Posted 15 days ago in 
Loading ...
Regarding the piece by Jon Peacock concerning annexation of the Clifton and Fruitvale areas, and the population figures for those areas: In Jon’s first paragraph, he states, “There are no clearly defined, accepted, official boundaries for Clifton and Fruitvale.” In paragraph three of the same letter, he states, “ When preparing our estimates, County staff calculated the population – of the precise unincorporated areas” being studied.
Come on now — are the areas of unincorporation in Clifton and Fruitvale “official boundaries,” or are they not? When I had cause to call the police for a trespass, I was promptly told by dispatch I would have to call the Sheriff, not the police. I live in Fruitvale. How did they know, if there are no “official boundaries”?
Do “precise unincorporated areas” not have “clearly defined, accepted, official boundaries”? It cannot be both ways. What are the boundaries planned for annexation? That seemed pretty clear when they were explained in the paper a while back as the areas proposed for annexation.
I can understand calculated population within a given area, but I can’t begin to understand how the city will annex areas with no ‘clearly defined boundaries’. Sounds like double-speak to me, and I would think that the Mesa County Administrator should know what those boundaries are – clearly, accepted, and official. Otherwise, how will the city manage to annex?
DAVID F. ZULIAN
Grand Junction
One Response to “Annexation needs ‘clearly defined boundaries’”
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 11:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m sorry to hear that my letter may have been confusing. To clarify, I was trying to explain why people may notice differing population numbers for the Clifton and Fruitvale areas, depending on where they look for the information. That’s because neither zone is a concrete, defined area. Ask different people where Clifton ends and Fruitvale begins, and you’ll get different answers. Because Clifton and Fruitvale are not municipalities, they have no officially accepted boundaries that all entities use.
That said, the letter writer is correct that we certainly do know where the areas are that have already been annexed into the City of Grand Junction, and where the unincorporated areas are (for the purposes of service delivery). But you may have an annexed area next to an unincoporated area–both of which people might call “Fruitvale.” So the point I was trying to make is that the numbers Mesa County is using when discussing the newly proposed annexation areas ARE using clearly defined boundaries. That’s why we feel that our numbers are the most accurate ones to use when discussing this particular annexation proposal.
I hope this helps clear up any confusion.
Sincerely,
Jon Peacock
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.