Public Comments

Please keep highlands ranch in same congressional district it is in. Thanks!

Thank you to the Commissioners for creating a map that is a much better representation of our state and rural areas.

You keep putting the SLV with the northern parts of the states - This makes ABSOLUTLEY NO NO NO NO Sense - Grand Junction and Fort Collins have nothing in common with the northern parts of the state - DO NOT put the rural SLV with any of the northern portion of the state NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

My name is Charles T Holley (Tom) and I am a registered voter in South Routt County, CO living near Oak Creek. Tik Tok goes the clock. The importance of having local representation in Congress that are from the Western Slope cannot be overstated. The Western Slope and the Front Range constituents have two distinct different needs and cannot have their priorities divided. The congressional representative should not have to choose between their front range and rural Western Slope constituents. Nearly 100% of the needs and issues of our Urban and Suburban friends differ from those of us in the Rural Western Slope. Simple look as the Energy Production, Ag Production, public lands, small business, mining resources and watersheds. My friends on the front range should not need to worry about my rural rancher friends needs while I shouldn’t need to worry about building HOV lanes and light rail. (frankly those are two reasons we left the front range chaos) Both people need representation that understands and excels at those really specific issues and environments. We need representation from people that understand and have lived the Western Rural lifestyle. This isn’t a “ski industry” community of interest issue as they have operated in Rural areas and will continue to operate in Rural Areas and people still flock there. Maybe those tourists are flocking to rural areas for the friendliness, non-chaotic nature, of the Rural West. Please keep Western Colorado on the Western Slope and let the Front Range operate on the Front Range were both communities deserve to be. Leave Boulder and Larimer out of CD2 and bring back the June 23 staff map to be fair to everyone on the Western Slope. Thank you.

I do not think that the existing House District 9, in which I am a PCP, should be eliminated during the redistricting process. This district has been "a community of interest" for at least ten years. Our shared interests include an effort to reduce homelessness in southeast Denver and to improve the air quality in all of metro Denver. Our public policy concerns include a concern for the homeless and a desire for more green space in southeast Denver and all of Denver. House District 9 is distinct from the other communities that we would be combined into, such as Cherry Hills Village, Greenwood Village, Aurora, and so on; and while we understand that some changes are necessary due to population growth and other factors, it is definitely wrong to eliminate our district completely by adding all of our precincts to three new house districts. House District 9 should definitely remain intact. We are truly "a community of interest."

I am writing to you to comment on the reconfiguring of District 52 and District 53 in the last staff map. It does seem confusing to understand why these changes are purposed. I have lived in District 53 for 10 years and don't see the need to make such drastic changes of the boundaries. It does seem practical to keep CSU and Front Range Community College in the same district. Thank you for the work you are doing.

Because it’s where I live, the west side of Colorado Springs (west of the interstate) is my main area of interest. I was quite impressed by the first staff plan and even the preliminary map for the state house districts because they seemed to really take seriously the idea of grouping communities of interest. This second staff plan, however, is quite troubling because it seems like the focus on communities of interest has been abandoned and that a return to the old politically motivated maps was made for the starting point for the second plan map. Respectfully, the notion that the new HD18 boundaries, stretching from Manitou all the way across Colorado Springs to Powers Blvd, somehow represent a community of common interests is a joke. It would probably be quite difficult to cobble together a more disparate grouping of communities and interests. Manitou is known for hippies and otherwise unique culture. Downtown is really pushing to attract young, urban professionals. The Patty Jewett area is quaint and picturesque. The old north end is quite affluent while there are quite economically challenged communities in the southern and eastern areas within these boundaries. During the in-person testimony at PPCC in Colorado Springs I heard it suggested that the west side should be grouped with downtown because people might ride bikes from downtown to the west side. A Manitou resident suggested Manitou should be grouped with downtown because she likes to go eat in restaurants down there. These both seem pretty silly. The west side is pretty distinct from downtown and it certainly isn’t Powers. There are connecting bike trails from downtown all the way up to the Woodmen and Austin Bluffs area and there are restaurants I enjoy all over town, in Pueblo, in the Denver area, and even out in Rush. These don’t make the different areas a connected community of interest. I’m trying to keep this brief so I’ll finish by saying that I ask and I hope that you will return to the sensible, community of interest based approach and work to keep the west side whole. The west side has significant common interests including the tourism that impacts various aspects of life and, very importantly, the wildland urban interface. The importance of this interface became profoundly obvious when so many of us were faced with the fear and uncertainty of the Waldo Canyon fire. I-25 is a sensible boundary and I hope you will keep the west side whole to better serve the common interests of those of use who live here.

For the state congreassional state shouls be 2nd proposal. For the state senate Delta county should be with Mesa County share shame water parts of Grand Mesa and other similar departments. Federal House Representive Delta country similarily should be put with Mesa and Garfield once again similar categories are shared.

For the state congreassional state shouls be 2nd proposal. For the state senate Delta county should be with Mesa County share shame water parts of Grand Mesa and other similar departments. Federal House Representive Delta country similarily should be put with Mesa and Garfield once again similar categories are shared.

I applaud the latest Congressional Plan, especially placing my Craig and Moffat County in the new District 2. It's where we should be!!