The Arvada enterprise., 1923-03-22

,hs Senatorial COHliiitIee VI ''ie
ctv and County of Denver.
c.rtlemen: I have before me a
-, Of your letter sent to Senator
~ ~ Church on March 13, 1928, and
~ cannot agree with all the state
~, made therein l take this
..,Aod of answering them.
I, the first place, you state that
a. hearing before your committee
= March Z showed that all persons
M were interested in the passage
4 the original Moffat tunnel act
~, given an opportunity Of a hear
nv. and that some parties availed
s,s,elyes of the opportunity, and
.,,.,ip changes were made in the
il
nm aware that certain corpora
inn were allowed a hearing and
Her property excluded from the dis
tet but no opportunity was allowed
N suggested to the people of Jeffer-
pn county to my knowledge.
You state the bill was carefully
dawn and due allowance made that
ii the taxpayers and land owners
would be fairly treated.
| have tried repeatedly to find out
vhat methods were used for locating
be lines of the district, but all that
an be learned is that q certain
ysung lawyer has been made the
4goat' and accepts the responsibility
isr tie locating of the lines, and he,
Wen, b not sure of it and admitted
b me that the lines were changed
4 he city hall after leaving his
hnla
Yos accept the statement Of the
tnsd commissions attorney that an
spsrtunity for protest wasvallowed
n that we of Jefferson county
vssld not avail ourselves Of the pro-
'iion. Now, if you will read section
ad Tie tunnel law you will perceive
Tt i would be a physical impossi-
ay to get anywhere with a remon-
shaaee in that direction. Section 3
Rwides that the remonstrance must
contain the names Of owners Of at
lsss 80 per cent of the taxable
ksperT Of the whole tunnel district
md dgners of said petition must
ssn and acknowledged before a no.
my or other qualified officer. It
VII Be seen that we would have some
'ndertaking before us If we tried to
keure the names and acknowledge
.ents OF 30 per cent Of the taxpayers
~ district when we know that at
~ 70 per cent of them live in Dem
~ and are so thoroughly "buf-
Med" that they would not dare
asper word of opposition against
DenVer' pet project. Neither would
V iare any better under section Is
~ appealing from the assessme nts
A''ea against our property, as that
@'' allows for an appeal where one
feee OF property is taxed at higher
.,F " 'nan other property of the same
our only source Of redress seemed
" ", 0e IN the courts, and we started
-'s'''on in good faith, believing our
N''e was just and that it was a duty
y. : owed to the people of this part
y, " 'ne tunnel district to defeat this
nIqu'tlous plan of taking our prop
wy without any return in benefits.
!, mere has been good deal of talk
!. 'ne commission and its attorneys
81. 70 what might have been accom-
.ned In the district court in Jes-
~. a county, and you seem to &C.
:. ..N @sir word for it in preference
r. Tan' That talk IL all "bunk."
,.v w nave been ready At all times to
=" with them ~ to a settleme ent of
.. ~ a'@sreements, but their talk al.
|. runs in one direction. namely,
!. .0nvsrs ~ '. US to their views and for
,,n. ~ down on the job and sac
" w. s'l We have been fighting for.
.0a also accept the word Of the
I.s.n. I,'''on's attorney a. to what the
n. 'l'.s y arising from the construc.
VI 'ne tunnel will be and copy
y . ~ 'peseh Of Mr.. Myer on March !
J, ;. .,' entirety. Those are questions
NJ .nsh ., people may well disagree,
:. :. .ne ~, only will answer them. But
ane we feel sure Of: The tax.
4 y" viii pay for the tunnel and
I po.ations ls will, some day. own
|. ,s.e s:en has always been the result
~ ~skfnss Of this kind, and Il.
wi b. You can't ehanss