Posted 4 months, 8 days ago in 
Loading ...
In response to the recent purchase of the property located at the base of Mount Garfield: It gives great concern when the majority of the Mesa County Commissioners felt that the price was too high to purchase the property at the base. Mount Garfield has always been a symbolic formation that has represented the city of Grand Junction and Mesa County throughout our community history.
Yet in reading articles further in the Daily Sentinel the Mesa County Commissioners seem to be more concerned with the new developments in De Beque and how that could affect the image of Mesa County. I agree that they should be concerned with development in De Beque. But why did the majority ignore the preservation of land bordering Mount Garfield?
Will we as citizens and people traveling through soon have to look at a industrial parking lot? You had the chance to preserve our historic landmark Commissioners, why did you not?
SAM BAGLEY
Palisade
One Response to “Mesa County should have purchased property near Mount Garfield”
Posted March 19th, 2008 at 8:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Don’t I remember hearing Janet Rowland say that purchasing land for open space was a waste of taxpayer dollars? While Commissioner Aquafresca understands the issue and sees the value of open space, I am quite certain that Commissioner Meis shares the opinion of his female counterpart.
We really need to replace Commissioner Meis and Commissioner Rowland with a couple of capable, unconflicted commissioners who will look at the big picture and consider the things that are important to the citizens of Mesa county, not just the Happy Valley Republican party and their oil and gas buddies.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.