[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Jefferson Parkway

[kohls at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Colleagues,

Assuming the email (below) we received from CINQ is a reasonably accurate representation of the Golden City Council's recent action on the Jefferson Parkway, I believe that we should reconsider our approach on that issue.  As you know, I do not support "accepting" the Parkway in return for the privilege of purchasing Section 16, and our council added a number of conditions to our negotiating position.  However, the relative importance of the various conditions wasn't explicitly spelled out, and Golden's apparent (and excellent, in my view) new position should clearly affect our strategy.

Before offering some suggestions, I'd like to briefly describe a conversation I had at the open house that followed the CML legislative workshop (and which I referred to in that hotline posting).  I was chatting with a councilmember from Commerce City (who is also involved with E-470) about the Jeffco Parkway when a councilmember from Broomfield joined us; I know both of these folks reasonably well.  Both of course are strong supporters of "completing" the beltway.  I stated my strong concern about the likelihood of the crippling of 93, in the long run, so that Boulderites would be forced, as much as possible, to use the tolled Parkway.  Both of my colleagues thought that was indeed likely and even quite desirable!  I also stated my concern about the 99-year non-compete that would be part of the deal (and would essentially require Jeffco et. al. to oppose any and all improvements to 93, including those even for safety, and certainly for congestion, as well as "competing" transit).  Broomfield's rep said that such a non-compete was simply essential in order to get the private financing and so was not negotiable.  Commerce City's rep agreed that a non-compete was important but noted that E-470's is about to expire after 17 years and was astonished that a 99-year deal was being contemplated.

With that as a reality check, here are my recommendations for how we might proceed now:
-- Team with Golden and require that any deal meet all of Golden's needs, with Golden reciprocating by requiring that any deal meet all of Boulder's needs.  The divide-and-conquer strategy used with some success (up until now, perhaps) needs to be permanently defeated.
-- If Golden is indeed going to continue pursuing a legal strategy, join with them on it.
-- Ensure that Superior is also part of the team, and include their needs in the joint strategy.
-- Absolutely require that 93 is protected, even if some form of non-compete is signed with the financiers.  This means much more than just having Jeffco agree to not kill 93; they must support best-practice strategies for safety and congestion management, as well as transit.
-- Require that the Mackay property on the east side of 93 not be further improved, or, even better, be made available to us for purchase.
-- If we haven't already done so, try our best to find a way to purchase the critical strip of land on the east side of Rocky Flats so that the Parkway can't use it.  Apparently this must be used for transportation purposes, but as some have noted, it could be part of a regional bikeway.  This is obviously a long-shot, but money spent on this would be vastly more effective than buying Section 16 and having the Parkway built anyway.

I know there were many other good suggestions during our previous discussion on the Parkway.  And perhaps we need to discuss it again once we get final word on Golden's official policy.  But I hope that we will back away from negotiating on Section 16 and formulate a clear position, with Golden, of a much-strengthened set of requirements.

--Matt

________________________________
From: CINQ [info=gothebetterway.org at mail31.us2.mcsv.net] On Behalf Of CINQ [info at gothebetterway.org]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Appelbaum, Matt
Subject: CINQ - Beltway Update

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.<http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=0020d0502e58bfe080811f297&id=ad94ac1a69&e=a08b74bc89>

[http://gallery.mailchimp.com/0020d0502e58bfe080811f297/images/cinq_header.2.jpg]<http://GoTheBetterWay.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0020d0502e58bfe080811f297&id=691e8ea4f4&e=a08b74bc89>


Greetings,
The City of Golden held a critical meeting last night regarding the proposed Jefferson toll road deal. Golden was being offered a deal by the county that included some road planning, and the "promise" of money to fund one or two projects. This prosed deal was viewed by most people as hallow and inappropriate, and many people came forward to voice their concern.  In the end, city council decided to abandon the current deal, and pursue a much stronger, two pronge strategy. First, the city will move forward with a lawsuit keeps the pressure on toll road proponents, and act as a best, last resort if the city decides to sue. Second, the city will move forward with negotiations, but pursue a much more ambitious agreement that includes: money upfront for road improvements through Golden; requies Arvada to improve its own roads (specifically Indian/McIntyre); bars any non-compete agreement on public roads; requires more money for noise mitigation for north Golden neighborhoods; and requires testing on Rocky Flats for Plutonium. There are several other requirements, and when the city releases its official terms, CINQ will forward them to you.

City Council Must Hold Fast...
Last night's developments are very good news for Golden as both council and residents are galvanized with a clear direction. The key issue is council must not retreat from these better terms. The voice of Golden residents is clear - if we pursue a deal, it must meet the full and complete needs of Golden, and toll road propoents must "pay the toll" to get Golden's cooperation. Again, city council must hold fast to these better terms. It should be adknowledged that Golden's council and staff have worked very hard on this issue, and many thanks should be given to council for their wisdon to understand that Golden has the leverage and power in any negotiation. CINQ encourages their continued courage, tenacity and wisdom. However, CINQ points out that having a "friendly" relationship with Arvada, Broomfield and Jefferson County is not the goal - protecting Golden is. If that means not having good relations with neighboring communities, then so be it. It is apparent that politicans from neighboring communities don't care about Golden, and are rather more interested in pandering to developer interests. Sorry to say, but they have a long track record of questionable dealings on this issue, and they are not to be trusted.

It is important to note that Rep. Ed Perlmutter was at the meeting last night, and we appreciate his interest. Moreover, the Town of Superior Trustee, Debra Williams spoke last night, and stated that her community also opposes the toll road, and is pursuing possible legal action. Debra's willingness to come forward is much appreciated, and illustrates that Golden is not alone in it's opposition.

CINQ encourages Golden citizens to talk with council members, and encourage them not to bend on Golden's terms. If a deal is done, the bar must be high. If toll road proponents cannot meet the full and complete needs of Golden, then legal action is required. If a lawsuit moves forward, the benefits should not be discounted. Slowing the progress of the toll road by legal action can result in diminished interest from investors among other unforseen benefits. Obviosuly, other parties are also pursuing legal action, and this brings strength to this tact. Collectively, if Golden remains strong and fully committed to its future, this toll road may die the death it deserves.

Rob Medina

CINQ - Citizens Involved in the Northwest Quadrant
www.GoTheBetterWay.org<http://GoTheBetterWay.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0020d0502e58bfe080811f297&id=6ac81a237d&e=a08b74bc89>
info at GoTheBetterWay.org<mailto:info at GoTheBetterWay.org>
720.261.2058


You are receiving this email because opted into our mailing list at http://www.GoTheBetterWay.org

Unsubscribe<http://GoTheBetterWay.us1.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=0020d0502e58bfe080811f297&id=5ecb179da1&e=a08b74bc89&c=ad94ac1a69> appelbaumm at bouldercolorado.gov from this list | Forward to a friend<http://us1.forward-to-friend1.com/forward?u=0020d0502e58bfe080811f297&id=ad94ac1a69&e=a08b74bc89> | Update your profile<http://GoTheBetterWay.us1.list-manage.com/profile?u=0020d0502e58bfe080811f297&id=5ecb179da1&e=a08b74bc89>
Our mailing address is:
CINQ
PO Box 715
Golden, CO 80402-0715

Add us to your address book<http://GoTheBetterWay.us1.list-manage2.com/vcard?u=0020d0502e58bfe080811f297&id=5ecb179da1>

Copyright (C) 2011 CINQ All rights reserved.