To BWW..

I stand corrected on the Boulder County Open Space access for Broomfield Citizens. Thank you. On th subject of this land area; why is it remaining on our Master Plan; when it is not in the city/county limits? This is definitely questionable. Our cost is 6.2 million dollars to be repaid to Boulder County; all part of the package. AND, an additional cost for becoming a county!!! Is this one of the additional costs we are in court for today; is the cost to Adams County District 12 of 5.2 million part of the costs being asked for at state today?

These two issues are not funded by COPS, Block Grants, or state support. Broomfield created this mess to earn votes.

Do I have a problem with BF council being private citizens; only once. When they took the issue of the county to the State Assembly on the ASSUMPTION they could use a NON-BINDING ADVISORY QUESTION as a vote for the county; and keep the public out of the process. Look at the unanticipated expenses; 11.2 million dollars in the above paragraph. Would non-biased citizens have questioned this without further information from the community. You bet. If the passion to become a county was as great as the assumption on the part of the council and city staff; then why not inform the citizens; have public meetings and include several million dollars for emergencies. Or was there a question about the real passion; and this passion obsessed the council into believing they were invincible. You see, money talks, and if there had been such passion in the community; MONEY WOULD NOT BE THE ISSUE OF THIS REPEAL TODAY. After the fact is seldom effective. What we are witnessing from our staff is AN ATTEMPT TO FURTHER DEFRAUD THE ETHIICAL STANDARDS expected of all people in any profession. ONE DECEPTION LEADS TO ANOTHER.

By Br Anonymous

To CCACCC

I agree, bBW does not want the question; if the first feasibility study convinced the council this was affordable; then why the second? Why wasn't it made public. Why did the entire question lay dormant for fifteen months; and then a rush to judgement.

From what I can see the council never formally accepted the study; never voted on the second study; yet directed the city staff to prepare a referendum to take to State Assembly; with time as the driving force. Less than 3 weeks after 15 months. Why? What factor(s) prompted this need for immediate response from the state (no citizens needed).

BBW is challenged with AN ETHICAL QUESTION HERE: you see; this is the first example where LEGAL IS NOT AN INTERCHANGEABLE TERM WITH ETHICAL. THIS TEMINOLOGY IS OFTEN COMFUSED IN THE PUBLIC'S EYE AS HAVING DUAL MEANING.

By br Anonymous

To Margaret

Welcome aboard. I wish to share with you that the same reasons (safety, security, etc) that BF council choose this site for the jail are the same reasons you acknowledge for opposing the citizens of Countryside.

All the studies point to these are unfounded concerns; yet BF did not want to disturb the neighborhoods of their own community; their effort was to protect the citizens. Personally, the jail site most acceptable to me was next to the municipal center where the court system will be. Of course, no one involved with community policy was interested.

I ask you, what is the difference; other than address, between a community of Westminster and a community of Broomfield?

By BR Anonymous

To Tony

One message and you leave the board. You have more to offer than that. Your viewpoint is valued; share some more with us.

By Br Anonymous