Tell it like it was
Regarding Crown Mountain Recreation District hearing: irresponsible citizens and irresponsible and biased reporting, by Scott Condon of The Aspen Times.
Scott, did we attend the same meeting? Certainly your reporting would not indicate the very positive developments that I saw, in addition to the constant disruption. Your boss should know the irresponsible reporting that you are doing.
The meeting had a good presentation of planning and fiscal responsibility and good public participation, with the exceptions of a few.
The meeting was broken into basically three segments:
1. Presentation of our present plan, which we can now afford
2. Presentation of the areas of recreation the budget supports. The public joined a group to discuss them, and bring back suggestions with a spokesman.
3. A summary of comments by each of the groups. The board will address those issues in completing their plans, and has invited additional input.
Laurie Soliday, chairman, and the board with their planners have come a long way. Now that the $5.1 million is there, and the hard work is done, the vultures are circling. You should have seen the caucusing taking place during the meeting.
I have one thing to say to those not on the board who are now trying to run the show. We voted for a responsible and good board, and they are doing a good job of being equally responsible to all paying citizens in developing plans.
Remember, the board is also responsible to those taxpayers who voted against the Crown Mountain Recreation District. A few who live and love to spend other people’s money would spend more, and in time will get some, if not all, of their wishes when funds are available. That message was conveyed more than once during disruptions in the meeting.
Public comment was asked for and received. Royal Laybourn disrupted presentations in the meeting several times. His fiscally irresponsible message was heard; renovating old Forest Service buildings for recreation.
This plan could present a safety issue similar to Royal’s involvement in the skate park where a child was killed by unsafe design. Safety is an issue with the present responsible board.
The Forest Service building plan could consume all, if not a major part, of the district’s budget without benefiting the majority. A response we heard several times as well.
Royal then attempted a major infusion of disruptive, controversial and fiscally irresponsible rhetoric. It was subdued by a deputy sheriff at the request of several of the public, of which I was one.
Royal Laybourn was not on the agenda and did not call the board to get on it. He was disruptive, controversial and tried to take over the meeting. He did not understand budget limitations and wanted to prioritize his own ideas at the expense of the majority use.
He tried to say that he represented the major public, which I don’t believe. Further to that end, I found that he is chronically a negative troublemaker. I certainly would never vote for him based on his irresponsible actions and ideas.
Too bad you couldn’t tell it like it was, Scott.
Raymond E. Grant
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.