Our letters
section and your opportunity to weigh in and be heard. Send
us your thoughts and profundities. You can contact us here.
Enough big boxes,
already
Dear Editors:
It seems unimaginable to
envision the La Posta area, Highway 160 and Highway 3 crammed with
thousands of square feet of commercial space but that's what the
city has planned. How many super retail stores does even the most
dedicated shopaholic need? Can't retailers be satisfied with a more
modest size like the abandoned Kmart?
Every day, more
communities like Taos, Steamboat Springs and Gunnison are imposing
size restrictions on big box stores. A few weeks ago, the Pagosa
town and county boards adopted a moratorium on big boxes until
completion of an impact study. The moratorium was originated and
supported by downtown merchants. They are smart to get a step ahead
of a growth boom they may never be able to stop once it gets
started. As our own downtown merchants contemplate a future of
national chains moving in on locally owned businesses, our
retailers may belatedly wish they, too, had acted sooner. Instead,
Durango's philosophy seems to be, if it's green space that appears
to have no purpose, let's dig it up, pave it, build it and develop
it.
I didn't move to Durango
to have our city urbanized with three and four-story buildings
blocking the sky, whether next to your home, which is happening
already, or in a commercial area. A future population of 40,000
will change the entire complexion of our small-town, rural
character. I've been there, done that, moved twice already to
escape poorly or unmanaged growth that was driven by developers and
rubber-stamped by politicians.
Just think of
Farmington's miles of strip malls and what image Durango will
project to tourists. Think about traffic jams and safety, dirty air
pollution, and quantity of life vs. quality. The Responsible Growth
Initiative lets me vote yay or nay on quality of growth, and I'm
all for that.
Sincerely, Jan Holt, Durango
Voters should search their
souls
Dear Editors,Watching the Republican
Convention, we joked it looked like a Pat Robertson Revival on
steroids.Actually, for me, it was even more chilling. Being an
ex-German of the baby-boom generation, I remain keenly aware of the
bitter lessons of the 1930s. I have an inherent distrust and fear
of people who believe in themselves too much. People who are
absolutely convinced of their divine insights. People who believe
they are so unquestionably right that any means justifies their
ends. People whose open contempt and thoughtless dismissal of any
and all opposing evidence/opinions is highlighted by their ruthless
smear and slander campaigns against all who dare not agree no
matter how honorable that person's lifelong service to the
USA.
Kerry isn't flawless,
but he along with the people he'll bring back into the government
will be vastly better than Bush and his single-minded religious
fundamentalists. Their plan has been taking us down a path of
increasing bloodshed, irreparable destruction, international
distrust, tension and violence. What's scariest: they seem ok with
that the "Rapture is coming" anyway, why worry about long term
stewardship?
Should this letter upset
you, write and tell us what Bush's handling of the war on terrorism
has achieved. Seems that in the real world, what Bush accomplished
was to give Bin Laden the war he craved and the willing recruits to
fight and die in it. Every fresh morning the world news adds more
support to this truth. By the way "mission accomplished," where is
Bin Laden? Tell us again, what was that mission?
Why should anyone vote
for the president who willfully played into Bin Laden's hand? Look
at the mess we've made of Iraq. Read about the details. Where is
the plan for a better future in those experiences?
I'm worried about
writing this, but I am even more fearful of Bush's agenda and the
future it heralds. An agenda that will ... can, only lead to ever
more terror for the entire world, and the USA. Voters, we need to
do some serious soul searching, this election will be the most
pivotal of our lives choose wisely.
Sincerely, Peter Miesler,
Durango
The costs of affordable
housing
Dear Editors,
Much ado has been made
of affordable housing in Durango. The biggest problem is nobody
wants to pay for it. The seller of the land and the project
developer both want to maximize their profits, and the buyer of the
finished product doesn't want to pay extra for it. Local
governments try to negotiate for it in the planning process, but
the trade-offs usually benefit the developer more than the
city.
Land cost is one of the
single highest expenses for developers. The fewer dwellings per
acre the higher the land cost per unit. While the city says it
encourages developers to include affordable housing in their
projects, and it belongs close to the downtown area, there is
little evidence to support this statement. In some outlying areas,
the city has waived building/infrastructure fees, increased height
limitations, allowed additional density and eased parking
requirements. In most cases, this just leads to added social
problems that come with overcrowding, i.e., limited privacy, added
neighborhood noise and parking restrictions. Of the 50 units
approved or proposed near the central business district along Main
Avenue and East Second Avenue, none fit the "affordable housing"
criteria. Most of these luxurious units will be selling in the
$500,000 to $1 million price range.
Some people think
annexation is the answer to affordable housing and will stop county
sprawl. This is not true in either case. Comparing land currently
for sale in both the county and the city, some of the most
desirable county land sells for $30,000 per acre. By contrast,
vacant land within the city limits is selling for $400,000-plus per
acre. All annexation does is expand city limits. Instead of county
sprawl, we end up with high density, and still unaffordable, city
sprawl.Past practices are the best predictor of future conduct. The
Citizens for a Sustainable Durango agenda (or business as usual)
will not produce any more affordable housing than it has in the
past. We do not want to stop growth in Durango, however we do want
YOU to have a voice in it. Vote "YES" for the Responsible Growth
Initiative!
Bee Attwood, Durango
Give control to the
constituents
Dear Editors,
Does anyone else in
Durango or La Plata County wonder why our government
representatives are so reluctant to relinquish some of the decision
making back to the people that elected them in the first place? One
would think having a popular vote on an issue as important to
everyone as growth and development would take a lot of pressure off
our elected officials. Surely some of us out here must be at least
as intelligent as our politicians and capable of becoming informed
of future development projects. Personally, I resent when people
like Bobby Lieb, John Gamble, Joe Colgan and other members of the
pro-development group infer that we, the taxpayers, are not smart
enough to make a decision that affects our daily quality of
life.
Also, the City Council
of Durango had an opportunity to have POST (open space referendum)
on the November ballot, knowing very well that it was a high
priority for most taxpayers in the city. They, however, decided to
drag their feet, once again, which could only mean what little land
is left could be gobbled up 4
by developers before
people have a chance to vote on it. Once again, old, double-talking
Joe Colgan's explanation made no sense whatsoever as to the reasons
he gave for not putting it on the ballot "money needed for other
important items" has nothing to do with POST. POST money would be
ear-marked for open space, not anything else.
I hate to give up on
Durango as I've always thought of it as one of the best little
towns in the country. However, myself and other people are
beginning to look for alternatives where perhaps the town would not
be controlled by big money developers and our elected
representatives would care more about what their constituents think
and feel than their own agendas.
W.F. Palmer, Durango
The power of a free press
Dear Telegraph Editors,
At what point is the
free speech in news media actively pursued by our news gatekeepers?
At what point are actors in local institutions power brokers
actively manipulating and "assisting" local community populations
in developing distorted positive and negative impressions of local
social, political, education and religious power centers? Those who
have positions that control or manipulate the information provided
to the masses are considered gatekeepers for what is viewed, read
or allowed to be seen or read at all on a daily basis. Usually
gatekeepers have something to lose or gain if threatening or
supportive information is released to the citizenry. Gatekeepers
are threatened by a population that is afforded the dignity and
freedom to critically evaluate objective information. A threat to
gatekeepers, objective information, may provide a citizenry of
arriving at accurate conclusions. These accurate conclusions may
make visible hidden power within a community. Power hidden behind
subjective selection of what information is provided to the
community population is undemocratic and demeaning to free
individuals, leaving behind less powerful groups comprised
ofvarious racial, ethnic, religious andlower socio-economic
status characteristics.
The relationship between
powerful local institutions including local school districts,
dominant corporate-organized news outlets and the public is by
nature a triangulation of action that is especially protected with
fervor. In essence, information gatekeepers create an impression of
local institutions that favor their political, social and economic
power. Moreover, gatekeepers can reinforce their arguments and or
positions by incorporating fellow gatekeepers in their cause. The
result is a distorted view between the positive aspects of local
institutions and the hidden power that reeks of inequality, power
and distorted accomplishments. Only with a free independent press
and open access to editorial printing can thissocial travesty be
reversed.
The alternative is a
free independent press with an empowered populace that demands
respect, dignity and open dialogue. Only then can local
institutions and other outlets of information be a contribution to
their community with honest, genuine and sincere purposes that
favors the community as a whole. Without this, a community is a
fragile shell of crepe paper and wire with power brokers pulling
the strings of the populace. Keep this in mind as you readother
newspapers quoting local group's public relations personnel. After
all, do you think public relations people are necessary if everyone
openly communicates?
Bruce M. Reid, Durango
Look at the big planning
picture
To the Editors:
In response to Linda
Burke's letter of Aug. 25, I agree with her comment, that "the
county and its municipalities need a cooperative regional planning
approach." What Ms. Burke does not know is that a Friends of Animas
Valley member has been working with the city, county and CDOT to
encourage adoption of a regional traffic plan.Our reason is the
same as Ms. Burke's "Understanding how each proposed development
would impact that big picture is imperative for making sound
regional planning decisions."
After two years of
attending meetings, decisions on approvals of subdivisions and
building and zoning changes are still being made without the City
considering the impact on public infrastructure and "the big
picture." This is why an "Adequate Public Infrastructure"
requirement is part of the Responsible Growth Initiative. This
would require the City have adequate infrastructure before
approving annexation.
Ms. Burke is, however,
uninformed on other points. If a special election is needed to vote
on proposed developments, the cost can be borne by the developer,
to be voted on along with municipal elections or once a year on
nonelection years. Many communities with responsible growth
ordinances have found that it has worked, including more than 30
cities in Oregon.See, www.ocva.org for more
information.
Ms. Burke's second point
is that the voters will make uninformed decisions. The reality is
that the planning process forannexations will remain the
same.The current planning process will continue as usual with
voters weighing in after the council has approved an annexation.
The "Responsible Growth Initiative" actually will give citizens a
representative government that makes decisions that support the
values of the community it represents.
This is really what this
initiative is all about: A representative government that
cooperates with other government entities to ensure infrastructure
and respects the wishes of the community. For facts, not fiction,
log onto our website, www.animasvalley.org.