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.”

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”.

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”.

“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!

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

ROAR
662 Wapiti Trail
Canon City, CO 81212

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.