Results 1 to 10 of 13
Hybrid View
-
05-21-2010, 03:07 PM #1
Senior Member
There is legal precedent for completely ignoring 1284 in.....
good point
it *would* make sense for home rule cities to opt-out of 1284 as then the locality could impose and collect all fees, instead of sending it to the state... to basically pay for enforcement in Denver. Why would Fort Collins want their dollars going to Denver for that?copobo Reviewed by copobo on . There is legal precedent for completely ignoring 1284 in..... Aurora, Commerce City, Denver, Durango, Federal Heights, Ft. Collins, Lafayette, Thornton and Westminister. Certain laws, state and federal, are only selectively enforced in these cities and the county governments are complicit in allowing this. Obviously, certain Colorado communities, make their own rules. They are based on the idea that those who come here and contribute to the community in a positive way are not just tolerated, but encouraged. This frees law enforcement resources for more Rating: 5Colorado patient grower. :rambohead:
Advertisements
Similar Threads
-
Completely Legal Co-Op
By CompletelyLegal in forum Nevada (NV)Replies: 2Last Post: 02-09-2011, 04:18 AM -
ignoring a user?
By copobo in forum Feedback and SuggestionsReplies: 2Last Post: 08-06-2010, 08:42 PM -
It's HB 10-1284 - 25-1.5-106 (6)(V)(f) STUPID !
By michaelnights in forum Colorado (CO)Replies: 20Last Post: 04-29-2010, 12:56 AM -
Comcast Accused Of Setting Precedent To Scrap Net Neutrality
By pisshead in forum PoliticsReplies: 2Last Post: 10-21-2007, 03:56 AM -
Georgia School Lockdown: Creating the Precedent for Martial Law
By pisshead in forum PoliticsReplies: 9Last Post: 03-13-2005, 05:48 PM










Register To Reply
Staff Online