Here's a link to the point-counterpoint on the annexation in the Yellow Scene.
Clay Evans' editorial Sunday in the Daily Camera dismayed me. His bottom-line point that more development equals less open space reveals an idealistic anti-development mindset that I believe is the root of the opposition to A. It is unfortunate, as it means people presume "open space" status upon any undeveloped land, when true "open space" in my mind, given my previously trumpeted pro-property rights sentiments, means land bought and paid for by an open space management agency or govt. department.
It is selfish to lump all undeveloped land under the heading of "open space" to be protected. It is short-sighted and impractical and in the long run the methods of revenue generation to purchase true open space will be voted down (with this mindset) because any development at all is seen as anti-open space. True open space isn't just "there" for free.
In the real world, we must pay for our ideals. Voting No on A is just a temporary block and a hit to the open space program.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You're right Dan, Clay Evans did confuse a private farm with open space. Open space belongs to the public. Chuck Waneka's farm belongs to Chuck Waneka. Clay Evans blew that one.
But what about PLEE trumpeting the Andrew Moore revenue sharing "plan" on their website? Lowe's is not interested. Lafayette is no longer talking revenue sharing with Erie. PLEE = desperation and dirty politics.
This is actually a well balanced article. Clay is right, except for thinking that Lafayette will be having discussions with Erie about this. His mention of Lafayette being 24 of 28 in tax revenue is a new stat to me, and would seem to benefit the arguements that have been put forth in support of A.
I know we have come up with a nice name for community purchased land as "Open Space". This is terribly confusing to folks who live on the east coast, because the definition is confusing in the first place. Any space that is still open in this area is open space, but not "Open Space", unless it has been purchased by an open space entity. Bottom line, big box = less open land, less farm fields, less view corridor to the nice wooded Coal Creek valley, less distance between Lafayette and Broomfield. Is that better, because I didn't confuse it with "Open Space"? I don't care if you think that annexing this property will help buy more land elsewhere, it won't help keep that side of town open. Fact.
The revenue per resident stat is a tricky one. Lafayette's median income is low compared to surrounding cities. So there is less disposable income here in town. The last the council was told is that Lafayette is 19th.
The residential growth in town in the past 10 years has taken place west of 287. There were few places to shop in Lafayette for a long time. As retail and restaurants are built along 287, some of that will come back and it has. Also, it gives us the opportunity to capture non-resident business. It is no accident that the retail center of Lafayette is now 287 and Baseline, not 287 and So. Boulder Road. The free market, where investors put their money on the line, is a good indicator.
But the Lowe's and Home Depot in Louisville is still more convenient for residents west of 287. Drive the roads and you will see. Look at the maps. Getting people to change their shopping habits is quite a challenge. Ask ACE.
As for attracting home improvement business from the east, when one buys a new home, it is fitted up with all the new amenities and decorated per the wishes of the new owner. My dishwasher just burned out after 12 years. No need to replace it until now. So what home improvements are these new homeowners going to spend money on?
I don't believe the $1M per year Lowe's figure. But if you use it, that's around $150,000 a year in open space money. Some of that will be bled off into maintenance of existing open space which is allowed now. It would take 10 years to generate $1M or so to make a meaningful purchase of open space elsewhere, and that's at today's prices.
And whatever sales tax money Lowe's may generate, won't be spent on the wish list on these mailers being sent out.
By the way, Dan, since you are now quoted on the Lowe's mailer sent out this week, please disclose how that happened.
Some interesting opinions here.
I'm with Dan insofar as I think property rights are extremely important. However, the pro-A campaign has been playing to its base and not the middle on this particular subtext. Take Todd Grant's letter in the Lafayette News yesterday, which is correct to point out that no property rights are in play when the question is annexation. I could critique that letter a little more, but I think people are well advised that annexation is a discretionary matter for the City.
Nonetheless, the point is that Boulder County and its municipalities have world-renown open space programs because they respect property rights, because they acquire land through the market. This is what sets us apart and makes open space so successful in Colorado. I also agree with Dan that it will be the political undoing of open space if we start to believe in and rely on agricultural zoning as an open space status when agriculture isn't even financially viable for the land owner. The future of open space relies on good relations with and respect for rural land owners, and they happen to like their property rights even if urbanites don't.
Land management is the forgotten issue in all this. If being "open" is all that counts, it is true that agricultural zoning cannot be distinguished from public ownership. But when you're throwing a family's land equity into the tubes, you can't expect much on the land management side. Some of us coming down on the yes side of Issue A do value the ecosystem, and we see a source of weed seeds and conventional agriculture, if that, as not particularly helpful to the long-term preservation of wetlands, the restoration of prairie, or the enhancement of wildlife habitat.
As I've spoken with friends who think I'm wrong, their sentiment is a mixture of "enough is enough" and "we must do something to avoid big boxes". The passion is coming from a vision of what should be, not an appreciation of what is. I believe our OS program bridges that gap; however it becomes a philosophical argument over how to create the society/town we want, which is ultimately more personal and idealistic than can be achieved overnight.
Plus, I'm surprised how little the notion of paying for a given vision is considered.
"Enough is enough" is a slogan. "Vote Yes for Lafayette" is a slogan. It would not surprise me if the Camera editorial that is the subject of this post involved not much more analysis than collecting a list of slogans, the superficial list of arguments for each side, repeating them for the public, then giving an opinion that reflected a headcount of the vocal people who have written into the paper. Is that not exactly what we see? It’s a balanced editorial, true, but balanced by not assigning too much weight to anything.
What really is "enough" in the first place? And how will a yes vote carry through into something “for Lafayette”? Unless you know the answer to those questions and how to justify the answers with some sort of rationale, it's hard to justify any vote on the basis of a slogan.
As the Camera has justified for everyone, grasping one tiny bit of the problem and making that into an opinion one way or the other will probably happen, over and over and over, as Lafayette citizens fill out their ballots. But there's nothing holding those slogans together as any sort of policy the City can move forward with into the future.
Dan is completely correct that “vision” is not achieved overnight. The no campaign has brutalized the vision that is the City’s comp plan and is acting without real acknowledgment of the risk to the vision that is the open space and trails master plan. The yes campaign has staked so much on the presence of a Lowe’s on the 32 acres that it has diminished the comprehension and good faith that reasonable citizens should be able to put into the rational, incremental process that controls urban development, which will still be there before a Lowe’s is ever a reality.
The best thing that could happen might be a landslide for one side or the other, to bring some notion of consensus back into the picture. But the real consensus on Issue A probably lies right near the middle, where voters are left with the unhappy role of needing to swing the vote one way or the other with their choice.
The invitation is there for people to recognize this opportunity to ask for a vision that does not turn Lafayette into Anytown, USA. But that won’t happen simply by voting no, and it might not happen at all if no wins. Frankly, I think we could do more with a solid tax base to really step in and preserve land on the eastern fringe. No voters are risking a lot on an unstable mix of County ag zoning and designated development land within Lafayette’s urban growth boundary. There won’t be any tax base at all, and plenty of possible Anytown, USA, if the next proposal is to put up residential.
Likewise, voting yes does set up the City for development impacts, so if we want to do something “for” Lafayette, there needs to be attention to what is put on the land. Again, the invitation is there, and one can announce it only in so many words, that no development has been approved and any development will have to go through a public process. Notably, the City has already begun working on more exacting standards for C-1 zoning, which I imagine would be in place by the time any development proposal is ready for the Waneka land. On top of development review, planning for the whole eastern fringe could be looked at in a subarea plan. In the big picture, the City is getting the open space land it asked for on the 32 acres at 119th and Baseline, so at least the open space balance sought by the current comp plan and Open Space and Trails Master Plan would be furthered by a yes vote.
I am a yes vote, but I am also convinced that it is a serious error to present this special election as the definitive word on the course for Lafayette’s future. There has been a deliberate attempt by advocacy interests on both sides of the vote to present up or down on Ordinances 46, 47, and 48 as way more of a mandate, way more of a solution for every last thing that ails a growing community with high quality of life expectations, than it really is. It’s no wonder that voters are gravitating all over the map.
I feel like reasonable people who see both sides of this are about to be stomped out by the zealotry that has destroyed the middle ground. Here’s hoping that some vision still exists in two weeks.
Post a Comment