We received this letter via salidacitizen@gmail.com
Geo. R. Turner
We all know by now that Over The River is a proposed two-week temporary work of art being created by the world-renowned artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude. Jeanne-Claude, as most know, unfortunately passed away last November. A memorial service for her will be conducted at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City in April.
Prior to her demise, she and Christo had made a pact that should either of them pass away before the Over The River project was accomplished, the remaining artist would see the project to fruition.
Over the River will not only be a significant work of art for the world, it may be to some, even more importantly, a major mechanism of economic development for our area. During its installation, exhibition and removal, Over The River is expected to result in more than $195 million flowing into the state’s economy. With the United States Congress, the Colorado state legislature and Fremont County Commissioners all struggling to balance budgets by increasing taxes, cutting services and putting employees on unpaid furloughs, or reducing their respective work forces, this major injection of new income for these organizations of governance is an exciting prospect which must not be overlooked.
We all know that the reasons for our governments’ present shortage of funds is the poor economy and the resulting high unemployment rate. Private businesses and wage earners are hurting financially, and most cannot afford the higher taxes which they will have to pay. The only solution to the current economical disaster in which we find ourselves, is the infusion of new money into the economy, and for us, Over The River will be just that – the infusion of a new $195 million dollars into our state. And unlike most economic development projects, there will be no cost to the state, the county or its residents. Over The River will be completely funded by the artists through the sale of Christo’s original works of art, including traffic control, trash removal and sanitation. All economic benefits will occur without public subsidy or taxpayer support. That’s tantamount to 100% profit for us – a very real $195,000,000.00.
As is always the case with Christo’s projects, Over The River will exist physically for only a brief period of time-about two weeks. Then it will be dismantled and the fabric will be recycled. There will be no lingering, physical evidence on or near the river that it ever happened. It will, however, live on forever through photographs, sketches, videos and in the memories of those fortunate enough to view it.
$195,000,000.00 pure profit for a project which will be in place for two weeks, and then be gone with no physical evidence that it ever existed – I’d sign the contract in a heart beat.
Sincerely,
Geo. R. Turner
Loading ...
Wow – the picture you paint is so rosy, sweet, and straight from Disneyland. I wonder why I am opposed to such a wonderful project.
Hmmm – could it be that their past projects have left areas in shall we say less than pristine condition. Do your research Citizen.
The canyon traffic now is hairy and with a one year projected project build ( you forgot to mention that little fact ). I can only imagine the resulting congestion and all the lovely consequences that will bring to drivers and wildlife.
At Bongos one group of people were discussing the project and one supporter laughed – “I don’t live in the canyon – I don’t care”.
An accident closed the canyon last year for over 24 hours and my husband was prevented from accessing his heart meds from home – how many people will be affected by canyon accidents, how much wildlife will be disturbed or displaced, how many will be affected by the forced slowed pace of emergency personnel, and what will be the final impact on the already disturbed delicate balance of canyon nature. Do you suppose those effects contributed to the Cristo’s refusal to take questions at their Howard “town hall meeting”? – But you just care about the money. Sorry – I forgot.
But we are a connected society and one’s place of residence is not the issue. Does this project reflect our respect for people, wildlife and land – I submit no – It is more like a tunnel vision for greed.
sorry Citizen – I now notice it was an opinion by another person.
Message stands.
To be honest, I’m personally one who leans toward the ROAR side of this issue; but as a journalist I honestly try to keep an open mind about it. And I honestly don’t think the world will come to an end if the project does goes through.
But I have personal knowledge of Jeanne Claude that isn’t as filled with romance as are the reflections of her painted in the opening statement by Mr. Turner. I interviewed both she and Christo numerous times for several television news stations over the past few years. I recall one such interview in which she stopped talking to me mid-sentence, and screamed “This is NOT your river! You do not own it!” to a man who had asked Christo how he’d feel if someone went to France and tried to shove a personal project such as OTR down the French peoples’ throats. On another occasion Jeanne Claude was asked by another journalist about several fatalities related to their previous projects. Specifically, the female reporter asked about a woman in California who had been killed when one of the displays broke free in the wind and crushed a woman against a rock. Jeanne Claude leaned back, flipping her famously orange hair, and pursed her lips: “That woman had cancer. She was going to die anyway,” she sneered.
To say I and everyone around me was taken aback by her callous brush-off was an understatement.
But it made me wonder if the OTR project is really about art, or if ti’s just about money and ego.
I guess we’ll all know, someday. Maybe it’ll bring fame and fortune to our area, or maybe it’ll bring catastrophe as ROAR predicts.
The only thing I know for certain, something I’ll admit fully, is Jeanne Claude lost all credibility with me that night in Canon City.
Geo. writes:
a major mechanism of economic development for our area
Christo does admit that we’ll possibly get 4% of the 200 million dollar projected revenue to split with Canon City, BV and Penrose, that sounds like one heckuva deal for only 3 years worth of industrial strength disruption that’s not primarily in Chaffee County, but when you take into account the displaced visitors and the revenue they bring, that huge 4% starts to fade a little. Do the math. 4 percent of 200 mil is 8 mil, divided by 3 years is 7,306.00 per day. Dividing that by the 4 towns closest to the project leaves 1825.00 for each town. Say for Salida, divide that by 200 businesses leaves $9.13 for each business per day. Nine Dollars per business per day….
We’ll all be rich, or that’s what Christo would like you to believe his 3 year project will bring. Here, for your reading pleasure is a Condensed Summary of Christo’s Over the River (OTR) Plan Facts and Issues. The facts were taken from the OTR project plan, not Christo’s propoganda. The issues are very real, and a lot more impactful than Christo would like you to believe.
Fact The panels will be suspended using a total of 8,992 nine foot rock anchors. Where bedrock is not available for drilling, concrete caissons will be used for anchor placement.
Issue 8,992 anchors will require 8,992 drill holes. In comparison, only 23,481 oil and gas wells were drilled in the entire State of Colorado in the past 8 years, an average of about 2,900 wells per year. Christo’s proposal, then, is to shoehorn the equivalent of 2 ½ times the number of annual STATEWIDE oil and gas drill holes within 5.9 miles of designated bighorn sheep habitat in Bighorn Sheep Canyon EVERY YEAR of the 2 year construction period.
The weight of each anchor would be between 13.5 lbs and 118 lbs, depending on the diameter – which was not specified. Total cumulative weight of all the anchors would then be between 121,392 lbs and 1,068,249 lbs.
88% of this would be left behind. (Christo proposes to leave all anchors and concrete caissons 12 inches below the surface in perpetuity).
How will the sheer volume of drill holes and weight of the anchors affect the stability of the rock and erosion in the Canyon? Will rockslides become more common?
Fact The Plan proposes using almost 7 tons of polypropylene fabric.
Issue Polypropylene is a petroleum-based product. What are the environmental (and greenhouse gas effects) effects of manufacturing and transporting the panels? What are the effects on the River if the petroleum-based panels are blown into the River?
Fact Drilling of anchors typically takes between 3 and 4 hours at any one anchor point.
Issue This means between 26,976 (1,124 days) and 35,968 (1,498 days) hours of drilling to install the anchors alone. This does not include installing the “anchor transition frames,” cables or panels.
Fact Christo’s publicity states that all activity in the “busy summer months” will take place on the railroad side of the river. The publicity fails to tell “the rest of the story.”
Issue This publicity ignores the relevant fact that if you add up the activity days listed in the drilling and event schedules in the Plan, Christo proposes 600.7 activity days on the highway side, 493.35 activity days on the railroad side and 1227.07 activity days that are unspecified as to location. The Plan also notes that highway side lane closures will occur during the weeks prior to the exhibit – this is within the “peak summer months.”
Fact A 6 x 8 foot oval area (48 square feet) of disturbance of vegetation will be required for each anchor point. Equipment access for drilling will require 5 feet in width for a small drill, 20 feet for a larger drill. Total area of vegetation disturbed for access to drilling areas is unexplained in the Plan.
Issue If you multiply the number of anchors (8,992) by the area to be disturbed by drilling each anchor (48 sq. ft.), you will understand that 431,616 square feet of vegetation will be removed or disturbed for drilling alone (this is close to 10 acres). This figure does not match the estimates for total vegetation impact of anchor point clearing, equipment access and pathways of 4.7 acres (listed later on same page of the plan). This illustrates inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the plan proposal.
Fact Elsewhere the plan notes only 240,053 square feet of total surface disturbance (a little more than 5.5 acres). This does not include the use of US 50 shoulders, railroad corridor, or, presumably, private land.
Issue How could there be total surface disturbance of only 240,053 square feet when the Plan notes that 431,616 square feet of vegetation will be removed or disturbed for drilling alone?
Fact The Plan states that the anchor transition frames (ATFs) will require excavating 2,472.8 cubic yards of soil.
Issue A typical dump truck utilized in this area carries 10 to 12 cubic yards, so this would amount to 200 to 250 dump truck loads of excavated material. Couple this with the above vegetation disturbance area solely for the installation of the anchors and ATF units and the disturbance covers nearly 20 acres.
Fact Christo proposes two alternatives: 7.7 miles of fabric panels and 10.4 miles of fabric panels.
Issue No locations for these expanded project alternatives are specified. These alternative proposals would increase the number of panels, anchors and infrastructure (and impacts) by 30% and 76%, respectively.
Fact The Plan acknowledges sedimentation (pollution) may occur into the Arkansas River.
Issue The Plan does not acknowledge the need for a Clean Water Act “404” permit. Discharges of sediment and other substances into the river are illegal without a State-issued 401 permit and an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit.
Fact The Plan does not address the real potential for increased costs of commodities for Salida and Canon City due to traffic impacts and use of alternate routes during construction and viewing period.
Issue Will there be shortages of water, fuel, food? How will increased transportation costs affect the local consumer?
Fact The Plan acknowledges the following unavoidable impacts:
- potential disturbance and other impacts to bighorn sheep
- potential bird-cable collisions
- disruptions to residents
- increased travel/commuting time
- increase in solid waste, crowd control and provision of emergency services
Fact Portions of the project will be located within in the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and adjacent to the McIntyre Hills Wilderness Study Area (WSA).
Issue Is this project appropriate located so close to the WSA and within an ACEC? Will the EIS address impacts to the WSA and ACEC?
Fact The panels are designed for 42 mph wind speeds, although the Plan acknowledges higher wind speeds in at least one panel section.
Issue Wind speeds in Howard routinely reach 60-80 MPH as recorded by a local weather station.
Fact The Plan notes that activities in areas designated by BLM or CDOW as sensitive for Bighorn sheep, lambing, wintering or drinking areas will be prohibited when these areas are most likely to be used.
Issue CDOW has recently designated areas encompassing 7 of the 9 panel sections as “no surface occupancy” or wintering range for oil and gas drilling. CDOW reports indicate that the bighorn sheep utilize these areas generally year round. How could oil and gas drilling be prohibited, but intensive drilling to install anchors – utilizing the same types of equipment in closer density – be allowed?
While there are regulations for drilling, environmental standards and reclamation associated with oil and gas and mining development, THERE ARE NO REGULATIONS regarding these same activities if they are utilized for art projects, even though the impacts are the same.
Fact Mitigation proposed in the Plan for impacts to Bighorn sheep includes “luring sheep away from the river with food and water” and “importation” of sheep from other areas.
Issue Bighorn sheep are not like domestic sheep and cattle that easily can be replaced. Where does OTR Corporation propose to get the imported sheep? Will other Colorado herds be impacted in order to facilitate this art project? CDOW wildlife biologists have noted that the Canyon’s Bighorn sheep herd is particularly unique because it is a largely indigenous herd. Does “luring” the sheep away from the Canyon fit best mitigation practices for wildlife? Generally speaking, feeding wildlife is not encouraged.
Fact The Plan states that OTR contractors are allowed to use US 50 pullouts throughout the year, even in “peak summer months.”
Issue Will pullouts utilized by fishermen and rafters be taken by OTR during the busy summer rafting season, and the heavily attended spring caddis and summer and fall angling seasons? This indicates that Christo indeed proposes summer OTR activity on the highway side.
Fact Fabric panels will be removed within 2 weeks of the viewing period. Cables will be removed within 6 weeks of the viewing period.
Issue Practically speaking, some activity on the highway side will be required to remove the panels and unhook the cables from that side of the river. This activity falls within the end of the “peak summer months” and then into the school year. Are lane closures anticipated to facilitate cable removal? If so, how will this impact school bus traffic? Extensive activity will be required to remove the anchors and anchor transition frames, fill drill holes, and restore, reclaim and revegetate excavated areas on the highway side of the river. Are lane closures anticipated to facilitate these activities? Again, how will this impact school bus traffic?
Fact The Plan acknowledges that lodging in Salida, Canon City, Pueblo and Colorado Springs is normally fully occupied in July and August during the viewing periods. OTR visitors will displace normal visitors and this time of year. The Plan notes that the areas likely to gain from increased demand for lodging from OTR visitors are Breckenridge, Aspen, Snowmass, Vail and Denver.
Issue There will be no local revenue gains to businesses and government tax revenues from lodging due to OTR. The areas with economic gains are the most well-off areas of the state, while the local governments are the ones that will be strained without an accompanying tax revenue boost. While admitting this effect – the Plan then neglects to net out the lodging and other expenditures that will be offset by losses due to displaced visitors, in essence taking credit for economic activity that is already occurring.
Fact Some anchors will be placed in wetlands, primarily in the Parkdale area, and impacts on wetlands from erosion and sedimentation from drilling is anticipated. The Plan also anticipates sedimentation from soil disturbance areas during high-intensity precipitation. Fuel also may be carried into these wetlands.
Issue The Plan does not call for a Clean Water Act 404 permit. Discharges of sediment, fuel and other substances into the river are illegal without a State-issued 401 permit and an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit. Is there a wetland mitigation plan?
Fact The Plan does not anticipate that a visual resource management analysis will be required because of the “temporary” nature of the construction, viewing and removal.
Issue A three year project is not “temporary.” Also, since OTR proposes project elements will be left in place (portions of anchors, etc.), and erosion is likely to expose these elements, a full VRM analysis of the project, and its permanent characteristics should be conducted.
Fact Christo claims that the Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared “at the artists’ request.”
Issue This is true, although it again fails to tell “the rest of the story.” We do not know what transpired in private meetings between BLM and Christo regarding the decision in 2006 to change tracks from the then-in-process environmental assessment (EA) to a full environmental impact statement (EIS). The law requires (the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA) that for large projects on federal lands (mines, oil and gas development, ski resorts and OTR) an EA is prepared in order to find out if project impacts are significant. If they are not significant, then an EA provides sufficient analysis for BLM to approve the project. If the impacts ARE significant, then an EA is not sufficient and an EIS is REQUIRED BY LAW as one of steps BLM must take before it can approve a project. We surmise that during EA preparation, Christo saw the writing on the wall that the OTR impacts were so significant that an EA was not legally sufficient. At that point the decision was probably made to elevate the analysis to an EIS. This voluntary action does not mean that an EIS was not legally required, or that Christo’s decision is especially laudable. The practical effect of this decision is to save Christo time and money by skipping the EA.
For more information please go to http://www.roarcolorado.org, or contact ROAR at contactroar@roarcolorado.org or ROAR, P.O. Box 786, Canon City, Colorado 81215. ROAR is an all volunteer non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and preserving Bighorn Sheep Canyon and its inhabitants.
Geo writes of “…high unemployment rate. Private businesses and wage earners are hurting financially,”
You think Christo will solve that? Well guess what, exactly the opposite will happen. I am part of a major destination industry that works along the entire length of Bighorn Sheep canyon. I have been opposed to this project from the get-go for all kinds of reasons. The clincher, however, has been a recent in-depth study of Christo’s construction and proposed traffic management during the 2-3 YEAR construction and display.
Talk about unemployment, the traffic impacts alone will essentially put all of us out of business. We must traverse varying sections of the canyon on an extremely tight time schedule. Considering only ONE ASPECT of our business, we stand to lose $50,000/year for EACH OF THE 3 YEARS! A small seasonal company cannot absorb that kind of loss. Add in the negative numbers from the inevitable decreased income for the rest of our business operation, and you can see our concern. Even if we can somehow survive this, the lost momentum and client base that has taken many years to accrue would take more years to regain.
So talk about unemployment, OTR’s blatant disregard of the lives of those of us who live and work here is reprehensible. Get your head out of Christo’s self-serving propaganda cloud and learn the FACTS instead.
Maybe a compromise that’ll make everyone happy would be for Christo to wrap all those butt-ugly coal cars stored along the rail siding west of Parkdale.
That would work – little bit of crazy glue and we are all set.
If Mr. Turner wishes to be taken seriously, he needs to reveal that he is the former Executive Director of the Canon City Chamber of Commerce. And the Salida Citizen needs to understand that printing a letter as though it were a sanctioned op ed without requesting information on possible conflicts of interests violates basic journalistic principles.
It is interesting that the most ardent supporters of this project are either paid to promote it (chambers of commerce, travel bureaus, etc.) or stand to personally benefit monetarily.
Last fall I attended a meeting of the BLM’s RAC (Resource Advisory Council). As its name suggests, the group’s focus is resources, primarily natural resources. At least a half dozen OTR supporters spoke to the group, and nary a one was concerned about anything but how much they or the group they represented would make off the project. Several of them admitted that there were serious environmental and safety issues (proper concerns of the RAC), then summarily dismissed them as unimportant in light of the financial gain they or their group might realize (not proper concerns of the RAC). At least Mr. Turner is honest when he calls OTR an “economic development project.” For whom, is the big question.
Since one must assume that Mr. Turner is fully aware that there will be nearly 9000 anchors implanted in the river banks and that there is no plan to remove them, his statement that “There will be no lingering, physical evidence on or near the river that it ever happened. ” is misleading at best. The claim that the project will exist physically for only 2 weeks is patently false. Will those 9000 anchors magically appear the day before the project is officially unveiled? Of course not, as the OTR plan itself clearly outlines. They will be installed over a 2-yr period, disrupting traffic and impacting the lives of people who live in the canyon or at both ends.
To claim that there will be no cost to the state or its residents is also patently false. The people who stand to gain care not a whit about the costs that others will bear during this 3-yr project, so they consider them inconsequential or non-existent. There is no such thing as a free lunch, Mr. Turner, and you of all people should be fully aware of that.
It has been pointed out to me that I posted an incorrect address for R.O.A.R. The correct address is below
ROAR
662 Wapiti Trail
Canon City, CO 81212
Ellen:
In all fairness to Salida Citizen, the column posted by Mr.Turner was listed as an opinion, therefore by default opening it to criticism, which you have done eloquently.
Regards,
Charles
We sincerely appreciate your comment above, Ms. Bauder, when you say:
“And the Salida Citizen needs to understand that printing a letter as though it were a sanctioned op ed without requesting information on possible conflicts of interests violates basic journalistic principles.”
We are not a newspaper. Citizen Journalism is a unique animal. As has been demonstrated above; by allowing real time comments to live in perpetuity, truths and corrections will generally be presented by readers.
Thank you for writing.
On an unrelated note, to all of our readers, when writing please consider that we started the Citizen to raise discourse, learn from each other and make our community better. If you find yourself arguing a point that an “opposing” writer has taken in a way that does not respect these ideals, please take a breath.
We will not all agree on every issue. We challenge you all to write smart, thoughtful and open minded comments to help move a high quality discussion forward in a positive way.
In closing, if your comments cannot be kept brief, please consider sending us an Op-Ed piece.
-Thanks for your participation!
And the debate continues……
Ellen Bauder writes:
“It is interesting that the most ardent supporters of this project are either paid to promote it (chambers of commerce, travel bureaus, etc.) or stand to personally benefit monetarily.”
No, no, no, no, and furthermore, no! I am a fervent supporter of this work, AND live in the canyon. I don’t stand to make one lousy cent off of it, and will gladly deal with any logistical snafus that come up (like we don’t have that already on Hwy 50 through the canyon on a monthly basis).
To boot, I can’t stand Cristo’s art. Let me repeat that. I think Cristo’s art is stupid. I make my living in the art field, and have done so (working for art museums) for the past 24 years now. I’ve been around a bit of it, you could say. I find his art boorish, self-absorbed, and thoroughly un-inventive at this point. But what is far more important is that the spirit of creativity, and openness to creative pursuits be protected at all costs. If the man will foot the bill, and if the impact is not great (obviously the jury is out on that, but let’s just pretend for argument that its not great)–then we do ourselves a gigantic disservice to prohibit this art. What I think of it is irrelevant. What matters is our openness to new ideas, differing points of views, differing creative approaches. That enriches us as a people. Precluding it on knee-jerk reactions diminishes us. That’s the crux of this issue for me, one that Cristo obviously has put out there and played to perfection. His art is basically a referendum on our own willingness to embrace that which we’re not necessarily comfortable with. He’s already “won”.
Christo, with an “h”. My bad. Must have been thinking of the mountain range, and the Blood of Cristo….
Mark – Can we pretend for arguments sake that the impact upon the environment is great. Then what would you say?
I’d say it becomes a much more difficult decision–the absence of “great impact” postition is nice because it allows one to just examine the cultural merits. To accept “great impact” suddenly raises a whole other question (or set of questions): relative to what? Relative to the hazmat spills (3) on Hwy 50 that have kept me out of Salida for hours (even overnite) in the past two years? We obviously hold that risk/impact to be acceptable, as I am not aware of any ban on propane trucks on the hiway to date. Or the uranium ore truck that tipped and dumped its load right over the path I take several times a week to walk to the Swissvale swimming hole with my children? I heard not one peep about banning uranium traffic, so that must be acceptable as well.
To be certain, for arguments sake, if the risk was extreme, then the cultural/creative value would be trumped. But I’m certainly of the opinion that bolt holes in already blasted rock, next to a roaring highway, and next to a man-made rubble hill holding rusting train tracks are not exactly an extreme impact. But we employ professionals (BLM, DOW, CDOT etc.) to ascertain the impact, and should abide by their decisions as to the severity of the impact. I think there are more than a few who are arguing this matter “for arguments sake”.
While there have been a great many excellent arguments levied against OTR here, I think one is obviously absent.
No one would argue that the Arkansas River corridor is a fully wild and natural environment. However, it does still offer a great many natural benefits and vistas. I have never seen anything made by man that has improved on the art of nature. In fact, the very premise that man could accomplish such a thing rings loudly of egotism and arrogance.
OTR proposes to hang laundry over the river and call it art. To my eye, it will only serve to obstruct the view of the art that is already there. Given the negative impacts on the environment, infrastructure, and transportation–and the questionable monetary ROI–how is this a good bargain for the community?
“Leave it as it is. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it.”