How can CU continue with such contradictory and bold face lies. How can both of these excuses be true at the same time?:

1. "We had to give DiStefano a $50,000 raise or he might go to another PAC 12 school": Oh right, a volcano will swallow up CU and kill all of its students and faculty if DiStefano decides to work for say Oregon State instead. Right. I'm sure that comes to quite a surprise to Oregon State.

2. "We had to give DiStefano a $50,000 raise because he is 65 and retiring soon". If he retires soon he will not be working at Oregon State or anywhere else, will he?. If CU refused to pay DiStefano the extra 50 grand he might retire sooner. I speculate that in this economy someone else would still want a $339,000 a year job.

Actual reasons : "We had to lie to the CU Board of Regents and give DiStefano a $50,000 raise because DiStefano wanted a $50,000 raise". And "CU has to raise tuition by 15.7% next year because DiStefano wants another raise and he doesn't care where the money comes from. Our in state students are dumb animals anyway and deserve to be robbed. Let them be stuck with higher loan payments for the next 30 years as long as DiStefano is taken care of."

Cattle are, to be precise, a major source of methane and other green house gases. A bigger source than even the elected and non-elected Boulder county officialdom.

Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars. It may be better for the planets environment to pave over most of Boulder's Open Space and create thousands of parking spaces for SUVS than it would be to graze cattle on said open space. Probably the only thing worse than cattle ranching would termite farms (termites make a lot green house gases also).

Who is the "mystery partner" I wonder? Mitt Romney with his funds from the Cayman Islands?

I am not exaggerating: If it was up to Spence Havlick Boulder Government (at all levels) would be run like Fidel Castro’s Cuba with people Havlick approves of in the roles of Fidel and Raoul.

There is nothing wrong with consulting the voting public on issues on like who should be County Open Space Director or County Attorney. Yeah there is a chance someone Spence doesn’t like might be put in charge of those positions but tough ****.

For the life of me I don’t understand why the issue of the homeless occupying the current library buildings is never discussed when the issue of a North Boulder branch library building comes up (or really ever discussed at all by elected officials).

A library building in North Boulder would be overrun almost immediately during the day by the convicted felons, parolees, sex offenders, drug addicts and alcoholics who inhabit the Homeless Shelter at night (or who camp illegally on the county property the borders North Boulder). These won’t even have to take the bus downtown to the main library as they currently do. Look, if the homeless need a day care center don’t create one by calling it a library and paying for it out of the library budget.

I strongly support putting this matter to a public vote. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the City of Boulder and residents of North Boulder want a community center where their children can spend their days in contact with officially designated violent sex offenders (one who currently resides in the Homeless Shelter) or people convicted of abusing human corpses.

Oh boy. Let’s start with:

“With few exceptions, the 'anti-camping' cases that have gone to trial in Boulder Municipal Court have involved, even according to the officers who wrote the tickets, clean campsites.”

How can that be if the campsites do not have sanitation facilities?

“Most of those who have maintained their innocence are alleged to have merely lain down for the night in a sleeping bag or a blanket that may have been provided by Boulder County Cares in fulfillment of that organization's mission.”

Yes, the activities of these nonprofits are part of the problem. And none seem to give a damn if what they do results in illegal activity (including fires started by homeless campers which have in the past nearly burned down part of the City). The Homeless Shelter itself provides year round services to “homeless campers”. The worst are the groups that receive tax payer funds and then encourage violations with tax payer money (as the Homeless Shelter does).

“Common sense tells us that enforcement of this anti-camping ordinance does not protect public safety when it heightens the danger of a person literally freezing to death, a fate to which a few of Boulder's homeless have succumbed in recent history.”

How recent is that? According to the Daily Camera article dated 12/19/2011: “Last year, 22 homeless people died in Boulder County, though none died primarily of exposure”.

OK the current anti-camping laws are not all that effective. Thanks for pointing that out. The solution then has to involve the creation of effective laws instead. For the example the current law does not allow the confiscation of camping equipment of the malefactors involved, one thing Brautigam’s recent proposed regulation on closing parks and open space did.

DiStefano knows that if he can promise permanent residence in the US for those foreign students who complete their degrees, CU and every other American University will have a gold mine by basically selling US residency and citizenship. Most foreign students are very aware of this and also very aware that an American degree is many cases worthless in their home countries. Just ask a few dozen and hope you get an honest answer.

There are no shortages of people with "technical skills" in the US, generally speaking "math, science and engineering". That is a myth DiStefano and his greedy pals promote.

"fill shortages in high-tech fields "- Please tell us Mr. Bennet, WHAT HIGH TECH fields have shortages?

Students in US come out of undergraduate programs ridiculously IN DEBT. Many overseas students have their educations paid for by their home governments, so they can come to the US and get advanced degrees instead of paying off loans. Why don't American Companies hire American students?

'Betsey Martens, executive director of Boulder Housing Partners, said the current method of scattering housing for the chronically homeless at sites throughout Boulder County is entirely dependent on the good will of private landlords. "There's not an unlimited supply of willing landlords" who will rent to people who have no income, she said. "'

Sorry but doesn't Boulder Housing Partners itself control some 1900 apartments alone (maybe my information is off)? 31 of their existing apartments can't be set aside for this Housing First Project? Please.

"There's a lot of fear based on not a lot of concrete knowledge about who is going to be served and what is going to happen,"- Good point George. The problem is neither the Bridge House nor the Homeless Shelter collect adequate information on their “clients” or if they do they don’t know what to do with it. Further information that is collected that might discourage funding (how many ex-convicts or parolees or criminals on bail or people with outstanding warrants for arrest are staying in the Homeless Shelter or use the Bridge House) is never released to the public. No wonder the public is suspicious.

My 2 cents: if the Homeless Shelter was shut down, the empty building that remains would actually be the best location for the Bridge House

Re: Oatman Letter: If only the “the city and the homeless shelter” would address the “negative impacts “ of the homeless on North Boulder and Boulder in general. Neither do.

Take one example. The City taxes citizens. The City gives some of the taxed money to the Homeless Shelter. The Homeless Shelter then provides services (food, storing belongings, mail) to people who don’t even live in the Homeless Shelter (instead are “camping illegally”). The City Police then ticket or arrest “homeless campers”. So weird government policy in Boulder both supports homeless camping and punishes it at the same time.

Solutions possible: Legalize “homeless camping” (not going to happen). Stop the Homeless Shelter from using taxpayer money to support “homeless campers” (they won’t). Stop the City from giving taxpayer money to the Homeless Shelter (good idea but they haven’t so far).