have chosen citizens; not council and city employees acting as "private citizens" to represent us at state.

With only 41 citizens (a few in dual positions) making the decision historically, where is the citizen vote. Follow your own history foever emblazed in print; this was always a vote for a study in 96.

Yeah, BBW, from my standpoint, this was "under the table". If not, allow CVLEG to go forward with the ballot; free of the appeal process; it really a questionable move which shows to me that you are hiding something. If you feel everything was up and up; then why are you so visibly worried about CVLEG. Because you are working hard to discredit their efforts on this board; my question is "why". I really don't care about a group forming in BF to challenge them; as long it is not mostly council members.
(Personally, from a city who is trying to run without multiple layers of government, why in the world are we reading about Owens involved and encouraging other governments to become involved). The council of BF was elected to be the voice OF the citizens; not the voice FOR the citizens. There is a difference; and every platform over the years has claimed this. First filing has been jerked in the past few years; you have to admit at least that.

By Br anonymous

To Br. Anonymous

I honestly believe Broomfield is on its way of becoming the very best city in Colorado. I know the Broomfield city council members. They are fine people of the highest integrity and they are totally ethical. None of them have anything to hide regarding anything. I find it despicable for anyone to imply otherwise.
You keep asserting that there were not enough public meetings on the city and county possiblility before it was placed on the statewide ballot. You seem to think that the Broomfield advisory election was not enough and only asked if the city/county idea should be studied. That is your opinion. My opinion is that the advisory election said if it appeared feasible for Broomfield to become a city and county, then Broomfield should proceed, including placing the question on the statewide ballot. The Broomfield city council was acting consistent with the results of the Broomfield advisory election. And, Broomfield Citizens for Better Local Government also acted consistent with the results of the advisory election. The citizens' group were planning to go out and obtain the necessary signatures to have the matter placed on the statewide ballot. An offer was made by state senators and state representatives to have the General Assembly place the matter on the statewide ballot. The latter approach was less costly and less time consuming. As a result, the Broomfield citizens group asked the General Assembly to place the matter on the statewide ballot which was done. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I would give credence to some of your points if the statewide election results in Broomfield were not in favor of the city and county. Such was not the case. As I said, Broomfield voters approved the amendment by a 62% majority. As far as I'm concerned, Broomfield voters have said what they wanted. I see CVELG attempting to interfere with all of this for petty reasons that have no merit whatsoever. In my opinion, Broomfield's elected and appointed officials are highly ethical and do not deserve the type of trash being spewed by CVELG.


By B ig Bad Wolf

#2 To Br. Anonymous

You have made the statement on this site that Broomfield citizens are no longer actively involved in their local government. Again, I stronly disagree with you. I checked with the Broomfield city clerk's office. Broomfield has the following citizen advisory boards and commissions: (1)Land Use Review Commission; (2) Zoning Board of Adjustment; (3) Building and Construction Review Board; (4) Library Board; (5) Personnel Merit Commission; (6) Liquor Licensing Authority; (7) Open Space Advisory Committee; (8) Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee; (9) Cemetery Committee; (10)Broomfield Schools Task Force; (11) Transportation Advisory Committee. Many Broomfield citizens serve on the boards and commissions and do so on a voluntary basis with no pay. How you can say that there is no citizen involvement in Broomfield's city government is inconsistent with reality.
The city clerk's office advised that when city council advertises for vacancies on these boards and commissions, there are typically more applicants than positions to be filled. And, by the way, these are outstanding people.


By Big Bad Wolf