A two-hour long meeting Wednesday to discuss the circulation of petitions to annex the western half of Fruitvale into the city of Grand Junction evolved into an explosion of questions and an outpouring of emotion.
Many residents were opposed to the idea of annexation. Others, including a member of the resident-committee that studied the possibility of annexing Fruitvale, were simply confused. And still others stormed out of the meeting in anger, either confused about the area proposed to be annexed or frustrated they could not get their questions answered.
“I am a little in the dark, even though I am on the committee,” said committee member Dave Combs.
Jon Peacock, Mesa County administrator, said before the meeting that the committee members would be doing all the talking and that he had no plans to speak.
Although five committee members did speak, Mesa County Commissioner Janet Rowland quietly asked Peacock to address the audience of nearly 100 people as committee members were being hit with questions about why Fruitvale needs to be annexed.
“The county is not in a position to offer urban level services,” Peacock said in response.
Rowland, who lives in Fruitvale and would be annexed if the signature petition succeeds, followed Peacock. She said the Clifton/Fruitvale area, roughly from 31 Road east to 33 Road, consumes 40 percent of the Mesa County Sheriff’s Department’s resources. At the same time, residents in the area only pay 19 percent of the cost.
“We are not paying our own way,” Rowland said.
By that time, many in the the audience were already hissing. Rowland said if the area does not annex, incorporate, or form a special tax district to pay for government services, “you’re going to see some cuts in services.”
Mesa County Sheriff Stan Hilkey assured everyone that law enforcement, no matter the outcome of the annexation procedure, would be a constant.
“Nobody will fall through the cracks,” Hilkey said. “I’m with you through thick or thin. We will continue to serve you the best we can, however this works out.”
For the most part, audience members raised their hands and spoke when called upon. Some could not contain themselves.
“There is no such thing as a free lunch and that’s what you are saying we are getting,” said one man.
One woman said she didn’t want to be annexed.
“We want the status quo,” she said.
Not everyone was unhappy. Some embraced the possibility of becoming part of Grand Junction.
“We need more police in this area,” said a woman who lives in a Fruitvale mobile home.
Some were concerned Grand Junction was attempting to force the issue.
“The city is not driving this,” Rowland said.
About 25 people left the meeting when they learned the area being considered for annexation was east of their homes.
“We’ve been had,” said one of them as he left.
Shortly after their departure, Kimberly Bullen, a senior planner for Mesa County who has been working on the annexation proposal for the past 2 1/2 years, said that the miles of unincorporated Mesa County west of 31 Road to roughly 29 Road would become an enclave if the signature petition is accepted by the Grand Junction City Council.
An enclave may be annexed after five years, Bullen said.
Mesa County hired Denver-based CRL Associates for $40,000 to assist with circulating the petitions, which may only be signed by property owners.
Two more meetings on tap
Both meetings are from 6 to 8 p.m.
• Oct. 13, Clifton Elementary School, 3276 F Road
• Oct. 15, Clifton Community Hall, 126 Second St.
Email LEROY STANDISH
Comments
By wow...
Oct 11, 2009 2:21 AM | Link to this
WOW...I live in fruitvale...i live in a veryyyyy nice neighborhood, no meth heads, welfare ppl, none of whats being described...iv seen worst neighborhoods in some parts of gj than the neighborhood i live in. Im fairly new to colorado and dont fully understand whats going on with the annexation of fruitvale, whatever is best for everyone is what matters to me. i think its so wrong when people scrunch up their noses when they hear "clifton", or when i tell ppl where i live and they assume "clifton?" and wrinkle their noses...or how we quickly judge "meth heads" or "welfare ppl"...not everyone who lives in the bad parts of clifton are junkies or on welfare, some people just havent had it as easy as most of us. i really think that its those who like to make those types of judgement calls are the most ignorant of all. i have never been on drugs or welfare, and i am the last person to look down on someone who is because of the fact that i know nothing of them. it only takes a few "bad" ppl to ruin it for the rest that are actually on welfare (because theyre truly having a bad moment in their lives)...how many people have been laid off from work and have children who they cant provide care to??? think before you write something so negative...maybe you need to be on welfare go through the whole process (i used to work for the county in my old home town) some of these people are emberassed to ask for help but do it anyway because they have little mouths to feed. so quit being so ignorant not all of them are milkin the system.
By NoNewTaxes
Oct 9, 2009 11:40 AM | Link to this
If the MC Commissioners can take trashy Redlands people to court over their dumps, they could certainly do it for Fruitvale. Rowland's dumb threats do not hold water. The only County services our Fruitvale neighborhood has had for years is a once a year street sweeping. And if that is what Rowland threatens to cut back on, then we can live with it as opposed to Rowland's huge tax hike. Rowland's threats, higher taxes and temper-tantrums are going over like a fart in church in our Fruitvale community.
By Slikrok593
Oct 9, 2009 9:51 AM | Link to this
I am all for annexation ! Maybe that would rid me of the meth house next door ; whose customers race down my steet at all hours , then park for a couple of minutes and then " speed " on ! Also , it would be nice if someone could get rid of the
three familes that live in one house , and a trailor , across from me . At last count , they own nine vehicles which are parked in the street . And then there is the house that has four junk trucks parked in the yard , along with weeds that are over six feet high and a border fence that is falling down . I did not realize the Fruitvale was a " slum " district when I purchased a home here five years ago .
If annexation to Grand Junction would help to clean up this area , I say " lets
do it " !
By Rowland's threats
Oct 8, 2009 10:01 PM | Link to this
Janet Rowland's lame attempt at extortion and threatening the citizens of Fruitvale in saying "we will cut sevices" will not work. Just try it, Janet. She is the worst kind of politician.
By thoughtful
Oct 8, 2009 8:40 PM | Link to this
Let's see....here are the 3 options:
1. Annex
2. Incorporate
3. Remain the same
Everyone is griping about annexation because it is either a "money-grab" by GJ or Mesa County. News item: it would be MORE expensive to incorporate and that has already been established.
Stay the same? Mesa County has already stated they would cut services. So in reality, there is no "stay the same" It's either pay a LITTLE more in taxes and get more service (options 1 and 2) or receive a CUT in services. I understand that although the City is not planning on turning down the petition requests, they are also not pushing for it. When annexing an area that has LESS revenue than it costs to provide service to that area, is not a money-grab by the city.
The PUSH to CHANGE is coming from Mesa County residents who want urban level services. The county and city are responding to that, not the other way around. It really works to research and pay attention and become an INFORMED voter than just to spout the first conspiracy theory that comes to mind.
By Pixie
Oct 8, 2009 6:49 PM | Link to this
My family has also been a resident of Fruitvale since 1985 and we are not "Meth Heads", on "Welfare" or looking for a free ride!!!! Never have. We pay plenty of taxes. Our home was accessed at $242k for 2009 taxes and was appraised out at $197 for same year. And it has been assessed higher than it's value for several years. Looks like we are paying our share in taxes, don't you think? Pryor to this meeting, I called to ask what services we would get for all that money, I was told and I quote, "street lights, sidewalks, street cleaning, and more police protection". That's funny. The only way sidewalks can be put on our streets, is if they take some of our property, since our street is barely wide enough for two way traffic. Street cleaning, ha, our street is always clean. And for street lights, we have our own light sources. Most people do throughout the area we are in. And surrounding streets. Police protection, hmmm, we have so little crime here, simply because we are not criminals, and criminals, as a rule, don't come into our neighbor hood. I see a lot more crime in the city of G.J., then I do throughout Fruitvale. That's a fact, not an assumption. Now the main reason I'm peeved, is the fact that our little area in Fruitvale, is not involved in the phases that are going to be petitioned. So if the annexation goes through, within 5 years after the phases are annexed, our area can be annexed without our say so, and we are left without any input. Now where is that fair? I agree with what JJ said. And TLC, blondie, you have no clue.
By dsnoopy4119
Oct 8, 2009 5:40 PM | Link to this
I am a property and resident in Fruitvale since 1985!!! I am neither a meth head or nor on welfare. I have paid my full share of taxes (income over $50,000 and property worth $185,000 according to the Assessors Office.)
Please stop spouting off if you don't know the facts. My area is full of recent and currently under construction houses for which the asking prices are well over $250,000.
My concern is that I, nor my neighbors, have received any information about what services will be provided to us. We all pay taxes and will pay even more to the City of Grand Junction through sales taxes, yet I have yet to receive ANYTHING in the mail telling me what benefit I will receive if this area is annexed. Why should I be willing to sign a petition for this? Sounds like taxation without represantation to me!!!
I just want the advantages vs the disadvantages provided on something I can read and verify the facts.
By Advocate
Oct 8, 2009 4:15 PM | Link to this
I'm certainly no fan of Janet Rowland, but to blame her and the other Commissioners for something that was brought to them and not the other way around is simply wrong. Lost in all of the previous posts is that the GJ City Council and Planning Commission will still have the final say and I don't think any of them are all that anxious to annex that part of the valley....for MANY reasons. The best option to satisfy a bigger segment of the population would be to have the area incorporate themselves and set up a method in which to tax themselves for services required. In the meantime, get ALL of the information before placing blame. (which in itself will be difficult because the issue is still a moving target and all of the informtion isn't available yet.)
By blondie
Oct 8, 2009 3:45 PM | Link to this
Anyone who thinks that the City of Grand Junction is going to MAKE money by annexing that part of Fruitvale is a dunce! That place is a PIT and will continue to require far more money in terms of police, social services, and infrastructure upgrades than it's population will EVER produce in tax revenues. I'm a GJ resident and am opposed to this annexation because it will be a drain on the City for years to come.
By JJ
Oct 8, 2009 2:47 PM | Link to this
TLC - which areas in the City of GJ do you think receive a disproportionate amount of contact from the GJPD without the tax revenue to cover that expense? Does anyone else think the taxes collected could be a great way to pay for that new Police Station the city couldn't afford & the voters rejected.
[1 2 3] next
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F, except on Tuesday when it's open until 9 p.m.
Post a comment
*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.