Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 471
Boulder, Colorado 80306

Dear Commissioners:

First, I would like to condition this with the following caveats, sometimes referred to as "WHEREASes."

CAVEAT: All of my opinions are mine, solely, and not those of any group.

CAVEAT: It has come to my attention that you have not been receiving any personal correspondence or criticism lately. This prompts me to write this.

CAVEAT: The Slopes Advisory Committee has made public its desire to minimize public oratory via encouraging the public to write letters. I have done so. I am also deferring to the SAC by sending them a copy of this in lieu of them rescheduling my oratory which I was denied because of time constraints.

CAVEAT: Public response to the above said SAC desire was that it also wanted to hear the subject matter. Therefore, I am also providing a copy of this to the Land Use Coalition.

CAVEAT: Please understand that my sensibilities are offended as much as anyone's at the visual impacts of growth and sprawl. My arguments against "growth control" are based on what I recognize as misanthropy and the need to offset these feelings rationally.

The reason you haven't heard from me, in particular, is because I no longer regard you as relevant. I'm not trying to insult you. I just feel as though you have been playing a political game which is about to turn around and bite you. Further, you apparently regard ME as irrelevant. You make public reference to me and my ilk as a "vocal minority" to discredit the concerns. Why would I be inclined to relate my concerns to you if they are to fall on deaf ears?

I accuse you of being dishonest. (please see attached herewith a copy of a letter from Liz Weed and myself to the SAC) Every time you speak as a matter of public record, your rhetoric comes out: "Growth control, growth control, growth control." Your first paragraph in your March 17, 1999 letter to Senator Rupert states: "...thank you for your hard work on...growth management issues... We strongly support...a bill 'concerning comprehensive planning by governments to manage urban growth.'" The second page of the same letter makes the case that the vast majority in Boulder County are concerned with growth and support the County doing more about it.

Now, please look at the prior paragraph. (last on page 1) You state that the purpose of Site Plan Review is to address concerns about "...significant impact on adjacent property owners and the environment, including water quality, slope integrity, wild fire hazard, vegetation and wildlife." THAT IS A LIE. You have made it clear, repeatedly, that your goal is GROWTH CONTROL. In particular, your efforts toward political popularity have been to take credit for growth control efforts. What growth control efforts? You have no promulgated growth control policy. Your land use policy only manifests in the codes including SPR, LISR, Natural Landmarks and now, slopes regulations. This is an extremely DISHONEST way of effecting growth control.

On a more personal note I am sending you a copy of the June 30, 1997 letter to you from R. N. Mason, Chairman, Gold Hill Town Meeting, Inc.. This letter was among the several submitted against our project before you for LISR. The second itemized paragraph states: "...any encroachment upon the designated area of protection for Bighorn, including the agreed Buffer zones, is completely unacceptable to our community." The third states that it is the sort of thing "...we all have been seeking to avoid/forestall through the County actions we have been discussing for several years." The last paragraph alludes that any access road would set an unfortunate precedent. This letter makes it crystal clear that you have been in collusion with these folks for years and that your collective efforts are a conspiracy to avoid/forestall any and all development on Bighorn Mountain. Yet, nowhere in your Natural Landmark codes does it mention "avoid/forestall" growth. It is underhanded and deceptive !

to use laws to accomplish goals other than the legislative intent. Further, it is not a legitimate function of government to obfuscate or make unnecessarily difficult or expensive a process for a citizen to exercise his rights for the purpose of avoiding/forestalling the exercise of those rights.

I could go on about the specifics of the document to which the above said letter was attached, which was the recommendation for denial from the Land Use Commission. I won't. Suffice it to say that it too was conspiratorial, riddled with inaccuracies, outright fabrications and characterizations via inflammatory doublespeak. These sorts of things leave an applicant no recourse. How can he re-submit when he can't understand what you want? It appears to me that you would rather we disappear than re-submit.

You are often being dishonest when you allude to trying to strike a balance between competing interests. There are clearly people dwelling on the plains who believe that the mountains were emplaced solely for their recreational and viewing pleasure. Indeed, a person wrote to the Colorado Daily that all the houses in the mountains should be burned down. My answer to this is that all SUVs should be burned down. Cars pollute and kill people. Houses do not. To suggest that we all should live on the plains and visit the mountains to enjoy them is to ask for endless traffic jams in the mountains. What an eyesore that would be!

In 1970 I did the same thing as those folks. I visited the mountains via motor vehicle. I saw beauty and tranquility. I communed with the chipmunks and the deer. I found it soothing to my soul. I then did what was rational to me, I bought a piece of it for my soul. I did not delude myself that I could expect my government to keep it pristine for me forever. When you pander to the whims of city folk and the idea that everything outside the city is just a big playground, you are not "balancing competing interests." You are pandering to a political constituency.

In conclusion, it is time now for you to come clean. We all know damn well that there are no hazards associated with steep slopes in the Rocky Mountains. You are simply creating for yourselves a new weapon in your arsenal against growth and visual impacts of growth just as you have done before. So, WHY DON'T YOU SAY SO? Why don't you formulate policy and code against growth and see if it will pass constitutional muster? Instead, you lie and cheat and use terminology like: "Slope integrity, water quality, wild fire hazard, Natural Landmark and wildlife corridor."

You still don't understand why so many private land owners are angry? Many may not be talking to you, but let me assure you, they are talking ABOUT you.

Ron Jones