Reading letters to the editor in the Lafayette News these past two weeks has been frustrating at times when you see the raw uninformed assumptions and either calculated or ignorant assertions that are made. I challenge people to read through the letters with a grain of salt. My bias, as you know, is in favor of the annexation. So a comment from Jeremy Gregory, for example, that proponents claim there is not a wetland in the area really bugs me. The proximity of more valuable wildlife habitat is being blurred to somehow include this specific parcel. I don't know who says there isn't a wetland in the area. What is said is there is not wetland on this parcel. It is an insidious distortion of the argument made by proponents. What a wonderfully vague word that is too - "area". That means whatever you want it to mean.
I implore everyone to visit the parcel before voting. You will have a gut feeling as to whether it is appropriate or not for this spot. I hope everyone who votes does this. The message this vote will send on overall commercial growth will be a guide for several years to subsequent Councils.
Grant Swift, the Chair of LOSAC, has sent in a letter arguing the proximity and the wildlife corridor value of the parcel is worth protecting. Fair enough, this assertion can be debated. But the implication made by many that proximity equals value I do not buy. We have to set priorities and make trade-offs with the funds available for open space acquisition.
There are questions as to why the city "doesn't put the Lowe's" in a specific place. To believe the city can dictate specific businesses' locations misses a huge part of economic development reality. And then the descriptions of well-meaning opposition forces trying to raise money for the parcel as it is so crucial. We already have an open space program, and priorities are set through a more thoughtful process than blanket anti-development.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I don't remember Jeremy Gregory's letter. Anyone who has not figured out that the wetland and its surroundings would not be impacted by building Lowe's at this point has blinders permanently glued to their forehead.
Grant Swift's letter was loaded with bias and carefully omitted a few facts including that he is up to his neck in PLEE, his wife submitted the counterpoint to Dan's Yellow Scene article, they have made monitary contributions to the anti-annexation campaign, he has rallied at every turn to stop the annexation, and conveniently forgot to mention that yes folks, he lives near the Waneka farm. (But it's not a NIMBY thing mind you, it's a wildlife protection thing.) Grain of salt indeed when a letter from this writer begins "Enough is enough. I had planned on quietly voting No..."
Questions about why the City doesn't put Lowe's in a specific place also tend to show that the author has not been paying attention. These questions were asked regarding the annexation, and they also came up in regard to both the proposed DESCO (Target) development and in regard to 2C last fall.
And it's not just economic development reality, it is the general reality of how the public and private sectors interact. I don't think I've ever denied that Lafayette can and should engage in land use planning, I quite definitely support that. But when you have an application to annex and zone land, the question is whether you should annex and zone that land. It's amazing to me that second guessing about what may or may not happen on other parcels in the City or around the City has become such a persuasive distraction. Those questions are important, but they don't really answer the one at hand.
And, yes, proximity does not equal value. Especially when you add in the context of open space plans that have looked at what is needed in this area as a buffer and a corridor (and make plans for both functions). Plus, proximity effects are based on measurable distance and the specific characteristics of the affected area, not just a gestalt view of the world like it is a "puzzle." An agricultural field and the wetland may both be brown, but they are miles apart ecologically.
You want to see a clever piece of distortion by omission? Go to the Library table for the vote info and look at the map provided by the vote NO proponents. The map conveniently stops right before the Chicken barns (a huge piece of land to the east designated in the comp plan as future open space) and points out a narrow little strip of green as our 'only' open space buffer.
One of many ethical breaches by the anti annexation circle.
I think I've seen this map, and it is accurate insofar as public ownership is concerned. The "Egg Farm" is on the list of desired acquisitions, but it has not yet been acquired.
Dan and I, for possibly different or perhaps just complementary reasons, happen to agree that public ownership is the way open space should work, so I actually have no problem with this map, which as I recall even shows the distance of the wetlands from the 32 acres.
However, I've observed the No side wavering on the point it seems to ratify so strongly with this map, which is that land preservation is about acquisition as open space. Since the City would actually turn down open space if Issue A is defeated, that's one level of disconnect. At a deeper level, there is definitely some sentiment out there that the Waneka land could just be left as agriculture, forget about whether it's open space or not. So is only 300 feet of Highway 7 frontage open space, or is all of open space right now? For the No campaign to make any sense, you have to have it both ways.
The real mystery is how this map does anything to further the case for the No campaign. It seems to me that it just points out how much land there is between us and Broomfield, and how much of the wetlands, the County line, and the fringes of the riparian corridor are not open space now. As in, almost none of it is secure as open space. Until those aesthetic and environmental assets are secured, funding other acquisitions in the area just puts the whole program at risk.
Like so much of the opposition rhetoric, there is a message that seems to hold together. The map says, we need more of a buffer with Broomfield. But most of the values implicit in the message - for instance, we need to manage the buffer as open space - don't logically connect with denying the annexation. It is not easy to acquire open space and manage it properly, and to this day, I don't understand how slamming the door on the Wanekas makes any sense if we have an interest in their land as open space.
I know Cyclorado, for one, hates to hear about this issue, but the fact is, the eastboco blog has both good, open debate and is also some sort of reality check for those of us who are watching the No campaign dominate in the press. PLEE and its supporters may be a grassroots effort, but their campaign has been very slick, and quite loose in presenting the facts and taking a reasonable position, while Yes advocates have been called on the carpet in the media for the slightest transgression.
Let's see a map with green for all parcels owned - outright owned - by the city or county as open space. Then in yellow color in the land we have dreams (comp plan visions) for as open space.
Color in red everything else, as that denotes some type of development, either current or potential. Any type. It doesn't matter what kind. McMansions, skyscrapers, movie theaters, townhomes.
Now, people opposed to A can point out which parts of the undeveloped red they want to either 1) figure out a way to raise money to buy, or 2)trade for from what we've identified in yellow. You can't just say, naw, nothing gets to be built there, but we're not going to pay for it either.
Is this a false choice? I don't think so. You can only go so long with a growth moratiorium on privately-owned land through IGA's and other techniques before the govt. gets sued for a taking. Gary K put it clearly out there last Tuesday night - you get to a point where it's either put up or shut up.
The beauty of our open space program - it's the "put up" part of the equation.
Post a Comment