Photo: Opponents of the PLPOA special assessment for a proposed gymnasium chat with one another, following a meeting at the Sisson Library on January 18, 2025.
Our humor columnist, Louis Cannon, amused himself last week by writing sarcastically about a quote I’d used in a recent editorial… wherein I discussed the upcoming vote among the Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association members.
The vote concerns a proposed 9.600-square-foot gymnasium and a $255 one-time ‘special assessment’ that will be approved or rejected next month through online voting.
The quote in question has been attributed to anthropologist Margaret Mead:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
On Saturday, January 18, I attended an organizing meeting at the Sisson Library, hosted by some opponents of the proposed gymnasium. The discussion was guided by PLPOA members Linn Moore and Patrick Moore. About 20 people attended the meeting, and most appeared to be against the proposed gymnasium, or at least, had serious questions about its feasibility.
The online voting among PLPOA members will start on January 27 and run through March 1. About 4,200 owner families will receive ID codes to enter into the online ballot, with each family allotted two votes. The owners of the Wyndham Resort timeshares, which are located entirely within PLPOA, will also have certain (limited) voting rights.
Information explaining the PLPOA Board’s decision to place the issue before the Association voters, and generally reflecting the Board’s support for the gymnasium project, has been going out regularly through the PLPOA website and email channels.
Association member opposed to the project for various reasons have been making use of social media outlets to express their concerns.
One of those outlets recently featured a series of three short videos produced by PLPOA member Carl Young, raising questions about the financial and legal aspects of the proposed gymnasium, which he presents as one portion of a $5 million PLPOA ‘sports complex’ currently in the planning stages, to include an outdoor athletic field, a lap pool, a hot tub, and of course, the proposed gymnasium. (An expanded parking lot has already been built.)
Mr. Young is no stranger to political issues, as he also happens to chair the Central Committee of the Archuleta County Democratic Party.
In his first video, Mr. Young made a comment that I appreciated:
First of all, I want to thank the PLPOA Board for being good stewards of our community’s property. The Board is well-meaning, and I am not calling for anyone to resign or be ousted. I just have a disagreement with the rec campus proposal.
This concern isn’t just a small group of people, as you may have read in a dismissive article online…
I assume Mr. Young is here referring either to my recent “dismissive” editorial comment about small groups of citizen activists… such as, for example, the 20 people who met at the Library on Saturday…
… or else, perhaps he was referencing Mr. Cannon’s humor article about how small groups of people change the world. If they are committed. (Or should be committed?)
In my editorial, I actually mentioned two small groups of people… the gymnasium opponents who are posting on social media, on the one hand… and on the other, the PLPOA Board and staff who initiated, and will be administering, the upcoming election.
But Mr. Young apparently maintains that the gym opponents are more than merely a “small group”,.. and that referring to them as such, is “dismissive”.
There was record turnout for the Board’s Q&A session (on January 8) and the participants were maxxed out on Zoom…
This is true. The PLPOA’s Q&A session on January 8 attracted 100 people to the PLPOA Clubhouse, and another 100 attended by Zoom.
But does Mr. Young want to claim that these 200 attendees were all “opponents” of the gym proposal? I certainly wouldn’t make such a claim myself, based on the audience questions I heard at the Q&A session.
The group that met at the Library on Saturday, however, was indeed a small group. And I would say, a thoughtful group, as well. Whether they were committed is another question.
I’ve been involved — intimately involved, you might say — in several political issue campaigns here in Archuleta County, almost all of which concerned increased taxes or fees proposed by local government, or changes to the Town Home Rule Charter. In all cases, our campaign team included fewer than 10 people, and in all cases we spent less that $5000 on the campaign.
In nearly every case, the voters ended up agreeing with our campaign position. Maybe that was just dumb luck? It’s actually pretty likely that our campaign team simply agreed with what the voters already felt about the issue.
The small group at the Library on Saturday were in agreement that many PLPOA members did not have complete information about the gymnasium measure, and that whatever information they did have probably came from the PLPOA Board and staff.
There was obvious passion in the room, and a shared belief that the gymnasium was probably not a good idea.
Did anyone have ideas about how to get the “opposing story” out to the PLPOA members? This is no easy task, when perhaps 40% of PLPOA owners live elsewhere in the winter months.
At the end of the meeting, a sign-up sheet was passed around, to allow people to make a commitment to inform people in their own neighborhoods by going door-to-door… or perhaps by gathering mailing addresses and sending out letters.
I didn’t notice how many people signed up to canvass their neighborhood.
But I snapped a photo. Of the small group.