I don’t know anything about art but I know what I like…
— Orson Welles, as quoted in the book “This is Orson Welles”
Some folks prefer to live among trees that have been carefully sculpted into unnatural shapes. I understand the attraction. Topiary is an art form, and art is typically seen as something worth spending time and money on. Not too much time or money, but at least some.
As the man said, We might not know anything about art, but we know what we like. But here in Pagosa Springs, we’re surrounded by wild trees, growing any which way. I believe most of us are resigned to that situation.
Topiary trees might be seen as a metaphor for “economic development”. Many our community leaders have the idea that “economic development” is synonymous with “more and more jobs”. Where the workers, to fill those jobs, will live? That part of the puzzle has been largely ignored.
For at least the past 20 years, “economic development” in Archuleta County has meant “tourism development.” Many a kind word has been spoken about developing a more diverse economy, but the lion’s share of money spent on “economic development” has been directed to enhancing the experiences of tourists and second-home owners.
Recently, the conversation has been changing — at the Chamber of Commerce, at government board meetings, and at the meetings of the Pagosa Springs Community Development Corporation (PSCDC). Perhaps the money will follow?
Near the conclusion of the PSCDC annual meeting last Wednesday, Town Manager Andrea Phillips had given us a brief summary of the Town government’s recent projects. She noted that the Town has expanded its efforts to solicit community input on a new website — MyPagosa.org — concerning upcoming projects, such as tax-supported public art, and a possible expansion of Yamaguchi Park.
To celebrate the completion of the drafting of Town’s first ever ‘Public Arts Plan’, the Town has released a Call for Arts Submittals (Request for Proposals). Deadline to submit is June 21, 2021 with the initial project deadline October 31, 2021.
Ms, Phillips also mentioned an update to the Town’s Land Use and Development Code (LUDC), currently underway. The Town’s LUDC has functioned for many years, mainly — in my humble opinion — to limit the uses of private property within the town boundaries to a certain type of “status quo” as conceived by the Town Planning Department.
If I had my druthers, our LUDC would function instead to promote and encourage innovation and creativity, especially in the area of residential housing, but also in the encouragement of commercial uses. But that’s mostly wishful thinking in my part.
Nevertheless, a significant portion of Ms. Phillip’s presentation focused on affordable housing, including the creation of “density bonuses” — an allowance for additional units over and above what would normally be allowed by the underlying zoning regulations, if the project provides at least 25% workforce housing units.
On a related note, the Town Council is currently seeking a developer to build 12-16 apartment or condo units on a Town-owned corner lot near the High School, at South 5th and Apache. You can download the Request For Proposals here.
Those policies are outlined in a May 6 article titled, “Town Works to Tackle Workforce Housing Shortage”. That article concludes with this statement:
The Town hopes to increase the supply of living units in the community through this incentive policy.
An increase to the supply of living units in Pagosa would not be a bad thing. But, remarkably enough, our government leaders are still choosing to create policies that will probably make the housing situation worse, at the same time claiming to “Tackle Workforce Housing Shortage.”
At last week’s Town Planning Commission meeting, Planning Director James Dickhoff brought forward some proposed amendments to the LUDC that will make it illegal to build any type of residential housing, on the ground floor of buildings in the Town’s two main “business overlay” districts. Residential housing would be allowed only on the second or third floors; the first floor of new or remodeled buildings must be ‘commercial’. The Planning Commission voted to 4-to-1 to recommend this change to the Town Council; the Council will have the final say on adopting the possible change.
The general idea seems to be, that businesses make for a vibrant community, and housing does not.
Here’s a sample section from the proposed changes:
Existing LUDC 6.7.5.C.4 with proposed Amendments in Bold:
6.7.5.C. 4. Ground-floor uses. The incorporation of retail shops and/or restaurants is encouraged at the street level to promote a more active environment for pedestrians and to supportresidential andoffice uses located within the same building (on upper floors) or nearby. Multifamily and townhome residential units shall not be permitted on the ground level along the street frontage…
The Planning Commission no longer wants to support nearby “residential uses”, apparently… but does want to support “office uses”. Go figure.
You can download the recommended ordinance here.
Just to be clear, the Downtown Business and Lodging (ODB) overlay district and the Downtown East Village (ODE) district already prohibited most types of residential housing — apartments, condos and single-family housing — on the ground floor. The recommended ordinance would extend the prohibition to “townhouses.”
Why a group of smart people would endorse a policy that prohibits residential housing in the heart of our downtown, in the midst of a workforce housing crisis, is hard for me to understand… and is, I think, a perfect example of “well-meaning” prohibitions against various types of residential housing that some planning professionals believed would create more vibrant communities.
In fact, these types of policies and prohibitions have helped to create a dire shortage of housing in almost every American community blessed with a “planning department”.
I had a interview, last week, with a local schoolteacher — a single mom who has submitted her resignation and will be moving to Nevada to be closer to family. She had been earning about $3800 a month teaching here, and had been able to cover her monthly $1200 apartment rent. But the building was sold recently, and the new owners announced that her rent would now be $1600 a month. When she complained that she was unable to afford that kind of rent, she was given 30 days to move out.
Fortunately, she has family in Las Vegas. Not everyone is so lucky.
Of course, that doesn’t lessen the pain of leaving her adopted school community — her students, colleagues, parents — behind. Nor does it lessen the community’s pain — losing another trained professional to unaffordable housing costs.
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.