April 20, 1999

Senator Dorothy Rupert
Colorado State Senate
Colorado State Capitol
200 East Colfax
Denver, CO 80203

Dear Senator Rupert:

I learned that yesterday during the floor debate on SB 182 in the Senate you spoke from a letter provided to you by the Boulder County Commissioners. Having obtained a copy of the letter, my observation is that it is defensive, misleading, and self-serving.

As you recall, many individual Boulder County residents testified eloquently in favor of the Bill in the Senate Local Government Committee, underscoring the need for state legislation to protect the landowner against heavy-handed local government land use regulation. Although the Commissioners concede that "these people have a right to speak their mind to the state legislature", and though they state that they would not hold their opinion against any individual, they then deliberately and publicly attempt to discredit the individual landowners, by name, who testified regarding the County's site plan review system as it is being applied in Boulder County! Their letter is an excellent example of how those in power chill open discussion.

In response to the Commissioners' claims:

Thirteen of those testifying for the Bill have never had a matter before the Land Use Department or the Board of County Commissioners.

This argument is specious. There is no need to personally be victimized by governmental regulation to speak out against it. One need not suffer execution to oppose the death penalty. Note that the Commissioners do not dispute the vast majority of the testimony of those 18 people who expressed their observations of Boulder County excesses, and instead attempting only to personally discredit a few key people.

The Commissioners appointed a committee to review the slopes issues "because of our concern that property owner's rights, as well as the public welfare be protected".

This claim is flat-out false: The sole reason they appointed a committee was directly due to public outrage when their attempt to ramrod this regulation unexpectedly came to light (see the article, attached).

Their critics are characterized as "a small vocal group of opponents" and these disgruntled people "tend to oppose land use regulation generally".

They point to self-validating opinion polls to justify growth control through excessive regulation. The fact that the number or percentage of County citizens who are victimized is "small", or that the vast majority approves of these oppressive policies does not make these practices right. Governmental abuse of discretion is not acceptable simply because it is popular with the majority of the people (see Amendment 2, for example). The Commissioners have failed to protect the constitutional rights of their constituents, and now reap what they have sown, in a public forum.

As for the Commissioners' statements regarding my testimony at the hearing:

1. I have been in Site Plan Review not for 4 weeks, but for 5 months. My Site Plan Review application was filed in November, 1998. That the County considers it "incomplete" does not mean that I am not going through the Site Plan Review process, it only means that they are not satisfied with the information I have provided to them, which includes $7,000 worth of engineering plans and $2,000 worth of architectural work, so far. The County has agreed that I need not apply for Limited Impact Special Review, since my site plan involves moving less than 500 cu. yds. of dirt (meeting April 6, 1999 with Glen Segrue). The fact that the County filed a lawsuit against my daughter-in-law, along with several other defendants, including the U.S. Government, is irrelevant, and in no way has rendered my experience with the County any less painful. On the contrary, it concerns me that their obvious venality toward me and my family will effect the County's ability to be fair to me in my building project.
2. The draft slope regulations clearly prohibit building on property steeper than 30%. I include a copy of the regulations (4-702.A.3) and the staff comments. If a slope is over 30%, an owner "may" build, but only "subject to staff approval", giving complete power and discretion to the Land Use Staff to approve or prohibit building.
3. The Land Use Department refused to send copies of the draft slopes regulations when requested. People called me to get the regulations. Call me and I will give you their names, since I will not violate confidences in this public communication. Furthermore, the County conceded to a newspaper reporter that people were not sent copies of the proposed regulations. See the article, attached. This article should also make it clear why the County has attempted to attack my credibility. Finally, I confronted the receptionist at Land Use who confirmed to me that numerous people had been denied copies of the regulations when they requested, because they were "not valid", although they are still pending having been approved by the Planning Commission.
4. Finally, Boulder County's harsh treatment of dissidents is apparent from their letter, and only confirms the fact that state legislative action is the sole refuge for the beleaguered Boulder County landowner. Again, I urge you to support the passage of this Bill.

Sincerely yours,

Ann B. Mygatt

cc: Boulder County Commissioners