More commercial development
won’t solve county revenue loss
Editor:
I read with interest Bob Poirot’s letter regarding the future of Clear Creek County and replacing revenues lost from the Henderson Mine. I consider Bob a friend, and while I know he cares about our county, I think his suggestion to broadly increase development everywhere possible is misguided.
Bob is right in some ways. We do need to increase our commercial tax base, but this should be done in our municipalities where infrastructure already exists. The same is true with residential development. And, redeveloping run-down areas would improve our towns and communities.
But the notion that more is somehow better is unfounded. Sprawl will only hurt the county, and projects that are built that do not succeed cause blight. Urban planner Eben Fodor’s book “Better Not Bigger” is an excellent source on the subject.
Every survey that has been done of county residents has shown that folks value our open spaces and preserving our wildlife habitat and corridors. Recreation-based tourism can go a long way to replace lost revenues. The county and private businesses should make a concerted effort to enhance these opportunities and bring visitors here to recreate and enjoy our cultural heritage and unique businesses.
Bob is right that this is not a partisan issue; rather, it is an ideological one. The quality of life in our county, once gone, is irreplaceable. We can find the means to help replace lost revenues while maintaining the beauty and quality of life that we cherish in Clear Creek County. Appropriate, feasible, smart solutions for replacing revenues can be found.
Etta Satter
The road to Argo
Editor:
The recent news about the new Argo Mine development is great. One of the challenges in marketing this development is that people have to go through largely blighted Colorado Boulevard to get to it. I know there is going to be redevelopment there. My question is, will it be effective?
Typically, landowners support redevelopment so long as their property is not affected. As the Pink Floyd song goes: “Share it fairly, but don’t take a slice of my pie.”
I have a friend who was recently going to redevelop a building on Colorado Boulevard. He told me that the city assured him no changes would be made to his parking or property, which on this chaotic corridor defeats the purpose of redevelopment.
Georgetown’s redevelopment of its main road to town took the path of least political resistance, apparently appeasing landowners by avoiding change, but did not create an engaging streetscape. How effective has that been for the residents and businesses there?
It’s a lot easier to develop private property than redevelop public property, which is why I am confused why Dana Crawford, the reputed grand dame of urban redevelopment, is part of Argo, which a lot of other more typical historic-based new-urbanist developers could do.
However, if she was the guiding force in Colorado Boulevard, I would hold up the applause sign. This would be most effective by creating a redevelopment district with the power of condemnation over blighted properties requiring voter approval, which has worked miracles in other towns.
But that could face resistance with this town’s often libertarian private property views. Without political courage and public support, no redeveloper, iconic or not, can create success, and Colorado Boulevard redevelopment is the road to Argo.
Mike Caistor
Idaho Springs