Times change. Property owners change. Government officials change. It seems that even climates can change.
And community activism changes.
Back in February 2016, we ran an eight-part editorial series about the “Fabled Bridge to Nowhere,” a typically rambling Daily Post story about government secrecy, and taxpayer funding used to promote select private businesses in Pagosa Springs.
The tale concerned numerous closed-door meetings by the Pagosa Springs Town Council, related to a proposed development on 27 acres of vacant land just south of the Springs Resort — and in particular, a request by the property owners that the community’s taxpayers fund a $7 million bridge and roadway leading from South 5th Street, across the San Juan River, and across their vacant land. The request had been finalized in an official (but only proposed) agreement between the Town government and the property owners.
Theoretically, the property owners — Bill Dawson and Matt Mees, and their new business partner Jack Searle — would subsequently arrange for a thriving mixed use development of hotels, shops and high-end housing on those vacant acres, if the Town government would agree to build the bridge and roadway.
You can read the eight-part story here.
The issue became quite controversial. Part of the community’s unhappiness derived from the mere suggestion that the taxpayers ought to build a bridge and roadway for a private developer, when every previous development project in Archuleta County had been required to pay for all its own roads and infrastructure.
Another cause for community disappointment was a continuing series of closed-door meetings conducted by the Town Council, under the leadership of Mayor Don Volger.
In the end, the developers withdrew their request, and Mr. Dawson and Mr. Mees sold their partnership interests to Mr. Searle for an undisclosed amount.
Three years later, a representative of the Springs Resort’s new ownership group named David Dronet began meeting with government and community leaders to present a slightly different plan. Under this new scenario, Mr. Searle would provide access to the vacant 27 acres and some (as yet unidentified) development group would build out a $180 million mixed-use commercial and residential subdivision, over a 25-year period. To facilitate this project, the Town government would create an “Urban Renewal Authority” and at some point, the URA would declare the vacant 27-acres to be dangerously blighted and in need of $79 million worth of Tax Increment Financing (TIF).
You can read about TIF financing here.
So far, Mr. Dronet and Mr. Searle have not proposed a $7 million bridge at South 5th Street. In fact, Mr. Dronet has publicly stated that the South 5th Street Bridge does not suit the planned project.
Instead of a $7 million bridge, however, he’d like to see the community refund $79 million in taxes to the development company.
The Town Council has now created an Urban Renewal Authority, but the Council itself is undergoing a change this coming April. Mail ballots will be going out in mid-March and Town voters (but not County voters) will be asked to select three Council members to serve four-year terms.
The candidates are Rory Burnett, Julian Caler, Mat deGraaf, Shari Pierce, and yours truly, Bill Hudson. Mat deGraaf currently occupies one of the seats on Town Council and Shari Pierce is a former Town Council member.
Speaking on my own behalf, I’ve attended almost every Town Council meeting held since 2005, as editor of the Daily Post. And I sued the Town Council in 2016 for conducting a secret “executive session” to discuss the South 5th Street Bridge with Springs property owners Matt Mees and Bill Dawson, in violation of Colorado law. With the able assistance of attorney Matt Roane, we were successful in that lawsuit.
The development of the vacant 27 acres south of the Springs Resort has been one of our favorite topics here at the Daily Post.
Other favored topics have included government transparency, and taxpayer rights.
Birds, not so much.
We only rarely post articles about birds.
But I was nevertheless impressed by the report delivered to the Town Council by the Wetlands Preservation Group — a committee made up of folks from the Pagosa Springs chapter of the Audubon Society.
The group is obviously concerned that the health of the (rather unique) Riverwalk Wetlands might be threatened by development of the adjacent 27 vacant acres.
I find it curious that this group did not play a noticeable role during the 2016 Bridge to Nowhere controversy, because that proposal — had it gone forward — would probably have had an impact on the health of the wetlands very similar to the Springs Resort proposal we’ve been hearing about over the past year.
We know both proposals are asking for taxpayer subsidies.
What we don’t know, is what impact either type of subdivision proposal could have on a geothermal-heated wetlands.
And that lack of knowledge might be exactly the problem.
Interestingly enough, community activism changes. New groups show up at Town Hall, to provide information. And I find that exciting…
Read Part Four…