There is an optimal level of regulation and public investment that maximizes property values. This should be the goal of the citizens of Archuleta County.
— from the Archuleta County Community Plan, as amended, 2011
Most people — myself included — have no written plan, sitting on a shelf, that we could use to help create the Pagosa Springs community we desire to live in. To some degree, we are at the mercy of elected officials and the salaried bureaucrats who work for our various local governments. We’re also at the mercy of business owners and business associations and real estate companies. And we’re also at the mercy of our neighbors — those who vote and participate in democracy… those who take part in volunteer charitable organizations and clubs… and those who don’t.
And we’re at the mercy of our own personal shortcomings, ignorance, beliefs… and perhaps, our apathy.
Back in March, 140 downtown voters submitted a petition to the Town government, proposing a change to the Town Home Rule Charter. Although certain elements within the municipal government disapproved of this petition, the Town was required to put the proposed amendment before the voters, and when the ballots were counted on July 14, 74% of the voters had approved the amendment.
This event was in no way characteristic of our local politics. In the 17 years since the Town of Pagosa Springs became ‘Home Rule’, I recall only one other citizen petition for a Charter amendment being approved by the voters. The citizens’ right to place limits and controls on our municipal government has been available for many years — but only rarely have the citizens taken advantage of this political tool.
About 85 percent of our community lives outside the Town boundaries, in the unincorporated county, and — according to the Board of County Commissioners and their attorney — have no right to petition new laws or measures onto the ballot. This limitation could be overcome by the county voters, however, if they wished to become a Home Rule County.
Curiously enough, Colorado law clearly guarantees all county residents the right to circulate one particular type of petition: a petition to create a county home rule charter.
And equally curious, I think: under Colorado law, a county home rule charter must provide county voters with the right to circulate citizen initiatives and referendums. A county home rule charter must allow the citizens direct access to change local laws and policies, when they feel their elected officials are heading in the wrong direction.
In the case of the ‘Urban Renewal Authority’ created by a 4-to-3 vote of the Town Council last November, 74% of Town voters apparently felt the Council was heading in the wrong direction, and they expressed that belief at the polls on July 14. County voters currently do not have a similar authority. That could be changed.
As we’ve watched the current Board of County Commissioners spend our money over the past two years, we’ve watched them create massive taxpayer debt — for one purpose: the construction of government facilities. A new jail. A new Sheriff’s office. A new courthouse. A new human services office. None of this new debt has been approved by the county voters, even though we will be paying for it, for at least the next couple of decades.
Some might say, the Board of County Commissioners is totally out of control, with regards to debt creation. And all of the new debt seems to be serving one group of people: County employees.
There are actually other ways to spend taxpayer funds.
Yesterday in Part Four of this editorial series, I mentioned a recent Town Council decision to explore the purchase of a partly-developed half-acre parcel at the corner of S. 5th and Apache streets. The discussion we heard suggests that the parcel might be suitable for affordable housing of some sort. The Town Council is also soliciting proposals from licensed real estate agents to help guide the Town government in purchasing various properties for various municipal goals, including affordable housing.
Although Archuleta County’s official ‘Community Plan’ might appear to be aimed at “maximizing property values” (as quoted above), the Town’s ‘Comprehensive Plan’ — updated three years ago — seems designed to “maximize” a variety of housing options, and especially, to “maximize” the density of downtown housing, and transportation options.
That seems to be the plan, so to speak.
From the Town’s Comp Plan:
Housing is the heart and soul of the community from which residents create and support the Town’s culture, businesses and institutions. Residents also inspire a large part of the community’s character, culture and vibe, with individuals who provide critical energy and passion to move forward and realize a shared vision…
Housing for the community needs to address (1) affordable housing for those who earn less than 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI); and (2) attainable housing for those who earn between 60 and 120 percent AMI. This ensures that all segments of the community are provided housing including the middle class, the poorest residents in the community and seniors living on fixed incomes…
During the discussion about the property at Apache and S. 5th, the Town staff appeared to be promoting the purchase of the property, to promote the future development of some ‘attainable housing.’ Housing aimed at those earning a comfortable income.
We will discuss that idea — “a comfortable income” — tomorrow in Part Six.
While the County plan says we should ‘maximize property values”, the Town plan mentions other ways to improve our community. For example:
Maximize density levels in a mixed-use development pattern to create activity and vitality, with such areas connected to an integrated trails and park system.
As I understand the phrase “Maximize density levels”, we are talking government decisions and policies that will create an urban-style community — a community where people live close to one another, and close to shopping and services… a community where “activity and vitality” are evident. The opposite of a rural or suburban community, where isolation and separation are the rule.
Of course, I am here quoting one recommended goal… selected from a Town document that includes 363 separate goals.
But maybe this isn’t the opposite of what the County government’s ‘Community Plan’ says?