Opening Statement.

AS A MEMBER OF CITY Council my top priority will be the protection of Goldens' small town character. This is a broad goal that involves a number of important aspects. Preserving the 1% growth limit, protecting and enhancing quality of life in our neighborhoods, traffic calming, keeping a good business environment for our small businesses, senior housing, especially at the Mitchell Site, open space, preventing the Northwest Parkway. These are the things that define Golden and make it the town we all love and want to preserve. Issues come and go and we all get excited by them while the debate is carried on. But if we let the character of Golden slip away it will be gone forever, there will be no going back.

Our representative democracy is the best form of government there is. But it is of no value to the citizens if the people they elect represent special interests, or carry out an agenda of their own. Even if a council person has had experience on every committee in town it provides no benefit to the people if he/she only represents certain limited interests. I intend to represent all of the people, not just a few of the prominent ones.

Our form of government is based on the fact that the citizens are the sovereigns; we only delegate authority to our elected representatives. We do not give them the powers of a monarch to exercise dominion over us. People tend to view representative democracy in one of two ways. One view is that elected officials should be left alone to do whatever they want.

The other view is that these officials were elected to represent and serve the people, and should be held accountable to the people for all their official actions. This is the belief I hold and the philosophy I will bring to City Council.

1% Growth Limit.

I have been a supporter of the 1% growth limit since the campaign for it 4 years ago. It is in the best interests of Golden to maintain this limit intact, as it was originally intended. This limit provides stability to the planning process and causes growth to be manageable. The predictability of a steady growth rate gives the citizens of this community the assurance that we will not again be overwhelmed by the rampant building that we have witnessed just a few years ago.

It would be good to keep in mind that the limit of 1% is not an arbitrary number picked at random by the initiators of the ordinance. This number represents the growth rate of the United States as a whole for the last 20 years or more and as such is very appropriate for Golden.

Many of the opponents of the 1% limit are trying to convince the community that the lack of affordable housing in Golden is due to the 1% growth limit having been passed. The truth is there was no affordable housing being built before. The Growth and Development Policy Plan adopted in 1982 indicated that 50% of residential housing should be at or below the Golden median price. This has consistently been ignored in favor of developers wishing to build only high profit homes. It does not matter if 75 or 1000 high priced homes are built each year in Golden. The fact that there are no lower cost homes being built is what is really driving the market to such high levels. That fact, probably more than anything else, has caused the price of existing homes to go up. Do not let developers and their advocates convince you that the ordinance is the cause, they are simply trying to shift the blame off of their past practices.

As a member of City Council I will resist challenges to this ordinance. It is too soon to know if compromise will ever be appropriate. This law must be in effect far longer than it has before we can know what changes, if any, should be made.

Northwest Parkway-W470.

This highway will be a disaster for Golden. We have absolutely nothing to gain from it. It has been portrayed as a parkway in an effort to make us less fearful of it. But shortly after completion it will look a lot like I-70 and will destroy all that this town is and has fought so hard to maintain. No concessions, like "lids" or lowered speed limits, can ever make this highway acceptable to Golden. These things may quiet the noise slightly but the smog will always be there. It is also very unlikely that funds will ever be available to adequately mitigate this freeway. Our focus should be to absolutely stop it cold and never back off from our opposition. I do not like the way our present Council and Staff are talking more about mitigation than opposition.

The City Council and the citizens of Golden should not take the pessimistic view that it's inevitable and there's nothing we can do about it. I believe that if we as a community (Council, Staff, and Citizens) make a firm commitment to stop it, we will be successful. We should use every means available, including legal action, to stop this highway.

I realize that nowadays you are considered a "hardball" and unreasonable if you aren't willing to compromise. But there are times when compromise is absolutely not appropriate and this is one of those times. Any sign of weakness on our part, any willingness to give in, and they'll be here with every bulldozer they have. The only answer we should ever have for the proponents of the Northwest Parkway through Golden is NO.

We should not allow the Northwest Quadrant Study to presuppose the Highway 93 alignment. Other routes are not only available, but probably better for the transportation needs of the quadrant, especially Golden. Keep in mind that there is no demonstrated transportation need for this freeway. Its' only real purpose is to allow Arvada to develop and expand its' tax base. From the standpoint of reason and recognition of the true intent behind Arvadas' plans, we have a strong case. There simply is no reason to allow them to have their way when it will be so costly to Golden.

Traffic Calming, Neighborhood Protection.

It is not proper to allow situations to develop that detract from the quality of life people have become used to. When you buy a home in a quiet neighborhood you have every right to expect it to stay quiet. New development and changed use of existing areas should not be allowed to destroy what people already have. Giving in to development is often justified by using the "takings" excuse, saying you can't deny people the use of their property. But it is just as much of a "takings" to destroy what people have worked for as it is to deny new developers to do as they please. I would like to rectify some of the bad situations that already exist and prevent new ones from arising. This is something I feel very strongly about, having already been seriously impacted by out of control development.

Open Space.

Open Space will become an ever more important issue as the area develops. The 1% limit will only slow growth, not stop it. If we don't set aside some open space now it will forever be too late, and our descendants will look back at us and wonder how a generation of people could be so short sighted. We're already seeing the results of the shortsightedness of the past.

The population will grow, houses will be built and commercial areas will be developed. The amount of open land will diminish and the price will increase as these things occur. It's very important that we do as much as we can now to preserve open areas for future generations as well as for ourselves.

The reality is that the budget will not allow huge purchases of land, although we can make our dollars more effective by cooperating with Jeffco Open Space. We should buy as much land as we can as soon as we can. It might be worth deferring some park and recreational development in order to use the funds to purchase land while it's still available.

Golf Course.

Proponents tell us there is a significant shortage of golf courses. While this may be true there is also a real shortage of football, baseball and soccer fields as well as rollerblade and skateboard facilities. Virtually every form of outdoor recreational use needs more land dedicated to it. A mix of these other uses may actually bring more visitors to Golden, and create a more positive community image than a golf course. I'm sure more people, in total, do these other activities than play golf. The feasibility study focused on a golf course alone. It may be useful to compare the benefits of other uses to a golf course.

I may support the golf course if it can be positively proven that it would not only support itself but also be a money maker for the city. We should look far enough into the future to know that a shortage of courses today doesn't turn into a surplus tomorrow and leave us with an unanticipated debt. I also believe that something involving this much land and a cost this high should go to a vote of the people.

Mitchell Site- Clear Creek Square.

The plans I have seen indicate a great deal of use crowded into a 2 square block area. This may create a traffic impact that could make 12th and Ford Streets look something like Colfax and Wadsworth. Especially when you consider that there is a 60+ room Hotel across Washington Street from this site. The plan needs to be more in line with what fits in Golden, both physically and aesthetically.

I am also extremely disappointed and upset that there is to be no Senior Housing included. The developer and GURA should be pushed to provide Senior Housing at this location. In the summer of 1997 an attempt, at least partially successful, was made to convince seniors that granting exemptions to the 1% growth limit would result in senior housing at the Mitchell Site. To this end the seniors helped successfully lobby City Council to grant those exemptions. It's now time to make good on the expectations of the seniors. For a change we should be thinking about what our people want, not just what will help a developer.

Another problem at Clear Creek Square is the potential for chain store businesses to come in and compete with the small family businesses already in Golden. We have heard from our Ward 3 Representative, Ed Ramstetter, that business is not fair and competition is inevitable. This issue goes way beyond competition. These family businesses are being asked to subsidize their own competition. City Council or GURA, not the developer, should have the final approval on which businesses are brought in. The criteria should be to bring in complementary, not competitive, business.

For 60 years the Mitchell Elementary School was in danger of 6 feet of water in the lower floor from a 100 year flood. No one asked for millions of dollars to fix the Ford Street bridge or any other part of the infrastructure for the sake of our children. Now that this site is to be developed for other uses the taxpayers are being asked to pay several million dollars for infrastructure improvements so that development can proceed. It is not appropriate to subsidize infrastructure simply for the sake of new development. If the improvements are needed for safety, or if the citizens of Golden realize some benefit, such as affordable senior housing, then some "subsidy" in the form of capital improvement may be appropriate.

Small Business.

Small Businesses are what define Golden and help maintain the small town character that we have tried to protect. There are people in town that believe that if we don't become like Lakewood we will be swallowed by them. A citys' economic health is not determined by the number of "big box" retail outlets alone. At least as important are the general economy and the ability of Goldens' businesses to attract customers. It is far better to help our small merchants, thereby maintaining our small town character, than it is to try to get large developments and retailers to locate in Golden.

City Council Endorsements of Outside Issues.

The City Council on occasion has been asked to endorse issues that are not exclusive to Golden. If you happen to be in favor of the issue it probably seems like a good idea. But this sword swings both ways; it's a foregone conclusion that this or a future council will endorse an issue that you strongly oppose. We must be careful about setting a precedent that will be regretted later. It is enough that our City Council tend to the Citys' business. Let the issues committees do the job of presenting both sides of these other debates, our voters are intelligent enough to decide for themselves after hearing the arguments pro and con.

Drainage Utility.

The city of Golden has a very real problem with potential flooding. It is a good idea to have a drainage utility fund to help control flood waters and reduce damage to a minimum. It's worth noting that if previous planners had exercised foresight and not allowed development to occur in flood plains, we would not now be required to spend millions of dollars to fix an avoidable problem.

The most effective part of a drainage utility program is to prevent such unwise development in the future. Then once we have flood control and runoff infrastructure in place it should be possible to reduce the fee to property owners to a minimum maintenance level.

Under no circumstances should this fee be used to allow development to occur in a flood plain. That would simply make a bad situation worse and require ever increasing fees to keep up with the need. Also this fee should not be used to rebuild private property destroyed by flood waters.

It is my belief that this fee was initially imposed to provide funds to rebuild the Ford Street bridge so that the Clear Creek Square development could proceed. A few years ago the Council and Staff were more concerned with other potential flooding and drainage problems. The Ford Street bridge only became a priority with the advent of the Clear Creek Square Development. I believe the citys' entire flood situation should be critically evaluated and prioritized. Then money should be spent in the order of priority for the purpose of saving lives and preventing property damage. Money should not be spent simply to enable development.

Interplaza west.

In 1995 a large subsidy to Interplaza West was a ballot issue. The proposed subsidy was defeated by 74% of the voters. In spite of that vote, early this year the City Council granted a 3.7 million dollar subsidy to this developer. The amount and terms were different, but there is no question that the spirit of the 1995 vote was seriously violated. For this and other reasons, it is time to amend the City Charter to no longer allow these subsidies without a vote of the people. See Responsible Growth Charter Amendment below.

Responsible Growth Charter Amendment.

It is not appropriate to grant subsidies to business. This nation has a history of responsible businesses doing market research and making decisions based upon that research. Granting subsidies is a new concept based on competition among cities. It has rapidly turned into an opportunity for developers and large businesses to con cities into granting subsidies that are neither needed nor appropriate. If research indicates a favorable market, a business will more than likely move in and compete in that market. With the willingness of cities today to grant subsidies, they first ask for such a subsidy, indicating that they will not come to the community unless they are given a monetary incentive. Reason tells you that they will not ask for a subsidy but state that they will come even if one is not given. Granting these incentives has been happening in Golden to a considerable degree in the last few years, and City Council has been all too willing to succumb to the pressure from developers. It is therefore time to amend the City Charter to no longer allow such subsidies without a vote of the people. See my remarks on Interplaza West.

Beaver Brook.

We should work with MALT, SOLVE, or other interested organizations to purchase this land for open space. The Council has an obligation to sell it for reasonable market value, but not necessarily for the maximum that can possibly be obtained. The concern is to get enough money to buy water rights and build a reservoir. I believe this could be done if we would work with MALT in good faith instead of spending so much money and time to force re-zoning for the sake of development.

It is worth remembering that at one time much of this was public land and as such this issue would never have come up. Public land is still a watershed. This land should never have been removed from the public domain.

City Staff.

The staff should be working under the direction and tight control of the City Council, and for the benefit of the citizens of Golden. This is not the case now. As an example, I was very disturbed, about 6 years ago, when Steve Gleuck, Director of Planning and Development, told me he considered himself as working for Goldens' "customers", which he defined as developers. His actions since have never given me reason to believe he has changed. His salary is paid by the people of Golden and his concern and effort should be for them alone. Unfortunately this is a common theme among most of Goldens' staff and it must be stopped. It is rarely my first choice to fire someone without giving them a chance at a new direction. The first thing is to get control of Council, and let them control Staff. If they refuse to co-operate then they should be replaced. Keep in mind that Council can only fire the City Manager and Attorney.

Bonding.

Bonding is generally a bad idea. It is a burden to the taxpayer, and like any debt, often raises the cost of a project to an unreasonable level. Capital Improvement Funds, savings accounts, are the preferred way to finance most projects. The more bonding the City does the harder it will be to save money because any surplus will go to debt service. If Staff would get serious about long range planning, rather than following the whims of developers, we would have the funds to replace infrastructure and do necessary projects. There may be occasions when sudden needs arise that bonding may be cheaper if it saves inflated construction costs or land prices, but this be should be a rare exception.

Miscellaneous Projects.

City Council talks about the long wish list of things for which people have asked. A critical look at the list reveals many things that are only necessary for the development that Staff and Council are pushing so hard to get. A lot of money could be saved by the City if we required the developers who generated the need to satisfy the need.

Closing Statement.

This country was founded on a basic concept, so well expressed later by Abraham Lincoln, that government should be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Consistent with that is the thought that I have often stated: the Citizens of Golden and the City of Golden are one and the same. At least that is the way it should be. But how much at one do you feel with any government when your neighborhood struggles with them for years, often without success, while you watch developers get what they want simply for the asking? Is it really government of, by, and for the people when the citizens struggle with their government to achieve a desired outcome, while at the same time that government is struggling against its' citizens to help a special interest achieve something the citizens don't want?

We should strive to get more people involved in the City Government, at least to the level of being informed voters. One way to do this is to restore peoples' faith and trust in their government by having a City Council that not just listens but responds to the people in a favorable way.