Photo: The East End business district in Pagosa Springs.
No doubt, part of my frustration with our current Town Council — seven caring, intelligent neighbors of mine — relates to my lack of interest in “recreation”. I don’t ski, or snowboard. I don’t fish or hunt animals. I don’t ride my bicycle down dangerous dirt trails. I don’t go out into the forest to count bird species. I don’t own an ATV or a kayak. The last time I rode an inner tube down the San Juan River was probably 25 years ago.
I played pickleball, twice, a few years back. The pickleball paddle I bought sits in a drawer with some outdated camera equipment.
I rarely take hikes. I might walk to the grocery store and back, but probably not.
Another part of my frustration relates to so-called “economic development”, which in some people’s minds is linked to “recreation” and “tourism”. It’s also linked, in some people’s minds, to government spending. When the Town Council voted to spend $850,000 buying a 12-acre parcel at the east end of downtown Pagosa — without having any kind of plan for actually using the property to benefit the taxpayers — two Council members voted against the expenditure.
One point of contention centered on the fact that the Council had not budgeted for the expenditure. As we all know — but often forget — a budget is a tool to prevent us from spending money foolishly. Because, being human, we tend to be foolish… and being foolish, we tend to forget why we bothered to create a budget.
Here’s a conversation between Council member Leonard Martinez (who voted ‘No’ on the $850,000 purchase) and Council member Mat deGraaf (who voted ‘Yes’).
Mr. Martinez:
“I have a little bit of a technical issue, in using capital funds until we have a strategy. So I will not be supporting this, and that’s the reason why… that we don’t have the strategy laid out, at this point.”
Mr. deGraaf:
“Well, I will say, although we don’t have a plan fully developed, I was talking to an East End business owner today, and he was psyched that we were purchasing this property, because as the East End businesses have told us, parking — for whatever happens down there in the future — is going to be a game changer.
“This location, while not ideal, in terms of the parking structure… or, you know, of that entire plan, it will provide needed infrastructure to support those End End businesses. So, I would say, to your point, that the part of the strategy is to support our East End plan… having a place where parking can be accommodated…”
Mr. Martinez:
“Well, I appreciate that. Because there’s that option. And there are other options, that I think are all viable.
“But we haven’t done the work yet. That’s my point.”
Council member deGraaf is correct. The 12-acre parcel is not an ideal site for ‘East End’ parking. Nor have I experienced a parking problem in the East End business district. In my 30 years of patronizing various East End businesses, I remember maybe one occasion when I couldn’t park directly in front of the business in question.
Obviously, the business owner to whom Council member deGraaf had been talking gave him the impression that the $850,000 purchase was a good idea, considering the “growth” that will happen in the East End at some point in the (not-too-distant?) future. But should the local Archuleta County taxpayers, who will help provide $8.8 million in sales tax revenues to the Town government this year, be paying to subsidize that East End growth? Or is it more fair, and more just, that the future business owners fund the growth, themselves?
Not the type of question I typically hear discussed at Town Council meetings.
One thing I hear discussed regularly, however, is strategy. Mainly, I hear this topic raised — regularly — by Council member Martinez. When local governments spend money frivolously, without having done the required planning and thinking, we end up with a community like… well, like Pagosa Springs, with the highest cost of living of any community in southwest Colorado.
But unfortunately, not the highest wages. At the end of 2023, the average worker in neighboring Durango was earning about $1,236 a week… about 33% more than the $928 weekly wage paid in Pagosa Springs… while paying less in living expenses. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
In 2022, the “Fair Market Rent” for a two-bedroom dwelling in Archuleta County — according to the Region 9 Economic Development District — was $1,185. But the actual rents being charged to our working households, for a two-bedroom, were twice that amount: $2,300.
Pagosa Springs might seem like a recreational paradise, and maybe even a tourism paradise. And apparently that’s what our Town leaders believe the community wants. More recreation, and more tourism. Which means, essentially, more taxpayer subsidies for recreational and tourist-related businesses.
I was raised by parents who were not overly religious, but who believed in standing up for the ‘underdog’ in societal and political situations. As I grew into an adult, I learned that the same basic philosophy permeates the New Testament.
Here in Archuleta, the ‘underdogs’ are — for the most part — the people who work, often multiple jobs, to make their rent payments. That is, the people who keep the economy running.
In 2023, Roaring Fork Engineering did an analysis of the Pagosa Springs Sanitation General Improvement District sewer lines, taking an in-depth look into the overall condition and operational functionality of the sewer system for the Town of Pagosa Springs. The conclusion: the system will ultimately need to spend $20.8 million to fix its aging infrastructure. We can imagine who will be hardest hit, when paying for this expense. The underdogs.
As far as I know, the Town Council has no current strategic plan for addressing the situation.
Nor has the Town successfully addressed our serious workforce housing shortage.
But we have parking lots.
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.