What are the mountain landowners so upset about? The original slopes proposal, which tried to severely restrict building on slopes over 20 percent (11.3 degrees) claimed that "steep slopes are inherently dangerous."

"Inherently dangerous." The Slopes Advisory Committee, having heard from fire experts and geologists, found no inherent danger in building on slopes. What they found is the real issue is aesthetics-what the public wants and doesn't want to look at.

One of the questions on the recent poll conducted by Boulder County asks if restricting building on slopes is a good way to limit growth in the mountains.

Jana Mendez was quoted as saying that the commissioners consulted with the Sierra Club about building on slopes (a great environmental group, but hardly the experts about building on slopes).

Paul Danish said in a local TV interview that the county can no longer afford to purchase property in the mountains so they developed the Site Plan Review Process-the long, expensive and humiliating experience landowners go through when they want to build on their property.

The issue clearly is not health and safety, but of inventing more regulations to prevent building by individual landowners-not big developers-individuals, for the purpose of acquiring free open space.

I'm all for open space, but I am not willing to take it from the individual landowner by supporting regulations clearly void of any health and safety benefit, but for the purpose of protecting the public's "viewshed." The Fifth Amendment of the constitution states: " ... nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." If the people of Boulder County want to limit building in the mountains, they should expect to pay for it, not support ill-founded regulations aimed at people who have invested their savings and dreams in their properties.

Patty Baker/Boulder