HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051239.tiff Page 1 of 2
Carol Harding
From: Myrna Folsom [myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com] 'ry ti ni 4 I
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:26 AM
r,
To: Carol Harding RE !
Cc: Kim Ogle; Monica Mika; stven cutis; michael simone; michael simone
Subject: visions
4/13/05
To: Weld Board of County Commissioners
Dear Commissioners:
The Boards of Weld and Boulder Counties are to be commended for consulting with each for
cooperating for and coordinating the future of their respective counties. It is hard to imagine more
diametrically opposite views for the futures of their counties. On the one hand, Boulder County
government having the vision of retaining some of its historical character along with planning for
growth coordinated with the supply of supportive services, giving priority to the best interests of the
residents of the county, and rightfully leaving growth decisions to its municipalities. On the other hand,
Weld County government, particularly in the MUD district, has no regard for the retention of its
historical character and gives priority to the best interests of individual landowners and developers,
interfering with the growth plans of its municipalities.
What follows are some reactions to some comments of Weld Board members at this meeting, taken from
a report in the Daily Times-Call. It is understood that these comments may have been taken out of
context and media does not always accurately report the intent of comments it quotes.
1. Commissioner Vaad's commented that job growth in Boulder County and cheaper housing in
Weld County has resulted in some creation of residential urban sprawl in parts of Weld County.
Also, ultimately, residential construction has a negative fiscal impact on paying for the provision
of services.But, it is also true that there are other outlets for residential construction in Boulder
County in the municipalities of Lafayette, Louisville, Erie, Superior, Longmont and in Broomfield
County. Most important, by permitting increases in size and residential development in the MUD
district, county government continues to abet this urban sprawl in Weld county.
2. Commisioner Vaad's comment, that by shutting off development in Weld County, as a result of
development in Morgan County residents will traverse Weld County, needs a little examination.
To get to Boulder, this traffic would probably take I-76 [which is supported by state and federal
taxes] and Hwy.7 [which is not in Weld County] as the most economical timewise and costwise
route to the Boulder area. Secondly, it's hard to imagine much commuting from Boulder County
employment centers to Morgan county because of the distance, time involved and commuting
costs.
3. Commisioner Geile's comments relating to the failure of the 2000 open space tax also needs a
little examination. The ballot issue was voted on by all the residents of Weld County including
those in the rangeland in northern and eastern parts of the county where there is no need for
preservation of open space and the residents of Greeley who had just turned down a municipal
open space proposal. If the proposal for an open space tax were restricted to southwest Weld
County,where the preservation of open space is most needed, by the formation of a taxing district,
it would have a good chance of being approved by the voters in the district. This would answer the
comment that "Weld County officials said they support the protection of farmland and open space,
when the people have the money to buy it."
Two conclusions might be made answering the comments of the Commissioners: [a] Expansion
greet}
2
4/14/2005 005-1239
Page 2 of 2
of and development in the MUD district under county auspices should cease to prevent
additional urban sprawl, and [b] The Commissioners should put another ballot issue to the
voters, based on the above comments, for a sales tax for the acquisition by purchase or
conservation easement of open space in south west Weld County.
John Folsom
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business -Try our new resources site!
4/14/2005
Hello