Conifer Park & Rec Sign Vandalized! See Photo

outdoor338 wrote: :VeryScared: rofllol rofllol :faint:

Are you laughing at my underwear out on the line?

Or that I agreed with his one statement, just not his general view of making this into mini Denver? In a clearly overly verbose way?

That sign needs to be removed! Don't you need a permit for that size of a sign? If not, the pink is reminds me of a group of fat women who wear pink and protest Obama's war - that's what this is all about ...a war on recreation.

Speaking of recreation, we are all for getting a recreation drug center...oops, I meant MMJ trafficking center....oops, I meant Dispensary. lol

Dunno- but they are on the highway now too- up on the hill, on private property. I believe the first sign is also on private property.

Thought we already had one or three, RT.

Local_Historian wrote: Darling, those people have always been here. Those people where here when the town was founded 150 years ago. Those people came along for the ride when the first settlements were built in the U.S. You act like this area is as bad as the five points area of Manhattan in the early 1800s - yet I doubt anyone has been by to shoot at you or stab you for living in the wrong district, or fist fighting each other over the privelege of putting out a fire on your burning building.

You make a personal decision, deciding because of how they look, they must indeed be "bottom feeders". When in reality they look just like ranchers on the western slope and eastern plains, and some of them locally actually are. It takes a really special occasion to make a rancher dress up, and they don't see the point of wasting a lot of cash on designer clothes - llamas, cows, horses, goats, sheep, pigs don't care. Would you go into Saguache county, Gunnison county, Montrose county and tell them they're bottom feeders for doing an honest days work and getting together with their friends in the mornings at the local restaurant after morning chores, or in the local bar after evening chores? Other side of the state - Yuma, Kit Carson, Cheyenne, etc counties - same industry, same style of dress. Same amount of hard working attitude. If a hardworking rancher or a farmer is a bottom feeder, what does that say about our country and our attitudes?

You make this areas sound like it's inhabited by the scum of the earth, people who stepped out of the 1800s and live like that as well. The wild west was never wild, and certainly not around here. It was farmers, ranchers, some miners. It was businesses run by individuals in small towns where the farmers, ranchers, and miners congregated and used their services. Yep, some mining towns were more bars and brothels than any other business, but you'll note most of those towns no longer exist. Yes, a LOT of the small towns across the country have the same attitudes - they cannot support unneccessary growth, see no need for an Ikea in the foothills, or building yet another business when so many already sit empty.

Some people are just plain nasty and that is how they are - you can figure it out rather quickly. As long as the economy sucks and gas prices keep rising, other folks around here are going to be on thin nerves. Thin nerves easily take offense to terms like "backwards" and "bottom feeders" and "ignorant" - especially when they are none of the above.

The vandalism? Uncalled for and childish, whoever did it - an adult or a kid. If it was done by an animal, that's a whole different picture. If it was caused by the weather - we did have snow, the sign is partly posterboard, posterboard does give up when wet - then so be it, even though it does look torn to me.

But there is a level of reality that must be accepted - higher taxes on overburdened people aren't going to be tolerated, especially taxes for something that is not needed in an underpopulated area - and if Park County, large as it is, is only at 51% occupancy of its existing homes and structures, I'd like to also see what the stats are for this corner of unincorporated Jeffco was as well, because I'm guessing the stats are similar. Who then pays these taxes? Who then uses these facilities? A small number of people? Why change a perfectly functional park, with many facilities already - the VFW hall -often rentable, cabins, camp sites, a bark park, an obstacle course, a frizbee golf course, maintained hiking trails, even events on occasion by the forest service- what more is actually needed?

You note I'm not name calling, I'm not degrading people for thinking differently, I am asking questions to get people to think.

Sometimes change is NOT needed, required or wanted. You want to stimulate the economy - then see if you personally can get the businesses you think should be up here into these buildings. Then try to get the businesses that will actually succeed. Understand that a lot of businesses that where here left not because they were mismanaged, or failing, or poorly thought out(though some were) - a goodly percentage left because of the landlords, who own a great number of the buildings up here and who charge the same rate per square foot that you would find in NYC or LA, when that is unrealistic for the community. Or they offered services no one wants here - honestly, do we need designer furniture, or would we be better served by a Farm and Fleet type of store? I have yet to see any of the feed and seed businesses go out up here.

Civilization has already been on the mountain for over 150 years - check out the local history - it's just not your type of civilization. Not everyone can cope with the small town lifestyle, the farming and ranching community lifestyle. That is why cities exist as well, for those who prefer that life. Those who live up here chose it mainly because of the lifestyle - so why should they be forced to give that up for a very small number who perfer the city lifestyle?

You are surrounded by a plethora of successful writers, artists, craftsmen, but you don't see them because you choose not to. College professors, business owners, some very rich people indeed live up here, and those same people are also speaking out against a new rec district, and have voted against it in the past. Yes, there are poor people up here, yes some never got further than a high school education, but that doesn't make them bottom feeders. They own, run, or work in the businesses you go to. There are even more college educated folk up here, working up here or working in Denver, or even working in different parts of the world or from home. They chose this area because of what it was like in the 60s, 70s, 80s, even now people move here because it is NOT a city.

What will become of the area if you make it just like a city and more people move away, looking for the lifestyle they had here before?

:thumbsup:

Vote Yes...

deltamrey wrote: LH - the meanness is manifested in the vandalism and intolerance I see here.......intimidation on 285, rudeness, disrespect for structure and authority, bars at times occupied with scruffbags and burned out women..........we have a real problem. I personally tend toward Evergreen and walk out of a local establishment when the bottom feeders appear. Civilization is creeping up the mountain (thank goodness) and once incorporated Conifer will stop most of the backward behavior - I am regardless optimistic.

What are you doing living up here anyway? Obviously we're not good enough for you. Then again I can't think of a highway where you won't encounter intimidation at some time. Rudeness I guess doesn't exist elsewhere as well as disrespect. So, just move to Evergreen already where everything is wine and roses.

This makes me sick!! I haven't had time to check out everyone that is running for the board but the first name on the list has their property excluded!!!!!

4-Year Term

Kendra Hood (It's her property on the links below)
Bill Turner
Debra Maxwell West

2-Year Term

Ron Lewis (Yes, everyone's favorite!)
Robert Baxter
Alison Thayer
Skip Shirlaw

http://www.whitepages.com/dir/conifer-co/hood/kendra

http://www.co.jefferson.co.us/ats/addre ... x=&UnitNo=

http://archie.co.jefferson.co.us/websit ... &vls108vle

http://www.focpr.org/attachments/VMap.pdf

How can they run for the board if they are not a member of the district? Are there not residency requirements?

Not if you're the ones making up the requirements.

Here is how Evergreen defines the qualifications for their district:

Qualifications
To qualify as a Director, a person must be an "elector," which is defined by state statute as a registered voter of Colorado, and either a resident of the District for not less than 30 days; the owner (or spouse of the owner) of taxable real or personal property situated in the District; or a person obligated to pay taxes under a contract to purchase taxable property.

http://www.evergreenrecreation.com/general_info.php?id=15

The question is whether this is based on Statute and therefore a requirement for all rec districts. It does not specify taxable as being taxable for the rec district. I wonder if there is case law that addresses this. If not maybe a lawsuit is in order for clarification.