Theobald: No Placer for truth? (letter)
I have been watching the Ruby Placer Annexation campaign and have been appalled at the fabrications and outright lies that are being circulated by its opposition. I had intended to not respond to the misrepresentations, but now that the opposition’s lies are about me and my family, I must set the record straight about a few things.
My family and I do not — nor have we ever had — any ownership interest in this property and/or this development. There is no scenario, regardless of the outcome of the vote, where I or any member of my family would directly benefit financially from this property or development. When the opposition says otherwise, they are lying.
Now, let me give you some other facts: There were 15 noticed public meetings on this project. The opposition was heard over and over again, repeatedly at those meeting and hearings. Ultimately, the town board was not convinced by the opposition’s arguments. That the board did not support the opposition is not evidence that they were not heard; it is evidence that their position was not in the best interests of the town.
During those 15 meetings, the Blue River Town Board won concessions from this developer, including over 2 acres of public open space, a playground and field, trail system, community center and bus stop — all open to all town residents. The project will tax itself and generate considerable revenue for the town. The transfer fees that will apply in this development will never be applied throughout the town without another vote specifically accepting that tax by town residents.
This property will be developed — either in the town with benefits for Blue River residents or within the county without any benefits to Blue River.
Some more facts: Ruby Placer has water rights from a variety of sources. Ruby Placer will be served by the Upper Blue Sanitation District after paying fees. CDOT will require the developer to make improvements to Highway 9, which will increase safety for all. The density of Ruby Placer is 1.41 units per acre, which is considerable less than many Blue River neighborhoods. There will not be any commercial uses in this development. When the opposition says otherwise about any of these things, they are lying.
In 1997, I represented the town of Blue River on the committee that wrote the original Joint Upper Blue Master Plan. Additionally, I was a member of the upper Blue Planning Commission when that Master Plan was updated in 2005. This development in the town of Blue River is in compliance with the Joint Upper Blue Master Plan. When the opposition says otherwise, they are lying.
I cannot vote in this election because I am now a resident of unincorporated Summit County; but my heart will always be with Blue River, where I made my home from 1964 to 2001. I will always favor what is best for Blue River. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying.
I urge a “yes” vote on the annexation because, in my opinion, it is what is best for Blue River.
Robin G. Theobald
Unincorporated Summit County
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.
Now more than ever, your financial support is critical to help us keep our communities informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having on our residents and businesses. Every contribution, no matter the size, will make a difference.
Your donation will be used exclusively to support quality, local journalism.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User