Analysis: Town meeting produces every range of emotion

The town council meeting in Cowley Tuesday evening lived up to every movie scene you’ve ever imagined of an old Western town hall meeting.

There was yelling, finger-pointing, plenty of swearing, accusations of lying, more swearing, thinly veiled threats of violence, a history lesson and even a PowerPoint presentation.

The one uniting thing in this loud, abrasive gathering was that every single person claimed to be there because they love Cowley -- and honestly, they really do.

There were long stretches of painful boredom, standing ovations, ear-splitting outbursts, emotional exits and comments that brought people to tears. There were even flashes of unexpected humor that somehow lightened the mood for a moment or two.

And just when it seemed the most heated and controversial topic had finally run its course, another one surfaced, every bit as intense and uncomfortable, with personal accusations flying once again, only more directly this time.

The real improbability of it all was that after 90 minutes of anger, accusations and claims of incompetence aimed at nearly every town employee, they ended up exactly where they started: square one.

The underlying issue was the beautification ordinance, a 10-page mash-up of rules that seemed to cover everything a person could or couldn’t do on their own property. It spelled out how tall your weeds could grow, how long it takes for a warning to become a violation and ultimately, how long until those dandelions land you in jail.

In an effort to be as objective as possible, it’s fair to say that for the most part, everyone agreed on the following points:

 Cowley could use a spruce-up, and everyone shares a little of the blame. Money is tight, we’re all busy, town employees are stretched thin and we haven’t been watching out for our neighbors as much as we should.

 Everyone recognized that it takes planning, time, money and organization to fix the problem -- to pull the weeds, pick up the garbage, move the old cars and put that polish back on our town that we brag about when we tell others why we live here.

 We all wondered why the heck Joel Peterson would choose to be mayor of Cowley and were thankful that somebody is willing to do it.

 The proposed bill was far from a final solution, and the way the town communicated it to residents was lacking.

 Most importantly, every person who spoke expressed how much they love living in Cowley, and that they don’t want to live anywhere else, especially not in California, Colorado, or Cody. (Yes, those were all brought up several times.)

Over the past few weeks, as word spread of the proposed Ordinance #339-2025, a lot of Cowleyites were upset. The 10-page bill, officially titled “A Declaration of a Public Nuisance Within the Town and Abatement of the Same,” laid out in exacting detail what defines a “weed,” where they can be, how tall they can grow (12 inches) and even where they can be placed after being pulled. The proposal noted that, if a plant is a tree, has flowers, grows in a garden, occurs naturally or is used to feed livestock, it is not a weed.

The bill also explained what constitutes a “derelict or junked vehicle,” attempting to define everything from a car to a motor home, trailer, snowmobile, watercraft, antique car or race car.

And it didn’t stop there. The ordinance detailed what qualifies as “junk”: iron, glass, weeds (see above), lumber, stumps, grass, trash, hedge trimmings, paper, cloth, electronics — and the list went on.

Finally, the bill spent six more pages outlining procedures for handling violations related to the possession of “weeds,” “derelict vehicles,” or “junk,” along with the corresponding fines and penalties.

In the end, the town council voted unanimously to reject Ordinance #339-2025, prompting a roar of approving applause. Council members took careful notes on ideas for solving some of the underlying issues, names of people willing to serve on committees and suggestions for better communication when introducing future proposals.

And then there were still two more issues before the council and the hundred or so people who hadn’t yet left.

The first was a request for a variance by Jeff Samson to allow a slab construction foundation for a new home. Discussion followed about soil quality, construction costs and the long-term viability of slab foundations versus crawl space or pier-and-beam foundations. Mayor Peterson admitted that the council didn’t yet have enough information to decide and voted to table the request for seven days.

The final major item was a presentation by council member Max Lewis regarding a piece of property he owns and the history surrounding it. The matter was complex and too detailed to fully summarize here, but it was clear there was significant disagreement between Lewis and the rest of the council about timelines and procedures. Mayor Peterson and the other members noted his comments but took no further action.

Nearly three hours into the whole affair, the meeting was adjourned. No major actions were taken, and no significant bills were passed — but plenty of resolutions were made.

One thing was abundantly clear: there are a lot of people who love living here, there are definitely some messes that need cleaning up and we now have a good start — by knowing who we can count on to get the ball rolling.

The final surprise of the night came from Rose Ames, whose Facebook post perhaps summed it up best:

“We did it, friends. They killed the ordinance!! More to come from the town regarding possibly a committee of volunteers to help those who need help keeping up with their property – which is in line with what this town we all love is about. Helping each other and being good neighbors & friends.

“It was a truly beautiful and powerful experience to be a part of this meeting where so many members of the community came together and felt strong enough and free enough to share their input.”

From one Californian to another — thank you, Rose.