July 2020
By the end of June, the Pagosa Springs Town bureaucracy had had quite enough of one of their appointed volunteer Planning Commission members accusing the Town Planning Director, James Dickhoff, and the entire Planning Commission of violating the spirit and intent of the Town Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) when they recommended the approval of a new subdivision at the southern edge of town. The subdivision, River Rock Estates, had been proposed by developer Jack Searle and his son Ryan Searle, to be built without any public street access.
Essentially, this would have been a gated community, but without the gates. I shared, in Part Five of this editorial series, the reasons why I believed — and still believe — the Town’s LUDC legally forbids gated communities.
At its June 25 special meeting, the Town Council voted unanimously to remove me from the Planning Commission, “without cause.”
Not a particularly pleasant experience for anyone, I think.
This decision, to remove me “without cause”, was apparently disappointing to Jack Searle. He had spoken at some length during the special June 25 meeting. Here’s a portion of his comments:
“I did want to comment on this issue of removing Bill Hudson from his position as a Planning Commissioner. I know this was recommended to y’all by the Planning Commissioners, and they voted to [recommend his removal] ‘without cause.’ I’m asking tonight that the Council remove Bill Hudson based on clear, ethical violations. If Bill is removed ‘without cause’ then this opens the door to individual interpretation as to why Mr. Hudson is being relieved of his duties.”
Mr. Searle then quoted from Part One of a Daily Post editorial series, which you can read here. He seemed to be objecting to how I had characterized the relationship between himself and Town Planning Director James Dickhoff.
He continued:
“[Mr. Hudson] may call it ‘annoying behavior’. I call it despicable behavior. I see Bill Hudson — and this is my opinion — as a destructive force who tends to see only the negative in his fellow man, particularly government officials and business people. His negativity feasts on the carcass, plans and dreams of those who strive for the betterment of Pagosa Springs. His false statements and wild, imaginative innuendos are the result of a decrepit and suspicious mind, in my opinion.”
Ouch.
“But putting this all aside, Mr. Hudson should be removed from the Planning Commission due to unethical practices…
“…Bill Hudson has had a large part in circulating a petition that would require a Town vote for any URA project that involves over $1 million in [Tax Increment Financing] money. This would essentially thwart most potential URA plans that would be considered…”
Interesting that Mr. Searle should bring up that petition, which was overwhelmingly supported by the Town voters on July 14, 2020.
A few months earlier, in October 2019, Mr. Searle had himself circulated a petition among about two dozen town voters. That petition had the potential to direct millions of local tax dollars into Mr. Searle’s own pockets via a future Tax Increment Financing (TIF) scheme — helping to pay for a proposed development on his vacant property on Hot Springs Boulevard. The taxes that would subsidize Mr. Searle’s development would be extracted from Archuleta School District, Archuleta County, Pagosa Fire Protection District, Upper San Juan Health Service District, Upper San Juan Library District and three water districts, over a period lasting up to 25 years. The tax subsidies proposed by Mr. Searle, and his partner David Dronet, were not insignificant. Here’s the chart from a proposal Mr. Searle and Mr. Dronet had submitted to the Town a year earlier:
Total TIF revenues to be directed into the pockets of Mr. Searle and Mr. Dronet and their partners: more than $79 million.
At the June 25 Town Council meeting, Mr. Searle concluded his thoroughly negative description of me:
“This man should not be representing the Town in any capacity.”
My personal goal, when I applied for a seat on the Planning Commission, was never to ‘represent the Town.’ That is to say, I never intended to represent the Town government. I wanted to represent the taxpayers, whom the Town government was incorporated to serve and protect. My goal was actually to try and change the culture of the Planning Commission… to help convert the Commission from a board that occasionally rubber stamped arbitrary, unsubstantiated rulings by the Town Planning Director… into a group actively engaged in representing the taxpayers.
Apparently, the Town bureaucracy didn’t want to see the culture changed.
Nor was the Town leadership particularly happy about Ballot Question 1A. At the suggestion of myself and several other town residents, the registered town electors had voted, on July 14, to approve Ballot Question 1A, by a 3-to-1 margin. This election had resulted from the very petition Mr. Searle had disparaged at the June 25 Council meeting. The approved amendment gave the town voters the right to approve massive TIF schemes, such as the one proposed by Jack Searle and David Dronet… a right the voters could have been granted by the Town Council itself, but which the voters ultimately needed to assert without the Town Council’s cooperation.
Getting fired from the Planning Commission was certainly not a pleasant experience. But as they say, you can’t have everything.
As it turned out, Ryan Searle ultimately withdrew his proposal to build the River Rock Estates around a private street, and asked the Town Council to accept the single subdivision street as a public right-of-way. A subdivision originally proposed as “gated” had opened itself to being part of a larger community. Apparently, Ryan and his team has come to the same conclusion I had come to: that the town’s streets ought to be public amenities.
As it turned out, Jack Searle’s proposal to have local taxpayers subsidize his private development project near the Springs Resort to the tune of perhaps $79 million will now need to have voter approval.
As they say, you can’t have everything.