Foes shouldn’t live in fear of fee
To the editor,
There are so many headlines the Durango Herald could have chosen to reflect the Aug. 6 vote of City Council to pass a disposable bag ordinance and the interests of the majority of residents who elected our current council. But instead, they chose to continue with the shock-jock reporting on the topic with “City Council smothers bag-fee foes” (Aug. 7) and “Bag-fee foes look to get on Nov. ballot” (Aug. 11).
To the editor,
There are so many headlines the Durango Herald could have chosen to reflect the Aug. 6 vote of City Council to pass a disposable bag ordinance and the interests of the majority of residents who elected our current council. But instead, they chose to continue with the shock-jock reporting on the topic with “City Council smothers bag-fee foes” (Aug. 7) and “Bag-fee foes look to get on Nov. ballot” (Aug. 11).
What’s with all the emphasis on foes, a minority of City residents (and many county) who did not or are ineligible to vote in the City and who are inadequately informed. Because the reporter left early Aug. 6, she nor Herald readers were to know that in the future interest of our City, Council also voted to acquire $5 million of water from Lake Nighthorse to meet the future needs of a growing Durango population. As well, City Manager Ron LeBlanc explained how our sales tax dollars are distributed, including how if the foes from Bayfield and Ignacio shop other than in Durango they will be hurting the sales tax revenues of their own communities.
Though the coverage has been consistent, few if any “bag” articles have helped to inform or educate readers about the goals or content of the ordinance. For that, read the Aug. 8 edition of the Durango Telegraph or go to www.durangogov.org. The Herald’s July 17 editorial, “Bag Fee: City Council’s push to enact unpopular charge reveals its approach to policy” simultaneously lauded Council for the bag fee being in keeping with council’s commitment to a 2007 community vision and led the public astray suggesting Council is not basing its decisions on popular vote or majority opinion.
Let’s look at the real numbers: Two councilors elected in April, Dean Brookie (2,564 votes) and Christina Rinderle (2,392 votes) campaigned on environmental values. The bag ban petition collected 850 signatures over a two-week period. In contrast, the Chamber survey cited by the Herald showed 63 percent (231 of the respondents) opposed the fee but that likely included some non-City residents.
This citizen-initiated disposable bag ordinance is a policy based upon majority interests. Council’s decision is a compromise representative of the people who elected them to office. That’s democracy. What should be the cause for concern and hopeful future focus of Council (and the Durango Herald) is that a minority, a mere 10 percent of voters (344) in the last election, can petition to overturn the policies of the majority.
– Ellen Stein, Durango
Beware “time share” nightmare
To the editor,
I bought a camper at a RV retailer over a year and half ago. When I purchased this trailer, me and my family received a package for four free nights at an RV park of our choice. We immediately thought of Blue Mesa and the Gunnison area.
To the editor,
I bought a camper at a RV retailer over a year and half ago. When I purchased this trailer, me and my family received a package for four free nights at an RV park of our choice. We immediately thought of Blue Mesa and the Gunnison area.
To our delight, there was an RV park on that list of available places we could go. The place we chose was Blue Mesa Recreational Ranch run by Western Horizon Resorts. Blue Mesa Recreational Ranch was the only campground listed in Colorado for which we could use this free stay. Everything else was out of state. We booked our stay for the following year, in April. We stayed one night over our four free nights and were expecting a bill no larger than $40. The day we were to leave, we were approached by one of our camp hosts and in less than friendly and very unprofessionally manner we were told that our bill was $460. The reason for our outrageous bill was because we neglected to take a required tour.
Now, we conceded that after we got home and looked back at all previous mail exchanges, we were sent a letter that told us our stay was confirmed and that a tour would be required. However, that was three months before our scheduled stay and it was a detail in a letter that could have been easily overlooked. And we did also receive a packet as we entered the ranch that at the very bottom, in fine print, mentioned a required tour. However neither me nor my other family members making that trip were ever told verbally about any required tour, nor was the fine print at the bottom of our packet ever pointed out to us. As a result, we spent our time at the ranch completely oblivious to the fact we needed to attend this tour.
Upon learning this on the day we left, we pleaded and begged to take the tour that day. However, our pleading was met with a stern “no.” Our camp host, at one point, even made the claim that a note was left on the door of our trailer notifying us of the tour. But since my mother has a bad knee and couldn’t accompany me and my girlfriend on any of the hiking and fishing trips we had planned, her only choice was to stay at the trailer and babysit our dogs. And even when we were all away, no note was ever found by us at the trailer upon our return, and nobody from the RV park ever approached our trailer while we were there.
Which brings me to why I am writing this letter. As a result of our experience, me and my family’s vacation was all but ruined. Writing to the ranch and its holding company, Western Horizons Resort, resulted in correspondences of a confrontational and belittling nature. We were actually told our plight was “sad” and “meaningless” (have emails to prove it). We now realize that trying to reason with them will produce zero results. So we would like to get our story out to as many people as possible to try and prevent another family from falling into the same trap my family did, hoping these efforts will spare them the anxiety this situation has caused me and my family. Thank you for your time.
– Shandy Nantz, Denver
Oxbow headed for a trainwreck
To the editor,
On July 25, I attended the City’s meeting for the proposed Oxbow Park-Open Space Preserve and was surprised at the turn out. Just a few years earlier, the City had similar public meetings for the Animas River Trail that would end at the proposed 3-acre Oxbow Park. Bicycle enthusiasts came out en masse to speak to the City Parks and Recreation Department in support of the trail and the need for access on the northern end. It was stated that the 800-900 people a day who currently use the trail will have a need for restroom facilities, drinking water and ranger patrol along the trail, and therefore the need to purchase the Sterk/Cameron land for their use.
To the editor,
On July 25, I attended the City’s meeting for the proposed Oxbow Park-Open Space Preserve and was surprised at the turn out. Just a few years earlier, the City had similar public meetings for the Animas River Trail that would end at the proposed 3-acre Oxbow Park. Bicycle enthusiasts came out en masse to speak to the City Parks and Recreation Department in support of the trail and the need for access on the northern end. It was stated that the 800-900 people a day who currently use the trail will have a need for restroom facilities, drinking water and ranger patrol along the trail, and therefore the need to purchase the Sterk/Cameron land for their use.
Rumors quickly spread about what an economic boon it will be when professional biking tours start bringing busloads of tourist to town and use Oxbow (Sterk/Cameron) as a drop-off point. Curious. None of those people showed up at the meeting last month when the commercial boating companies were asking for a boat ramp to be added to the park to alleviate the congestion along the trail at the current put-in sites. They want to bring busloads of people that need restroom facilities and drinking water and yes, there was talk of a ranger patrol to monitor all of the anticipated activity that rafting will add. Because, just think of what an economic boon this will all be!
Is it just me, or is there anyone else that sees a train wreck coming?
– Jeanne Bignall, Durango
Wildlife, not wild people at Oxbow
Dear Editor,
You missed the boat. Instead of a “Thumbs down” to “nimbysism,” you could more accurately have awarded a “Thumbs Up: Neighbors and property owners standing up to ask the City of Durango to protect open space conservation values in wetlands and preserve extraordinary wildlife habitat from commercial development!”
Dear Editor,
You missed the boat. Instead of a “Thumbs down” to “nimbysism,” you could more accurately have awarded a “Thumbs Up: Neighbors and property owners standing up to ask the City of Durango to protect open space conservation values in wetlands and preserve extraordinary wildlife habitat from commercial development!”
Most of our neighbors are in favor of the Animas River Trail and a riparian green-way, even those of us who may find the trail right next to our back yard. But almost everyone opposes paving the southern portion of the Oxbow wetlands to accommodate commercial boating access, thus opening this flat-water section of the Animas to high volume, unlimited use.
We believe that the City can adopt “best management practices” like other river-loving towns (Steamboat comes to mind). We’re encouraging a balanced approach to the river, and want to see the City figure out how to manage instead of looking the other way when there’s a melee.
Colorado Parks & Wildlife has expressed concerns about plans for commercial development at Oxbow. All of the Oxbow property is a spring and summer home to migratory birds, as well as a year-round home to wildlife. The 6-acre section marked for development is perhaps the best portion of the entire 43 acres (FYI, 43 acres counts the river bottom as “acreage” – the available land is much smaller.)
Wally White states that the City engaged in a “bait and switch” campaign to obtain County and private support for its purchase of Oxbow. The City changed (without notifying County Commissioners and private parties) from describing the purchase as intended for “open space,” “preservation,” “passive use,” and “conservation” and the ART, to a plan that uses Oxbow as “one of the three primary” commercial and unlimited river access properties. The City’s plan to accommodate commercial development at Oxbow includes a two-lane road, 80-foot turnaround and paved parking lots.
If you build it, they will come. The commercial operations and busloads of people, that is. Pile on the tubers and all of us other private folks, and the user load becomes clear. Where will the wildlife go?
This is a short list of some of the issues that deserve more consideration:
- Increased “take-out” downstream;
- Neighborhood livability and trespassing (noise, parties);
- Disruption of agriculture, livestock;
- There is no “right to float,” and the north valley is private property;
- Traffic and safety on Animas View Drive (already an issue);
- Law enforcement
- Review of the 25-year old commercial boating policy, which grants unlimited access for a modest annual fee. Implement a fee structure that reflects the number of people actually using the river.
- Fairgrounds first. Tubers and commercial boaters could have separate launch sites there, an immense parking lot to use, and both their vehicles and river presence would not drastically impact residential neighborhoods.
- Serve the many different kinds of river users (consider the SUP, flatwater kayakers, canoes), and don’t lump all river users together; initiate policies that protect private property owners. Balance.
- Oxbow is different – it’s one of the dwindling 1 percent of riparian habitat in the county. The City doesn’t have the vision to manage this property. Passive use is different from the uses the City allows on its other “open space.”
Furthermore, how will the City contain people and craft to the 6 acres of prime riparian habitat that would be sacrificed for a put-in? It can’t be done. Once on the river, it’s easy to go up or downstream, on foot or by craft. All of Oxbow, as well as properties up and downstream of it, will be opened to unlimited use. It’s a myth to talk about part of Oxbow remaining a “conservation preserve” if any portion of it is developed into a commercial and unlimited use access point. If managed for conservation, Oxbow offers an opportunity for people to experience serenity, peace and quiet and wildlife.
No documents offered by staff address the concerns above, nor are any alternatives to full-on commercial development being discussed. City staff insists everyone who could care about Oxbow had notice of their plan to put in a commercial access on this property. Notice was not effectively given, and definitely not received in context. When the City noticed us that it was undertaking the Animas River Corridor planning process, it did not have a concrete plan to purchase Oxbow and didn’t own the property.
– Susan Ulery, Durango