Conifer Recreation Coalition Survey Results; Workshop #2

ScienceChic wrote: No, it is not, as explained in the earlier threads I linked to at the bottom. This group is looking to develop a master plan so that they can present it for grant requests from the county and state in order to promote what's already in existence, or build new if requested by the community at large. No taxes have ever been discussed with this group.

The community already spoke out (and voted) against that this sort of expansion. Grant money from the county and state is subsidized by the taxpayer. Grant money from the county and state is[/i] Taxpayers money. Grants are just another way to funnel taxpayers monies to projects that the taxpayer already turned down.

Saying "No taxes have ever been discussed with this group" is simply the other side of the "raise taxes" coin. So this "group" is going to show the community other ways to acquire taxpayers money.

There's more than one way to skin a taxpayer.

Because Bailey (Parkco) is also included in this geographic area, I feel STRONGLY about this
issue....we moved to Parkco BECAUSE of the rural and rustic ambiance....opted THREE times
to return when given a chance to move closer in.

Conifer has become just ANOTHER SUBURB of Littleton, and when this issue was brought forth
the LAST several times, it was voted down.....one of the reason was the committee spearing
heading the endeavor was NOT honest and forthwright and was caught up in alot of MISSED
details. It started out innocuous and just as an inquiry and became a monster of miscommunication and misleading facts...it will be interesting to see how this committee conducts itself...TRUST is going to be a factor moving forward...VERIFY all details coming
to the community....JMO

homeagain wrote: Because Bailey (Parkco) is also included in this geographic area, I feel STRONGLY about this
issue....we moved to Parkco BECAUSE of the rural and rustic ambiance....opted THREE times
to return when given a chance to move closer in.

Conifer has begun just ANOTHER SUBURB of Littleton, and when this issue was brought forth
the LAST several times, it was voted down.....one of the reason was the committee spearing
heading the endeavor was NOT honest and forthwright and was caught up in alot of MISSED
details. It started out innocuous and just as an inquiry and became a monster of miscommunication and misleading facts...it will be interesting to see how this committee conducts itself...TRUST is going to be a factor moving forward...VERIFY all details coming
to the community....JMO

Where are you seeing that Bailey is included in this? The Coalition website clearly and repeatedly refers to "the Conifer area". The funds they're looking to access would be via JeffCo Open Space, who would not have any authority in ParkCo.

Please show me where Bailey is part of this.

tookie wrote: Sorry Grady, I beg to differ. Its certainly not the same crap.


Last night, we (CRC) shared what the community said THEY wanted to see when THEY responded to our survey. Project PLACE is not pushing for anything to be built, a rec district or any taxable entity. Let me make that abundantly clear. We are preparing a master plan to give teeth to those who want to find funds for their own projects, whether they be businesses, organizations or individuals. It is not in our scope to build anything.

Tookie
http://conifercoalition.org/#sample-page
https://www.facebook.com/coniferrec

Who is the "THEY" mentioned above? People who want this crap and participated in the survey, or was this an unbiased, blind polling of a random cross section of the community. I think we all know the answer.

Mtn Gramma wrote:

homeagain wrote: Because Bailey (Parkco) is also included in this geographic area, I feel STRONGLY about this
issue....we moved to Parkco BECAUSE of the rural and rustic ambiance....opted THREE times
to return when given a chance to move closer in.

Conifer has begun just ANOTHER SUBURB of Littleton, and when this issue was brought forth
the LAST several times, it was voted down.....one of the reason was the committee spearing
heading the endeavor was NOT honest and forthwright and was caught up in alot of MISSED
details. It started out innocuous and just as an inquiry and became a monster of miscommunication and misleading facts...it will be interesting to see how this committee conducts itself...TRUST is going to be a factor moving forward...VERIFY all details coming
to the community....JMO

Where are you seeing that Bailey is included in this? The Coalition website clearly and repeatedly refers to "the Conifer area". The funds they're looking to access would be via JeffCo Open Space, who would not have any authority in ParkCo.

Please show me where Bailey is part of this.

http://conifercoalition.org/denver-post-article/ read the article VERY closely........

I read the article VERY closely........ and here's what it said about Bailey/ParkCo:

The effort doesn't necessarily include only Conifer. The study area includes 123,000 acres and 21,000 residents along the Highway 285 corridor from Morrison to the Bailey area, extending to communities such as Pine and Buffalo Creek.

Now it's your turn to read the map they posted of the involved area's boundaries VERY closely........

image url

From my POV, it appears we ALREADY have a discrepancy in the presentation of this concept.
Morrison to the BAILEY AREA is a quote from their informational overview...perhaps someone from
the Conifer Recreaton Coalition would like to VERIFY their informational map?

homeagain wrote: From my POV, it appears we ALREADY have a discrepancy in the presentation of this concept.
Morrison to the BAILEY AREA is a quote from their informational overview...perhaps someone from
the Conifer Recreaton Coalition would like to VERIFY their informational map?

Right. It doesn't say "including Morrison and the Bailey are" it say "from, to." That's rather plain English and not hard to understand. Especially when there is a map that corresponds to the plain language... a map that doesn't "include" Morrison or Bailey.

So you made a little mistake, just move on now. There are much more important things to discuss about what goes on in the area between Bailey and Morrison.

Bailey is outside the area. It might be clearer to say "up to Bailey" as Project PLACE just includes Jeffco. Remember that Bailey technically starts at Pine Junction.

Guess it is a matter of interpretation,isn't it? And UNDERSTANDING exactly the intent is
paramount...JMO.....I DO NOT want to live in a "burb of Littleton".....so I will CONTINUE to
ask questions and CONTINUE following this issue.... :ReadPaper: