To BC

You do give a lot of food for thought; and the question is whether the end achievement was legal and ethical. The question of legality; BF has a city attorney; and as a BF resident I would hope he would be aware of legalities. The question of ethics. WW mentioned there is a hearing this week on the ballot issue. If you had read all the posts; BBW said that the repeal issue is to add to the ballot that if this group wins and BF looses county status; then BF will ask that the state reimburse BF for the expenses of becoming a county. So far those expenses for buildings are just over 23 million dollars.

The consistent standard from the feasibility study to the present is that the funding would be achieved through COPS. These are Certificates of Participation; financed by private investors and paid off at horrible interest rates. If the payment cannot be made on schedule; the owners of the COPS become the owners of the properties. As late as Aug.; it was in the Enterprise that a City and County Nonprofit Building Corporation has been formed to sell 23 million in COPS; that the renovation of Garden Center will be partially financed by the use of Community Development Grants from the federal government (Sept 25 Enterprise), and that the operating costs of the city court system (approximately $328,000) will be reimbursed by the state.

As we are dealing with private investors, the federal government, and the state government as stated from BF city officials; so far what costs could the BF group be asking for from the state. Is it legal? Yes. Is it an ethical question to put to state voters? You decide.

By Br Anonymous

High 5s to Br. Anon & WW

Beautiful responses guys.

I do envision the State denying BFs appeal & we proceed to the State Supreme Court. Or, could they possibly have the nerve to take it that far?

I would be supremely embarrassed if I were in their shoes. Can't really publish one direction and then speak against it at a later date, now can you?

By Ann

More comments for BC

I couldn't help but notice a constant theme in your posting of "What's in it for us"?

My God, if any of us thought about this issue in those terms, we would NOT be putting in the copious amounts of time and energy that we are.

Trust us... the pay sucks.

However, the loftier 'reward' of righting a wrong, and I'll pause while you roll your eyes...............

.... of doing something that improves our entire community, our state, our world. This is why we are pursuing the issue. You say Broomfield is not 'our' community? Should imaginery borders mean we turn a blind eye to injustice?

If the world operated on that premise, as well as "What's in it for me", this world would be in a horrid state.

The jail is a done deal. They are breaking ground, creating the burms, yada, yada, yada.

You all just keep harping on the jail.

Oh, one more thing. Why aren't Broomfield residents up in arms over the issue. While it is true many citizens turn a blind eye, a fair number have not. They fear retribution from their own government for speaking out. Rolling your eyes again? Well, suffice it to say, the Broomfield folks who have pointed out the 'wrongs' have NOT led us down a false path. They speak the truth which is verified.

I suppose BC, when this is all said & done, that you'll see the light, and be thankful that sometimes, people put forth the effort to effect positive change & don't sit around whining "What's in it for me?"

By Ann

The beginning of the process...

Great expression WW. Perhaps I can enlighten both you and BC as to the first questionable act on the ballot question; should the city of BF become a county.

Both the state and BF voters were given this question on the 98 ballot; and as has been stated; over 60% of the voters said yes. BF was given county status.

What was the beginning process; a vote by BF citizens to approve the cost of a feasibility study. If you read BBW's notes; this was an advisory question; not my words, BBW. Yes, an advisory question. If you read further on question of whether this was a vote for an advisory question or a county; BBW explains that the council felt the vote for the advisory question was good enough to take to State Assembly as a vote for a county. The excuse he uses are time constraints. This was an assumption on council's part. FOR 15 months we (BF residents) waited to hear the results of an advisory question; the answers from council: silence.

Why do I bring this up? To the state assembly and the state voters; BF consistently stated we voted twice for the county: in 96 (the advisory question) and again in 98 (a telephone survey of 300 people out of 34000). WE NEVER VOTED FOR A COUNTY.

Was this illegal? No. Was it ethical; if you believe in assumptions; not facts. If you were to take an assumption and put it to the entire state as a fact, supported by a survey of less than 1% of the community; and present this as a fact..failing to mention to the State Assembly that it is a telephone vote..again, your call to what is ethical.

For BC, the representatives of BF at the State Assembly were two councilman, the mayor, and the city attorney. They introduced themselves with their perspective titles and then said they were there as "Private Citizens". These members are in the same group of people who decided to use the advisory question as a vote for the county. Ethical?

By To WW and BC