Campers: If they were on private land...
       I appreciate your continuing excellent reporting -- and personal comments-- on the campers along Fountain and Monument Creeks.
       A few months ago I sent letters to a few of the City Council members stating that most of the campers “think their right to take is greater than our right to own” and that “if the campers are allowed to continue to camp on public land they will claim a right to do so-- forever.” Last week I heard a camper say on the evening news that he had a right to camp along the creek.
       Is City Council stymied because it's public land? Council members act as though they have no responsibility and authority.
       What would the city's response be to a private land owner (or non-profit, corporation or developer) if that owner decided to allow campers to set up a tent city on that property? Assume the parcel of land is in town along one of the creeks. My sense is that every tentacle of every land use and environmental agency in the city, county, state and federal government would be all over that landowner. That owner would be in violation of an almost endless list of permits and land-use requirements.
       City Council is acting with a double standard. They need to enforce on public land what they require on private land.
       Just a few thoughts.

Dick Standaert