Vail Daily letter: Vote was needed
The opinions expressed in Our View on June 11 were just about as unprofessional and “boneheaded” as we citizens were, who in good faith tried to give a voice to the people of Eagle, with what we thought was help from Town Hall.
Editor, I appreciate your split decision on the issue of Haymeadow. While raking we citizens over the coals, at least you concluded the town should give the people the chance to vote. Thank you, I think.
Unfortunately, that is absolutely not an option, something you should have been aware of if you’d done your research. The people’s only resource now is to watch and wait as we learn how to adapt to thousands more people and their thousands of cars.
There was a lot of effort put into the petition drive, not the least of which came from the town of Eagle’s office itself. That’s where the petition was created and given to us to go forth and get signatures. Of further concern is the fact the town decided to spend taxpayer money to hire a professional arbitrator’s office from Colorado Springs to conduct the quasi-judicial hearing. Typically the town itself would handle the process, but for whatever reason they chose to pay the retired judge $395 per hour including travel time and all expenses and overnight stay. Days before the hearing, the town picked up the $4,000 tab for the deposit. It would seem they were serious about defeating this issue.
An important part of the complaint accused us of dismantling the petitions, somehow altering them because blank pages were missing, when in fact they had been disposed of in the office after petitions were submitted to the town and declared complete and sufficient. The other major complaint was that we offered information as to our position on Haymeadow, something any thoughtful citizen would want to know before signing. There is much about this development that brings out differences of opinions, and we just offered ours. Differences of opinion should never be labeled “lies,” and no one was coerced into signing.
There were mistakes made all around, and before the editors launch name calling toward well-intended citizens, there should have been a lot more understanding from behind the scenes of such a process.
But thank you for the support of the idea of a referendum. While legally it can’t happen, let’s see if the town recognizes that 373 people were supportive of a better plan for Brush Creek.
Support Local Journalism
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User