In response to the Letter to the Editor by Tom Fairbanks and Elizabeth West (link):
Firstly, the Mesa Meadow presentations were completely out of order. Tennis courts at Mesa Meadows was NOT in the Bonding package. Tennis courts at JFK-Mesa Field was the ONLY venue in it! No other.
Next, several years ago, I had determined that courts could be built in Mesa Meadows without being on pool land. This was confirmed by the consultants more recently. Mesa Meadows is county land and not these residents’ backyards. XC skiing and bike riding on the grass area is a stretch. The road would still be there. County Manager (Harry) Burgess would be well aware that the courts could be built on Mesa Meadow county land and NOT on pool land, if necessary, to make his comment. The petitioner should have been lauding the JFK-Mesa Field site as their preferred option, instead of blasting something that was not under consideration. That would have been positive! Their actions were not.
Next, I am accused of leaving the Dec. 20 meeting before council had made its arguments and decisions about what would be in the CIP bonding. This included what to do about the tennis courts. NO SO; these folks need to get their facts straight. I was there for the entire session on what was to be in the bond, including Councilor (James) Chrobocinski’s recommendation that the tennis courts be removed from the CIP package, but that the county should find a way to fund the courts outside the process, including the possibility of selling some county land now occupied by tennis courts. Yes, the exact location was to be left undetermined. If Mesa Meadows ever came up again, that would have been the time for the petitioners to speak up, not when Mesa Meadows was NOT on the docket. The petitioners are trying, in their letter rebuking me, to justify their actions in council chambers by alluding to Councilor Chrobocinski’s proposal comments that were made well AFTER their public comments!