Citizens who applied by the deadline to rework the county’s land-use code may not be the ones who land a committee seat. And some key members with vastly different viewpoints have moved in and out of the influential position of spokesperson.
But no one’s position is certain on the Code Advisory Committee until at least Jan. 5, as commissioners tabled the move on Tuesday to formalize and define the committee’s role.
The eventual committee will be composed of Chaffee County Citizen’s Land Use Roundtable focus group representatives. A spokesperson and alternate will represent each group, ranging from real estate and development to heritage. Alternates are encouraged to attend meetings but their involvement would be minimal compared to the spokesperson’s. The committee’s purpose is to implement the roundtable’s recommendations and revise the code, creating workable planning and zoning regulations. The roundtable’s work took more than two years to come to consensus.
The water protection group has seen some flip-flopping as to who will be the spokesperson. Buena Vista resident Reed Dils is the only candidate who applied by the Aug. 12, 2009 deadline, and is currently listed as the spokesperson. But earlier in the month it was Frank McMurry of Nathrop.
Dils serves on the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservation District and the Arkansas River Basin Roundtable.
McMurry is a fourth-generation rancher who owns water rights, and sold some with property to Nestlé Waters North America. Nestle will draw 65 million gallons a year from an aquifer, pipe it to Johnson Village, then truck it to a Denver bottling facility.
County commissioners decided to accept late-comers McMurry and, later, local geologist Fred Henderson as applicants to be spokesperson and alternate. This was because “Dils was the only applicant,” said Chairman of the Board Commissioner Frank Holman, District 2. “There’s support to make this choice and I honored that.”
The water group was polled and decided McMurry and Henderson would represent the group. Then it was decided Dils should become spokesperson because he was the only rep who made the deadline, starting at the beginning.
But it’s not over. Dils may not necessarily remain the water group’s spokesperson.
“In all fairness I may send it back to committee,” Holman said, meaning the water focus group may have to recommend reps once again.
County government lacks transparency
Chaffee County’s business could be much more transparent. Minutes from meetings are not posted on the county’s website, so it’s challenging to keep up with what’s going on. County attorney Jenny Davis said there’s “not a legal reason” why the minutes aren’t posted for public viewing.
Chaffee County Clerk and Recorder Joyce Reno said citizens are able to receive a copy of “approved minutes with a written request.” But commissioners have not yet approved minutes from August meetings. Holman said this is because of all the time spent on the Nestlé deal.
The new City and County Community Services Complex at the old hospital site will be set up for televised meetings. Commissioner Tim Glenn, District 3, said he’s open to having the meetings filmed but doesn’t want to pay for it. Holman said seeing meetings on TV would be like “watching paint dry.”
Decision tabled over undisclosed concerns
Commissioner Dennis Giese, District 1, made the move to table the agenda of formalizing the committee’s membership. Giese said he “had concerns” and wanted to speak first, privately, with the other commissioners. Holman concurred, saying he didn’t “have an issue with waiting until Jan. 5.”
But Glenn opposed the move, saying he didn’t see “the purpose of prolonging issues.” “We’ve put it off far too long,” Glenn said.
Later, Holman said tabling the code advisory agenda is “not at all” a stall tactic. “I want to get this thing right rather than rush through it,” he said. “When we’re done, I want this to be something we all support.”
When asked about the chance of spokespersons mobilizing against the recommendations, he said, “I won’t let that happen. If so, I will replace them. It has to be successful.”
Existing land-use code hinders smart development
Forming the committee is the last step in an almost 10-year process to revise the land-use code. Currently, the land-use code is unclear, conflicting and hinders smart development. The committee will work with the Planning Commission and county staffers.
Until a decisive land-use code is finalized, the subdivision review process presents the greatest challenge. There are conflicts going back to previous zoning and subdivision regulations that stood alone but referred to each other. Basically, the two were treated separately and as subdivision requirements evolved and changed, the zoning did not.
Melanie Roth, an alternate for the heritage group, said she’s been involved since the first hearings and would like to see the process progress. There’s been a tremendous amount of time put in by staffers, citizens and the Planning Commission, Roth said. There’s “such a foundation for revising county zoning, it would be a terrible shame to waste all of that,” she said. “It’s a workable thing.”
Almost 17,000 residents live in Chaffee County, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates from 2008, yet only a handful of citizens and a couple of reporters attended the meeting on Tuesday in Buena Vista. This is understandable, as many residents work full-time. Yet, decisions made at these meetings will significantly impact future growth.
At least one citizen at the planning meeting was disappointed the committee work was tabled. Keith Krebs, a licensed architect new to the area, said he’s late getting in on the process. “I plan on participating,” Krebs said.
Time’s up.
I served on the sustainability group during the two-year (at least!) round table process. We hammered out a good vision for our county, and actually had a chance to be ahead of the power curve on the challenges we face – at least compared to other communities who kept their heads in the sand too long – by putting the plan into action with regulatory updates.
We have squandered the advantage we had by at least a year, and a LOT of people who participated in the round table, and other concerned citizens, are getting very angry, if they aren’t already. More than one are talking about invoicing the county for the time they spent on the round table.
Zone and code revision, building standards, site standards, etc. were identified as “low hanging fruits” at the Sustainability Summit in October. I was hopeful we’d get off the dime soon after that.
In the meantime, we have sprawl development and people are sky lining trophy homes while sustainable projects have difficulty being realized (i.e., Cottonwood Meadows) because our policies make one easy and the other difficult, and because our elected leadership aren’t busy communicating the vision and fighting for buy-in from the few but vocal citizens whose reluctance to take control of the future condemn us to being victims yet again.
Excuse me, but what part of the Colorado Open Meetings law does Commissioner Giese not understand? There is no provision under C.R.S. 24-6-402 for him to speak privately with the other Commissioners. If this reporting is accurate, he will, or has already violated this statute. Nor is there provision under this statute to do this in executive session, since this is not a personnel matter involving an employee. You can read the statute for yourself by drilling down to 24-6-402 at http://tinyurl.com/5cwsx5.
As uncomfortable as it might be for them, the Commissioners are required to discuss the pros and cons of the various potential appointees IN PUBLIC. Sorry about that, but that’s the law.
I started lobbying for better planning in the county in 1995, organizing the first public forum to explain the ins and outs of zoning in that year, and how, if properly done, it could improve everyone’s quality of life in Chaffee County.
Sadly, after all the work and public support for a new and progressive comprehensive plan in 1998, the draft document was thoroughly emasculated through the efforts of a few reactionary Realtors and one County Commissioner. And now, 10 years later, some of the same individuals are still at it, although they get to wield their influence through different (newly-elected) Commissioners.
Fifteen years of inaction. I gave up a long time ago because of the reality of who still runs Chaffee County — the agricultural and water interests and one Realtor. I participated in the first Round Table meeting, but never returned after seeing where it was going to go — Frank McMurry, not a member of this particular round-table, was allowed to harangue the group for 15 minutes about his concerns. I knew then it was doomed, and the latest sideshow regarding group spokespersons just says nothing is changed — the two new Commissioners want the “right” appointees so they will get the “right” outcome — an outcome that will satisfy the master puppeteers that still run Chaffee County.
I applaud all those who had the perseverance to participate in the process. Maybe when enough of you start to feel like Charlie Brown having the football pulled away at the last minute by Lucy, folks will really organize and do the work needed to get some progressive Commissioners in 2012 — Commissioners who will work for the interests of all citizens. 2010 will also require work, but with only one seat at stake, it will have to be a holding action against the local forces of darkness and ignorance.
This comment was removed at the request of the author.
I agree with a lot of what Keith and Mark said. I am probably more aware than most, that process is frequently the most important way to influence substance. In the case of the attempts to reform the county’s land use code, the process has been used to protect the status quo. Those who have a vested interest in the status quo, have slowed the reform through the use of an outrageously long round table process which, as far as I can see, has produced an proposal which could have been easily predicted in the beginning. I guess we all need to feel better because of the process was long, cumbersome and involved so many.
It isn’t my point to trash those involved in the process or who devoted their time to it. The substance that came from process, as modest as the reform is, seems to threaten those who stand to profit most from the status quo. I have a feeling if we look closely at who is slowing the pace of reform, and who will I fear ultimately will prevent its adoption and implementation, we will find small group who were the champions of the long process.
Slow it down and kill it, I think I can see that plan working in other areas as well.
I want to give a shout out to Anne Marie, for writing in depth about it. Keith for participating and being pissed off at the way things work, and Mark for his insight into the process. Hats off to the Citizen for providing the forum.
What would be even more interesting to me is what the process was supposed to provide, a public airing of the substance, and a solution. I bet there is a solution that satisfies most, and doesn’t take years to arrive at. Of course, it won’t be approved, as Mark pointed out.
Good points all. I’d like to remark specifically on Bill’s. I believe the round table process, Chadwick, et al., were implemented to gain citizen buy-in, make the process more small-dee democratic, and provide political top-cover for the commissioners. As a practical matter, it didn’t accomplish much. Indeed, the product, the vision and recommendations, aren’t much different from those of previous years. What was, and is, different was the increasing sense of urgency that we do something ASAP.
National planners recently designated the Front Range as the newest MegaRegion. The southwestern boundary is the Chaffee-Park Co. line atop Trout Creek Pass. We will soon be experiencing spillover from the Front Range MegaRegion for a variety of reasons. This is what the state demographer was speaking of when he said we WILL (not maybe, not perhaps) experience a “tsunami of population growth.” The Great Recession may have delayed it (the silver lining in our cloud of unpreparedness), but it is coming.
Another concept we have tp accept as a community is that Chaffee County is prime turf as infill development for Colorado. Growth follows transportation infrastructure (the interstate highways) the fills in. The I-25 and I-70 corridors are about maxed out. Guess who’s next?
Whether through intent or timidity, any delay is unwise. Whether the whispers and rumors of machinations and shenanigans are true or merely reflect the reality that politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, they are at least a distraction form productive effort. The point is, for whatever reason, we have wasted far too much time. I agree with Commissioners Holman and Giese that we must be deliberate and do this right, but why didn’t we get moving on this over a year ago? And what of the years before that? Now we have even less time to be deliberate.
We once could say we were a bit ahead of the power curve. Now we’re in the bucket. We’re in the position now that we MUST pursue code and zoning reform and design standards with a sense of extreme urgency, or be wiling to accept what happens to us.
Gentleman,
I believe this may very well be the most important topic we can discuss in terms of the issues that will affect our way of life this valley —and planning is the key as we know.
Your insights and experience are tremendously valuable. Mark, your history with the process is valuable as new energy, and experienced enters the valley.
With growth comes the potential for more conflict, but it will most certainly bring a more educated populace as well.
Please forward this comment stream to any and all to make the discussion more impactful. If you have any thoughts on ways in which the Citizen can facilitate the process, please advise.
Thank you for your continued concern.
http://salidacitizen.com/2009/12/key-players-jockey-for-position/
Bill, having gotten the anger about this semi-corrupt process out of my system, it’s time for a more considered look at where we are.
First, for all the very real pain that our economic collapse is causing average Americans, it has had the salutary benefit of putting an end to the rampant 2-acre subdivision madness that swept the county for the last 15 years. The planning commission is almost out of work. The county is awash in unsold 2-acre lots, so it would be foolish to carve up land into yet another unsold checkerboard.
Second, as twelve trillion dollars of artificial wealth evaporated and credit vanished, low-down payment loans for second homes are non-existent. Most thoughtful folks know that the price of gas will inexorably rise, reducing the allure of commuting 10-15 miles to work or shopping. And the Great Deleveraging is still not done as non-sub-prime loans reset in 2010 and 2011, and commercial real-estate loans start going bad.
Third, my personal belief is that the economy will not recover to pre-2007 levels for 10-20 years, if ever. Some say that we’re completing a 500 year cycle of Western economic dominance, and the next few centuries will belong to the Orient, where education and hard work are valued far more than here. I’m agnostic on that point, but if it’s true that we’re not going to return to the pre-2007 artificial boom times (a so-called “L” shaped recovery), then county land use policy is largely moot. Rural sprawl will not happen without a market for it.
Fourth, more people are choosing to live in or near the towns. Nationwide, the out rush to suburbia that began in the 1960s is reversing, as younger buyers want to be closer to work, culture and community.
There’s the irony — we fought these land use battles to a standstill while economic events completely overtook us and changed the game board. Alan Greenspan’s stupid policies accomplished what local politics could not. Neither the round table nor the Commissioners have adjusted to the new reality because it may take another 5 or 10 years to be plainly visible to all — that minimum lot size may not be the dominant factor in deciding how to maximize value when dividing land.
What does that mean for the county if for the next few decades it’s pointless to bust up large holdings into 2- or 1-acre lots?
In the best scenario, the ranches remain intact and operating, and sell off selective pieces of less productive ground to that much smaller universe of buyers who still want a rural setting. There were incentive elements for that in Don Reimer’s 2004 plan that the ranchers tore to shreds because it did not favor the micro-lot system they were used to (and that is now obsolete).
Without buyers for multi-hundred mini-lot subdivisions, the value of a ranch shifts more to its water rights rather than the development-value of the land. Cashing out now means selling the water to growing communities, with the concomitant dry-up that will follow, as is happening now on the Hill ranch.
Water sales combined with earlier runoff and less late-season snowpack from climate change tells me the long term color of the valley floor is more brown than green; more native grasses and fallow land. Less irrigated land will impact the aquifer and those who depend on it to replenish their wells. The foolishness of augmentation permits that keep the river whole but do nothing for the aquifer in the area of withdrawal will become apparent.
Ranching won’t disappear entirely — there are still folks like my neighbors who like the life style and have never had a near-term interest in development. As a community, we should be doing everything we can to support them.
Maybe I’m just rationalizing that the failed planning process is no big deal because the economy fixed our planning better than we ever could. And I may be dead wrong — we’re a physically small county, and even in bad times it doesn’t take many buyers to have an impact on land use.
I would rather be wrong, have a prosperous economy, and fix the zoning and subdivision regs to eliminate the worst land use practices, but I’m not going to lose sleep over it.
Mark
Mark:
Wow. It going to take some time for me to digest that. Clearly you have put a great deal of thought into this. If I could paraphrase your general point – planning overtaken by events – has long been the case. The question I am pondering at this point is parallel, and a corollary to your point about Allan Greenspan. While Greenspan was ruling the world markets the economy did very well, at least in a macro sense. The question is – Was it the plan driving events, or more likely in my view, two things completely unrelated but occurring simultaneously.
It is probably a point somewhere in between.
About the planning process, our economy has been driven by real estate development and construction for the past few years and the current economic climate is hitting all of us hard. I wonder if sound planning would have dampened the boom of recent years, and at the same time broadened our economy thereby allowing us to better weather the current situation.
As for what is going to happen – I am going to leave that to the Ouija board and others, especially when it comes to predicting the end of a 500 year cycle. I will say that having spent some time in the orient and in China, the Chinese who think about these things will tell you, looking back at their history, they are confident they are just going through a few bad centuries, and will be back leading the world soon enough.
Thanks for the thought provoking post.
Bill
PS. I am reading a wonderful book called “The myth of rational markets”. I recommend it.