Public Comments

Thank you for all your time and effort spent on the new redistricting plan. I would be present for the hearing, but am out of town. Please accept this email as my public comment. I’d like to tell you about WindCrest and the reason why we need to remain in one voting district. We are a community that just happens to have the High Line Canal run through it. While we all enjoy using the canal for walking and biking, it’s illogical for it to be used as a voting district dividing line as there is nothing “divided” about our community. Our WindCrest community is comprised of 3 main campuses, 32 clubs, 8 restaurants, 7 exercise rooms, 2 aquatic centers, 45 meeting rooms, 3 theaters, and on and on. These facilities are used on both sides of the canal every day by every one of our 1,600 residents. Even the police & fire departments, as well as Centennial Water and Xcel, view us as one entity. The current redistricting proposal would divide our otherwise united community into Districts 22 and 23. As you can imagine, this would be very confusing to our senior residents who are politically active - did you know that we have 10 residents who are centenarians? As some of our residents are physically challenged, trying to help them understand which caucus to attend, where and when, would probably result in their just staying home, which would be a step back for our democracy. We now have monthly speakers (e.g. Representative Van Winkle, AG Weiser, Sheriff Spurlock) who keep us informed about issues critical to our state and Douglas County. Please don’t divide us! Thank you for soliciting public comment and I hope that with this more detailed information, you will see the wisdom in keeping WindCrest in one district. Regards, Sara Jo Light Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 (submitted by email 7/28/21)

I’m writing as a resident of Wind Crest retirement community in Highlands Ranch. I wish to respectfully request that the Wind Crest community be included within only one legislative district, and not two separate districts as is currently proposed. Wind Crest is a community of senior folks who live, eat and do activities throughout the campus. We also are very active voters. Having our community located in two districts would create confusion among a group of people who are and want to continue to be engaged in political activities. Thank you Bill Fritschen, Wind Crest 10 year resident (submitted by email 7/28/21)

I’m is a resident of Wind Crest retirement community in Highlands Ranch. I wish to respectfully request that the Wind Crest community be included within only one legislative district, and not two separate districts as is currently proposed. In the most recent preliminary legislative district map, I notice that the Wind Crest campus would be split between District 22 and District 33. Wind Crest is a community of senior folks who live, eat and do activities throughout the campus. We also are very active voters. Having our community located in two districts would create confusion among a group of people who are and want to continue to be engaged in political activities." Thank you for reconsidering this. Benis Glasser (submitted by email 7/28/21)

Thank you for your time and for your work on this important issue. I’m writing as a resident of Wind Crest retirement community in Highlands Ranch. I wish to respectfully request that the Wind Crest community be included within only one legislative district, and not two separate districts as is currently proposed. In the most recent preliminary legislative district map, I notice that the Wind Crest campus would be split between District 22 and District 33. Wind Crest is a community of senior folks who live, eat and do activities throughout the campus. We also are very active voters. Having our community located in two districts would create confusion among a group of people who are and want to continue to be engaged in political activities. (submitted by email 7/28/21)

To whom it may concern: As residents for almost a decade of Wind Crest retirement community in Highlands Ranch, we respectfully request that the Wind Crest community be included within only one legislative district, and not two separate districts as is currently proposed. In the most recent preliminary legislative district map, we notice that the Wind Crest campus would be split between District 22 and District 33. Wind Crest is a community of senior folks who live, eat and do activities throughout the campus. We also are very active voters. Having our community located in two districts would create wasteful duplications if not confusion among a group of people who are and want to continue to be engaged in political activities. Grateful for your work on our behalf, Donald R. & Norma L. DUTTER (submitted by email 7/28/21)

I'm a resident of Wind Crest, an active retirement community in Highlands Ranch, CO with a current population over 1,600, and an expected growth to 2,000. We are a close-knit community of active folks who live, eat, and enjoy activities together throughout our large campus. Our population includes Republicans, Democrats, and Independents,who are involved in politics and are active voters. I am writing to request that this community be included within ONE legislative district. Splitting us into two separate districts--22 and 33--as is currently proposed, would create confusion, and perhaps sow division, among a group of people who are, and want to continue to be, engaged in political activities. Please keep Wind Crest in one district! Doing so will help us continue to be the close-knit community we have become. Thank you. Nancy Biggs Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 (submitted by email 7/27/21)

My husband Tom Conroy and I attended the Redistricting Meeting in Englewood, July 21. As 30-year residents of Cherry Hills Village we are pleased that the preliminary map of Congressional District 6 links Cherry Hills Village to Greenwood Village and Aurora rather than to Denver. Both Cherry Hills Village and Greenwood Village are semi-rural, lack industrial bases, and have similar transport links. Therefore, we in Cherry Hills Village have more in common with Greenwood Village and even eastern Aurora (where we served as Election Judges in the last election) than we do with Denver. Importantly, Congressional District 6 is more competitive than the old Congressional District 1. We appreciate your hard work and, above all, we are grateful that our links with Denver have been severed on the preliminary Congressional map. We respectfully ask you to make permanent the linkage of Cherry Hills Village with Greenwood Village and Eastern Aurora in the new Congressional District 6. Sincerely, Mary Schaeffer Conroy, Emeritus Professor, History, University of Colorado and Thirty-year Cherry Hill Village resident. (submitted by email 7/25/21)

To Whom It May Concern, I am very concerned about the proposed redistricting that breaks up Boulder and near about areas which share interests. Currently, the western part of the city of Boulder connects with our adjacent mountain communities in District 13, which functions well. This critical urban-mountain corridor holds many communities of interest like environmental stewardship, conservation, recreation, floods, fires, and wildlife concerns. The linking of the city of Boulder with these mountain communities enables strong state representation because our interests are so aligned. The draft new district (36) disrupts these connections, isolating the city of Boulder and instead pairing our mountain communities with parts of the cities of Longmont and Lafayette. This disrupts key communities of interest and will weaken state representation for our mountain communities. Similarly, in the draft proposal, the eastern part of the city of Boulder is severed from numerous industrial clusters in Gunbarrel and business parks east of Foothills Parkway. This breaks up business communities of interest that experience a multitude of legislative issues. Please reject the draft proposal, Deborah Ruth Bronstein Boulder CO, 80303 (submitted by email 7/25/21)

Thank you for your work on this important issue. In the most recent preliminary legislative map, I notice that the Wind Crest campus in Highlands Ranch would be split between District 22 and District 23. I respectfully request that Wind Crest be included within only one legislative district and not two separate districts as is currently proposed. Please consider keeping Wind Crest in one district.

Thank you for your work on this important issue. In the most recent preliminary legislative map, I notice that the Wind Crest campus in Highlands Ranch would be split between District 22 and District 23. I respectfully request that Wind Crest be included within only one legislative district and not two separate districts as is currently proposed. Please consider keeping Wind Crest in one district. Janet Bradbury (submitted by email 7/24/21)