Like many in this Valley, I received curious email update late last week from the Over the River team happily informing me that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has vowed his support for the artist Christo’s proposed Over the River Art installation, recognizing the “artistic and and economic benefits” of the project. The OTR Project team goes on to write that the Richardson letter to the Colorado office of the Bureau of Land Management is joined by expressions of support for the project from other southern neighbors including New Mexico state Sen. Peter Wirth, the executive director of the New Mexico Arts Commission, secretary of the New Mexico’s Department of Cultural Affairs and the Taos Center for the Arts. It would seem to bear noting that Taos is 185 miles, a 3 hour 17 minute drive, from the epicenter of the OTR controversy in Howard, CO. New Mexico state offices in Santa Fe are another 48 miles and nearly another hour distant by car.
I found this news hilarious on so many fronts. As the tempestuous tennis great John McEnroe used to shout at line judges on questionable calls, “you have GOT to be kidding! The move begs the question, is there so little support for the project in its own backyard that proponents have to cast a wider net in search of supporters? Are we to believe that the wishes of distant observers would trump those of the people more proximate to the project? What political heft are we expected to presume former Presidential hopeful Richardson may bring to the project. Why stop at just contiguous states, perhaps there could be a national popularity poll. Why not seek support farther afield. There are 194 countries in the world; surely there are a few less-than-scrupulous dictators who would welcome payment for their endorsement. What does the Pope thinks about it? Is Lindsey Lohan contemplating it from her jail cell?
If so many people in New Mexico are so in love with this Christo project, I say let them host it. If relocated to the Rio Grande’s Taos Box, then the project could benefit from the skippier sounding title Over the River in a Box and any opposition group could modify the name Rags Over the Arkansas to simply Rags Over A River so it could still be ROAR . . . in a Box. If local opposition develops, would the ensuing din of contention drown out the legendary Taos Hum?
Ten days after he penned his letter of support for OTR, Richardson announced he’s considering pardoning Billy the Kid (I kid you not) before he leaves office. Apparently, the Gov has too much free time on his hands, surprising when his state is $160 million in the hole just three weeks into the new fiscal year.
Back in this neck of the woods, at this protracted stage in the process, I don’t care if OTR is approved or denied. Locals can read the draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Project and comment on it until the Aug. 30 deadline for comment. Download the Executive Summary of the Over The River Draft EIS by clicking here, or download the full document on the BLM’s website (please note that the full document is over 2,000 pages long). Hard copies are also available for review at several places in Salida, Cañon City, and Denver, and you can click here to view the exact locations. You can also request a compact disc containing the file by calling the BLM office in Cañon City at (719) 269-8500.
I just want the incessant droning and nitpicking to end so that maybe our citizens could re-focus their activism on issues that really matter. Like how about starting WAR – Water in the Arkansas, that is. If WAR leaders could marshall the passion of those for and against Christo, and focus it instead on creating a unified voice to repel all future attempts by the Front Range and more Nestles-in-waiting wanting to take water out of our basin, out of our river and out of the aquifers that replenish our river, then we might have something really substantive to roar about.
Lee writes:
The move begs the question, is there so little support for the project in its own backyard that proponents have to cast a wider net in search of supporters?
I do believe you hit the nail squarely on the head. Interesting to note, that letters to the editor in the surrounding area papers, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Canon, were running 95% against the project, and even a Denver Post poll that was up for only a day, garnered 1300 votes against and only 300 for the project, with 300 voting I don’t care.
Given that the DEIS Section 3 states ” bighorn sheep are notorious for being negatively affected by humans and by anthropogenic disturbances of any sort” and “Research is conclusive that stress, such as human contact, vehicles, dust, noise, and harassment on bighorn is a factor in their susceptibility to disease (Spraker et al. 1984)”.
Section 4 goes on to say “The timing of installation would occur during other sensitive times, such as maternity roosting for bats, the bighorn breeding season or “rut”, and the critical wintering period for ungulates. Additionally, since the first year of life is a critical period for bighorn lambs, disturbance after the lambing period, but before rearing is complete, could increase lamb mortality.” The overall impact to the struggling indigenous herd is termed significant, over the 3 year duration of the project.
In section 4 on traffic, it states “The twenty minute delay scenario generated a vehicle queue of approximately 2.9 miles. The model estimated that delayed conditions would last approximately 138 minutes. The maximum queue would involve slightly over 600 vehicles while traffic is stopped. Approximately 2,450 total
vehicles would be delayed before the traffic returns to normal speeds..
These significant impacts are 2 very good reasons to disallow something that has no real purpose or demonstrated NEED to happen.
I like Lee’s suggestion that it be moved to the Taos Box. If New Mexico believes it would benefit so much if it happened here, then the reverse would be true. Right ??
Just say no.
Marshall
In the article above, Lee rhetorically asks “…is there so little support for the project in its own backyard that proponents have to cast a wider net in search of supporters?” This question piques our interest but I must point out that she does not answer the question, nor is she trying. From what I can tell, most people are very much for the project. Many of those (who I’ve talked with) who are against it, are opposed to OTR based on reasons that are subjective and based on worse case scenarios. Of those ‘worse case scenarios’, 99% were either completely outlandish or based on something they had read that simply was not true..
I’m not sure I would say 99% of the people I’ve talked to are for OTR. At a recent Friday afternoon gathering I would say it was much closer to 50/50 with nearly everyone voicing the “kind of sick of it already” regardless of the side they stood on. To say that many who are opposed to it base their reasoning on a “worse case scenario” seems fair, but if we aren’t basing decisions on worse case, then we haven’t learned anything from our most recent, completely outlandish, catastrophe.
Just to be clear, I wrote ” …Of those ‘worse case scenarios’, 99% (of those scenarios) were either completely outlandish or based on something they had read that simply was not true..” I agree that in many cases we must pay closer attention ( and perhaps entertain the possibility of a worse case scenario ) to prevent a catastrophe. I presume you’re referring to the Nestle decision.
I too get sick of the whole thing at times, but I get pulled back in when I read things I know to be untrue. Nowadays, I generally just refer people to the Christo website or Steve Stucko’s well written opinion piece in The Salida Citizen – ( http://salidacitizen.com/2010/06/over-the-river-requires-rational-judgment-and-common-sense/ ) to avoid losing friends…
Laura:
I was just pondering what you meant by “our most recent, completely outlandish, catastrophe.” There are a number of possible choices. ;)
I have started reading the EIS, and as with all documents of that size and scope, there are going to be people who can find quotes to support whatever their preconceived views are. Little actual understanding is gained by reading excepts chosen solely for the purpose of promoting an existing point of view. I would hope everyone who is going to opine takes the time to read as much of the EIS as they can.
Bill
Just to be clear, I wrote ” …Of those ‘worse case scenarios’, 99% (of those scenarios) were either completely outlandish or based on something they had read that simply was not true.
Ok, I’ll admit that there are some out there that fit this bill, just as there are some out there that don’t, both supporters and opponents, but they are the minority of the opponents to the project. Just because you say it, without researching the facts, how can you make such a statement ?
I have endeavored to stick to the facts, and just present facts that are backed by things documented that can be referenced. In the over the river article that resides on this site, I listed 40 facts, and issues I had with them, all from the OTR plan. They are all borne out in the DEIS, which cites the environmental impacts are significant.
The impacts to the residents during the 3 years of construction, viewing, and resultant tear down are deemed significant. The economic study bears out what I believed all along, that the touted economic boost to the area isn’t all that and a bag of chips when you take into account the displaced visitors, and the 3 year duration. OTR takes credit for economic activity that’s already occurring, they admit it in the DEIS.
Approximately ten bucks divided over 200 businesses in the surrounding communities per day for 3 years. Sure, aggregate the projected revenue into a lump sum and it sounds great, but look at it in a realistic fashion and it takes on a different look.
I’ve talked to people in Salida, and I’ll agree that it’s closer to a 50/50 split, with the 50% that are against it, vehemently against it, and the 50% that are for it, 75% of those are apathetic, don’t really care one way or the other, and the remaining 25% that are for it, are for it simply as they have dollar signs in their eyes or think it’ll be “beautiful” .
Now, take a drive into Howard, Coaldale, Cotopaxi, Westcliffe, Talahassee and you’ll see a definite shift in opinion. 98% are vehemently against it, and the few supporters there are, again have dollar signs in their eyes.
We are the ones that will have to bear the brunt of the negative impacts over the 3 year project length. But you say, Oh, it’s just a little inconvenience for the huge boost to the area. Well, we’re not seeing the boost at all, what we see, and yes, it may be a lot about worst case scenarios, like in the Umbrellas display where a woman was killed, or in the Rifle Gap display where faulty engineering assumptions caused the whole thing to blow down soon after it was erected. Out of his, what, 10 displays, 2 of them failed ???? That’s hardly a great track record considering most of his displays are minuscule in comparison to what he wants to do with OTR.
It WILL impact the sheep, raptors, bats, birds, deer, that’s all in the DEIS. It WILL impact the people, emergency services, home health care, the mail, the school buses, the fishermen and other recreation activity. That’s in the DEIS too, and no, I’m not cherry picking the statements, it’s laid out plainly along with 30 or so other things that the DEIS says need more research, on the summary page. You don’t even have to read further if you don’t want to.
Even the DEIS states that the engineering assumptions made need to be looked at. Right there on the summary page. In the document, it explores that the project may be under engineered given the display would occur in the monsoon season and is likely to be struck by lightning, and hit with high winds. Not could be hit and blown, LIKELY to be.
In summary, most of the proponents won’t be impacted at all, as pointed out by the Poncha Springs town council, one way or the other. The 4500 people and wildlife in the canyon WILL be impacted if the project is allowed to move forward. That’s a cold, hard fact, and the impact will be significant, that’s in the DEIS.
Now, being a good neighbor is a lauded way to conduct oneself. Are you telling me that living in Salida, BV, Poncha or Canon and supporting OTR is doing good by your neighbors in Wellsville, Swissvale, Howard, Coaldale Cotoapxi, Texas Creek, Talahassee and Westcliffe ?
Doesn’t sound neighborly to me, sounds more like screw you, I want to make a buck and I don’t care about what you’ll have to endure to make that happen. If that’s the case, that’s awfully mean spirited. As Rod Patch said in an AHRA Citizens Task Force meeting, “Even if I was to make a million dollars off of OTR, I couldn’t do that to my neighbors”.
The Canyon residents truly wish more people felt this way, and considered what they might have to endure for 3 long years.
Marshall
Howard, CO
Yawn….
Can we get on with the Roller Derby news, already?