In spite of Mayor Volger’s optimistic feelings about the proposed $7 million bridge at South 5th Street, and also in spite of the fact that the Town Council has the authority to spend millions of taxpayer dollars every year without asking specific taxpayer permission, Mayor Volger and the Town Council decided, in March 2016, to allow the community to attend a special public meeting concerning the bridge proposal.
The meeting began with an explanation by then-Town Manager Greg Schulte and by Springs Partner representative Matt Mees, about the positive effects that might accrue to the community if the Town government (that is to say, the taxpayers) paid for this bridge and connecting roads. But most of the meeting was taken up with audience questions about why the Town was even considering this proposal.
About halfway through the presentation, Mayor Volger read aloud from series of Powerpoint slides, as shown in the following video clip. The slide presented series of statements titled: “Assertions Not in Support of the Project,” and summarized 17 criticisms about the bridge proposal that had been expressed at previous Council meetings, in letters to the Town staff, and in articles and letters in the local media.
In 2016, I had been writing about local politics for about 11 years, and I had never seen a government board, in such an open, public way, acknowledge citizen objections to a proposed government-subsidized project. So my hat is definitely off to the Town of Pagosa Springs for its willingness to present such a slide series. The critical comments took up 6 slides out of the 37 slides presented that evening.
Here’s a video excerpt from that presentation. Mayor Don Volger is reciting the “Assertions” — assertions about the proposal itself, and assertions about the way the proposal has been handled thus far.
At the end of the video clip, we hear a couple of women in the audience ask Mayor Volger if we could possibly hear some authentic responses to these numerous assertions. We hear the Mayor then defers to Town Manager Greg Schulte, and Mr. Schulte promises us that, indeed, the objections will be addressed.
But… not right now?
Audience member: “So, could you address those? If those are questions that have been asserted before, and we have them tonight, can you answer those questions? Those are all really good questions. I would love to hear your answers.”
Mayor Volger: “Go ahead, Greg. I’ll let you comment.”
Greg Schulte: “I was just going to say… Can we get through the rest of the presentation? You guys are going to have that…”
Another audience member: “Don’t avoid the question.”
Mr. Schulte: “We’re not going to.”
Audience member: “Well, you’re doing that right now.”
Mr. Schulte only smiled. The meeting continued for nearly two more hours, but no one from the Town government made an attempt to address the 17 ‘assertions’ that the Town had been hearing from the community about the controversial project… assertions that the Mayor told us were being weighed, as part of the decision-making process.
I’d like to make particular notice of one of the assertions that no one bothered to address:
Mayor Volger: “We’ve heard that helping to build, or building the bridge is not fair to other developers who had to — and did — pay for their own infrastructure.”
We’ll talk a bit more about fairness in a moment.
Ten months later, the developers — Matt Mees and Bill Dawson — withdrew their offer to “allow” the Town government to build a bridge and streets on the Springs Partners’ vacant property. But the writing was already on the wall; it seemed pretty clear to everyone that the Town was not going to fund the bridge, due partly to the numerous citizens who had written letters critical of the proposal, or who had spoken directly with Mayor Volger and other Town Council members.
An example of ‘rational government’? A government process, wherein leaders and ordinary citizens freely exchanged arguments and assertions — and where people truly listened to one another — and in the end, a rational decision was made?
Three years later, however, we’re still dealing with the same vacant 27 acres. The property ownership has changed, as have the proposed government subsidies. Apparently, Mr. Mees and Mr. Dawson sold their interests in the property to local developer Jack Searle last August, and Mr. Searle has entered into a cooperative effort with the Springs Resort to get a new resort hotel built on the vacant land. Assuming, apparently, that the Town government will help subsidize the new hotel.
From what I can tell, based on a recent Council work session, Mayor Volger is eager to provide the requested subsidies.
Over the past several weeks, the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners and the Pagosa Springs Town Council have been discussing a set of policies — shared policies — that would purportedly lead to increased ‘economic development.’ Since 2006, the Town and County governments have invested at least $8.4 million into various ‘economic development’ schemes aimed at ‘creating jobs.’
So let’s look at the ‘economic development’ policies that the Town Council and BOCC plan to approve. (Actually, the BOCC approved them yesterday; the Town will consider approval tomorrow, Thursday June 18.) You can download the Town document here.
Are these ‘rational’ policies? Neither the Town nor the Board of County Commissioners have asked the community to publicly weigh in on the fairness or potential effectiveness of these policies (at least, as far as I have seen.) Yet, the policies are obviously intended to change the economic landscape, using taxpayer subsidies as the tool of choice.
Or maybe they are being approved to benefit one particular private developer?
Bill Hudson began sharing his opinions in the Pagosa Daily Post in 2004 and can’t seem to break the habit. He claims that, in Pagosa Springs, opinions are like pickup trucks: everybody has one.