Comments for Jacob Smith for Golden

Comment on Jefferson Tollway Negotiations End by jacob

jacob — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:55:58 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Stephen.

Comment on Jefferson Tollway Negotiations End by Stephen F

Stephen F — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 00:08:27 +0000

Mayor – many thanks for your service to our community and for your frankness on these important issues.

As a young family in the Mountain Ridge neighborhood, I concur with your assessment that we should revisit the 2003 Golden/Muller Plan for any appropriate adjustments given more current information available. Moreover, as a former Washington DC resident (where there’s already a well known beltway with well known concerns), I wholeheartedly agree that any changes to 93 must have a) safety/community/environmental protection (e.g. 45mph speed limit, strict noise buffering, grade separated interchanges with dedicated pedestrian and bike access) and b) legal protection from ever letting 6 / 93 “evolve” into a beltway itself.

We have various legitimate transportation and traffic issues at hand which, if we continue to work diligently and collegially on, we can solve in a manner that puts Golden in an even better position for now and future generations.

Comment on Jefferson Tollway Negotiations End by Jacob Smith

Jacob Smith — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 03:44:49 +0000

To your first question, one premise of the negotiating process is that the details of everyone’s offers and negotiations remain confidential. This is true for nearly any complex negotiation, as I’m sure you know, Jim.

To your second question, City Council met in executive session a number of times over the past several months to give direction to the negotiators (which primarily were the city manager and myself). Going into the final weeks of negotiations, based on the executive session discussions, Mike and I had very clear direction from City Council on what might be acceptable and what was not acceptable. If we had reached an agreement that we thought might work, we would have brought it back for Council’s consideration. That would have been in a public meeting. We didn’t end up with an agreement that was strong enough, so there wasn’t anything to bring back.

Comment on Jefferson Tollway Negotiations End by Jacob Smith

Jacob Smith — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 03:26:48 +0000

Thanks for the comments, Kit. Any agreement carries with it some risk like you describe, which is why provisions preventing that are especially important. Not reaching an agreement carries with it real risk as well, but in this case the agreement wouldn’t have been strong enough to justify it.

Comment on Jefferson Tollway Negotiations End by Jim Smith

Jim Smith — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:39:22 +0000

I’d like to see the “deal” that was being formulated as of the Council meeting on Dec. 15th and was expected to be in Golden’s hands the following week. Can we not see what they presented to Golden? It seems as if they presented something unacceptable that entailed a provision not revealed by Dec. 15th. And it appears that a decision was made — without an open meeting — to reject that deal. What’s the story here?

Comment on Jefferson Tollway Negotiations End by Kit C.

Kit C. — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:36:09 +0000

Well, that is what I had suspected was the pointof contention; Golden wants guarantees that we keep it at 4 lanes and 45 mph, and the other entities thought they were going to get to use a “camel’s nose under the tent” approach by letting us start wiht that, and then forcing a defacto beltway after the fact. Given that, I’m glad Golden scuppered the deal.

I hope we can still work towards a final agreement that protects our historic town from being railroaded into a “Beltway by another name”, and since it appears that the other involved entities are not willing to grant us the right to preserve our town, we must keep fighting for our city.

Thanks again for all your hard work as Mayor; Golden is a better place thanks to your efforts!

Comment on Jefferson Tollway Update by jacob

jacob — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:05:42 +0000

Thanks for posting a note, Leonard. Golden and the other communities didn’t reach an agreement because we couldn’t agree on language we felt was strong enough to adequately protect Golden.

Comment on Jefferson Tollway Update by jacob

jacob — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:04:03 +0000

Thanks for the comments, Kreager. The plan to widen 93 to four lanes within the city is Golden’s own plan, which the community came up with in a major community process about a decade ago. I am encouraging the new City Council to update that plan in a new community process in 2012, which would give you a chance to weigh in on what that vision should be.

I agree about non-compete clauses, which is why the agreement we were negotiating prohibited them on the state highways north of Golden.

Comment on Jefferson Tollway Update by Leonard Karr

Leonard Karr — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 14:06:13 +0000

I believe that Golden should hang tough and hold out for a much better deal that what has been offered so far.

Comment on Jefferson Tollway Update by Kreager Powers

Kreager Powers — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 01:24:12 +0000

I am for an agreement that meets all of Golden Citizens, however a four lane highway next to Village of Mountain Ridge Subdivision without an appealing layout is out of the question. Why would I support any high speed highway that will lower the value of our properties and ruin our small town atmosphere. Our Ward Councilor should oppose this as well. We, Village of Mountain Ridge, appear not represented well.

I also do not like the Non-Compete clause that we are to agree to. I could care less if the company that will run the Toll Road is successful or not, but I don’t agree to make Golden Citizens mobility more difficult just because we won’t use the Toll Road.