Thursday, July 03, 2008

Pueblo Springs Ranch — Part 1

Why?

Ever since the suggestion that Pueblo annex a large chunk of land north of the CSU-P campus and east of I-25, people have been making comments, questioning the ‘why’ of this effort.

Sitting on the City Planning and Zoning Commission, ALL of the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of the issue intrigue me. Therefore, I open this thread to solicit the opinions of anyone who cares to comment about the project.

I’ll provide more information, from my perspective, on this effort as time goes on. But after touring the area of the proposed annex I think it’s time we began serious public discussion of this idea.

All you need to do is click on the word “Comments”, in the block below, and enter what you think. You don’t need to be registered. You don’t even need to use your REAL name. But we would like to hear from you if you live in Pueblo or El Paso counties. And…maybe…if you live in the Denver metroplex, as it is impacting on this matter as well, vis-a-vis water.

Next entry: Lileks On the Fourth of July Previous entry: Politicians should run in the districts in which they truly live.

1. Simple, How are either the Developers or the City going to afford the installation of Infrastructure north to the area adjacent to the Pinion bridge, where it has been announced that development would begin . . ?

   Without impact upon the taxpayer and current water users?

   I’m not buying into the use of “Urban Renewal Funds” based upon the argument that the area is a “Declining Population, run down Prairie Dog town” and the infrastructure can be paid for by those funds . . as are being spent now, East of the college . .

   When I worked for the Pueblo Council of Governments as a planner, had we suggested anything like that, they’d have put our heads on the light poles in front of City Hall . . It seems that the word “Graft” has been replaced with “Development” . .

   Not to mention, what wisdom is being applied to spend money developing areas that are quickly losing favor with those who can afford to build or buy, and are quietly (in most cases) fleeing back to the Urban areas so they don’t have to pay transportation costs that continue to increase daily, or pay for Propane that has tripled in price in the last year . . Basically . . WhoyougonnasellittoWillis?

   Maybe the Annunzios knew something we didn’t, ‘spose?

   IF fuel costs continue to climb, Suburbia is going to be no more than a history lesson, with the major population centers actually being homes as well as Offices, pretty much like it was in, say, 1900. People walked or rode public transportation, and people who lived in Vineland or places like that came to “Town” once or twice a month . .

   Personally . . Put the project on Hold, unless the Developers wish to fund it . . No City or County money needs be spent. And be damned careful what zoning is going to allow. .

   To me it’s no more than the completion of the pre-ordained “Strip City” that C. Allen Bloomquist (and Others) warned about and responsible city leaders attempted to avoid for 40 years . . again, it’s an indicator of Greed, not Need . . .

   One has to remember, “Growth” is not synonymous with “Quality of Life” . . But, with wisdom applied, they can co-exist. So far, little sense for the former has been applied, so the latter isn’t going to happen . .

   .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/06  at  03:09 PM

2. I would welcome a new development on the north side of Pueblo with decent homes.  For people who work up North it might be like living in Pueblo West without the added commute.  The advantage would be living within the city limits.  I’m not saying I’d run out and buy tomorrow but the idea does interest me.

   We will be seeing many new families who are moving to Colorado Springs with the military and contractors who might support a development such as this.  Bottom line is that the project is going to have to be potentially profitable to succeed.  Lets face it, Pueblo west didn’t take off until years later. I wonder if the original investors in Pueblo West ever saw any of that profit. I recall PW streets with weeds growing in them for years until things turned around many years later.

   It seems like kind of a risky project in today’s economy.

   .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/06  at  06:46 PM

3. TO: Large
   RE: It’s the Infrastructure

   “Simple, How are either the Developers or the City going to afford the installation of Infrastructure north to the area adjacent to the Pinion bridge, where it has been announced that development would begin . . ?”—Large

   LDM says—tongue firmly in cheek—that the first house is going to cost THEM $50M. Why’THEM’? Because the city isn’t going to foot the bill all by itself. But the expenses WILL be shared between the developers AND the city over a period of time so that the city provides a lot of support in the initial development but realizes that money back in the fullness of time.

   And while they have talked about development at the Pinion exit of I25, they are now considering building north from north of CSU-P, in conjunction with another project/plan. Everything is fluid, based on information as it comes in.

   RE: It’s the Taxpayers

   “Without impact upon the taxpayer and current water users?”—Large

   We’ll realize an initial impact, as taxpayers. But, as I described above, the objective is for the city to get all that back…and then some….in the long run. It’s a proven fact that good development leads to increased tax-base. The challenge is in the good planning and management of that development. And that’s where the city’s Planning and Development Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission and, ultimately, the City Council and the voters, i.e., taxpayers, come into play.

   RE: It’s the Water

   Aaaaahhhhh…..

   Now you’ve touched on something REALLY important.

   Money comes and goes. Expands and contracts. But WATER! There is a resource that although variable, is the MOST critical aspect.

   Over half of the participants in the site recon conducted by the developer and the city late last month were from the Board of Water Works. They too were VERY much interested in how to support this planned development. They were not necessarily pessimistic as much as they were concerned.

   I, on the other hand, am somewhat pessimistic about water. But not necessarily for the P’Springs as much as for ALL of the Arkansas River valley and all of its tributaries and inhabitants.

   The cause of my concern is that Aurora has a lease on a LOT of water right now. It’s a 25 year lease with a 15 year extension if they opt for it. And the window for exercising that option is coming up.

   The Board of Water Works people were confident that when that lease elapsed, they’d have the water to support P’Springs Ranch.

   I’m not so optimistic. Why? Because I know that in the 35-seat State Senate, the Denver metroplex holds 17 of those seats. And that gives them (1) an overabundance of legislative power and (2) the ability to approve judges to sit in state courts. Between the two powers, they could seize the water currently being ‘leased’ to Aurora and claim it as a right.

   How so?

   Here’s the scenario:

   [1] Arkansas River water is being leased to Aurora.
   [2] Aurora is building homes and businesses using that water.
   [3] When the lease expires and if Aurora cannot find other water, what is it going to do? Tell the people to move away? Or go to the legislature and the courts demanding that because they cannot compel these people to move away they MUST have the right to that water.

   Three guesses. First two don’t count.

   And if the courts that hear these cases are held by judges appointed by the Denver-dominated state assembly….how do you think they’ll rule?

   Think it through….

   Regards,

   Chuck
   P.S. The Board of Water Works people I mentioned this scenario to pooh-poohed the very thought. They think they have an iron-clad contract. But when I mentioned the idea that the legislature and the courts being favorable to the Denver metroplex….they seemed a tad reflective to me. And one or two of them did admit that there could be changes if those two branches of our government worked in cahoots with the metroplex.

   .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/10  at  12:30 PM

4. Regarding the future water needs of the development as a whole . .

   Taking the current flap over SDS and it’s point of diversion into consideration, let’s look at the implications . .

   Colorado Springs tells us that to have the East side of the Fountain/Arkansas confluence as the diversion point will cost quite a bit more to build and operate than to divert at the Dam. The reason given is an additional 2 pumping stations are needed, because of the geographic hump emanating from Baculite Mesa as well as another “Pass”, just south of the County line . .

   Logic says, if Colorado Springs has to pump water up this hill, does the Pueblo Water Board and Alan Hamel know something abut gravity that the Springs Engineers don’t?

   And, Chuck, fill me in here . . Years ago, when I was a Planner, (Before that, an Architectural Designer) IF . . a developer got his ducks inna row, jumped through the right hoops, he got to “develop” an area . . BUT, the ENTIRE cost of the development, streets, C & G, water, sewer, etc. was his responsibility. And once it was done, inspected by both regional building and the city, the infrastructure reverted to city ownership and responsibility . . Has this changed? And if it did, who and when?

   I’m not for or against the annexation, nor the development simply because there is so little information given about it, and due to an economy in flux, it may not happen for 25-30 years anyway . . I’m an old guy, who won’t be here when they do whatever they do, but I’d sure like to see it done a hell of a lot better than the city did with Graco and the North Dillon Drive Box Stores and the Wal Mart . . The city got screwed on that one and I don’t think all the backwash is over yet . . There’s a 40 acre mosquito farm, below the Wal Mart, that they created for fill and as far as I can see, it was created in violation of the U.S. Mining act. Strip mines are required to be remediated when they’re exhausted or closed, this one wasn’t. And from what was seen when the levy broke and the mini flood happened last year, it, somehow, became the city’s responsibility.

   Add to that the damage done to Dillon Drive between I-25 and the Wal Mart when it was used as a haul route for the rest of the fill from the area that was developed NW of Eagleridge. Overloaded end dumps aren’t good for streets built on city specs . . And the city is going to end up doing more than rotomilling and top surfacing . . There’s serious compaction issues under that road . . remember, it’s sitting on top of an old landfill dump . . When I was running a “Dirt Company”, had my equipment done the same damage, I would have either had to repair or pay the city to do so . .

   The reason that this has been dredged up is simple . . Dave Galli and the City Council piss and moan about the cost of running a city, weekly. And then they allow or accept practices that sure as hell wouldn’t have gotten approval 20 years ago . . They adopt an orphan and the find out there’s costs up front, and a whole bunch more later . . I do know they have planners working for them . . do they listen, or do the planners tell them just what they want to hear?

   .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/11  at  07:52 AM

5. TO: Large
   RE: Future Developments vs. Water

   “Regarding the future water needs of the development as a whole . .

   Taking the current flap over SDS and it’s point of diversion into consideration, let’s look at the implications . .

   Colorado Springs tells us that to have the East side of the Fountain/Arkansas confluence as the diversion point will cost quite a bit more to build and operate than to divert at the Dam. The reason given is an additional 2 pumping stations are needed, because of the geographic hump emanating from Baculite Mesa as well as another “Pass”, just south of the County line . .

   Logic says, if Colorado Springs has to pump water up this hill, does the Pueblo Water Board and Alan Hamel know something abut gravity that the Springs Engineers don’t?”—Large

   I can’t speak for the Board of Water Works’ engineers. I have troubles trying to track down the source of a leak in my garage.

   But I will say that water is going to be one of the key factors in ANY and ALL developments in Pueblo County over the next 50 years. Either (1) we re-establish the proper balance of power between metro and rural areas, as still enjoyed at the Federal level in what is called ‘The Great Compromise’ or (2) we develop new technologies for achieving useable water or (3) Denver is going to steal the water from us via legislation and domination of the courts. [Note: Remember, judges are approved BY the state senate.]

   RE: Who Pays for Development? When? And Where?

   “And, Chuck, fill me in here . . Years ago, when I was a Planner, (Before that, an Architectural Designer) IF . . a developer got his ducks inna row, jumped through the right hoops, he got to “develop” an area . . BUT, the ENTIRE cost of the development, streets, C & G, water, sewer, etc. was his responsibility. And once it was done, inspected by both regional building and the city, the infrastructure reverted to city ownership and responsibility . . Has this changed? And if it did, who and when?”—Large

   That’s an excellent question. But I think the philosophy HAS ‘changed’. I’ll have to confirm this, but my understanding is that the development of the necessary infrastructure—streets, sewers, water, electricity, gas, cable, telephone, etc.—would be a joint effort by all parties, including the local government. The latter would be providing tax-breaks in an effort to ‘sweeten the [proverbial] pot’ as incentives to accomplish the development. But in the long run, the local government sees a ‘profit’ in these breaks.

   I have not been given a ‘prospectus’ on when the city would realize such ‘profit’. However, it is something that needs to be asked.

   I will check on this.

   [Continued in next comment….]

   .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/13  at  08:11 AM

6. [Continued from previous comment….]

   RE: Don’t Lose Heart…..

   “I’m not for or against the annexation, nor the development simply because there is so little information given about it, and due to an economy in flux, it may not happen for 25-30 years anyway . . I’m an old guy, who won’t be here when they do whatever they do….”—Large

   ....they may want to cut it out.

   “....but I’d sure like to see it done a hell of a lot better than the city did with Graco and the North Dillon Drive Box Stores and the Wal Mart . . The city got screwed on that one and I don’t think all the backwash is over yet . . There’s a 40 acre mosquito farm, below the Wal Mart, that they created for fill and as far as I can see, it was created in violation of the U.S. Mining act. Strip mines are required to be remediated when they’re exhausted or closed, this one wasn’t. And from what was seen when the levy broke and the mini flood happened last year, it, somehow, became the city’s responsibility.”—Large

   THERE’S an interesting report that I had not heard before. Greatly appreciated.

   “Add to that the damage done to Dillon Drive between I-25 and the Wal Mart when it was used as a haul route for the rest of the fill from the area that was developed NW of Eagleridge. Overloaded end dumps aren’t good for streets built on city specs . . And the city is going to end up doing more than rotomilling and top surfacing . . There’s serious compaction issues under that road . . remember, it’s sitting on top of an old landfill dump . . When I was running a “Dirt Company”, had my equipment done the same damage, I would have either had to repair or pay the city to do so . .”—Large

   Another interesting report. Especially from the PACOG TAC perspective. Thanks.

   “The reason that this has been dredged up is simple . . Dave Galli and the City Council piss and moan about the cost of running a city, weekly. And then they allow or accept practices that sure as hell wouldn’t have gotten approval 20 years ago . . They adopt an orphan and the find out there’s costs up front, and a whole bunch more later . . I do know they have planners working for them . . do they listen, or do the planners tell them just what they want to hear?”—Large

   I suspect there’s a lot of the latter involved. And we certainly need to look into it. Especially in light of the report that Pueblo Community College wants to close Orman, a secondary-arterial, as it passes through the PCC campus.

   Regards,

   Chuck

   .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/13  at  08:11 AM

7. Chuck, regarding the Orman Vacation between Marilyn Place and Arthur, see my nickel’s worth in the Chieftain forum . .

   I’m not speaking from knowledge of the contemporary P & Z Rulesets (I haven’t upgraded my Zoning Book for about 5 years), but from what has been done . . again, some things may have changed as we have several realtors either on City Council or heavily lobbying them . . 

   I just hear Dr. Gavin hollering “Wolf’ to accomplish something that has rattled around since PJC built a building across the street from the “Pit’ and expanded their classes into vocational. And became PCC . . and on . . and on . .

   .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/13  at  10:10 AM

8. TO: Large
   RE: [OT] The Orman Closure

   There could be ulterior motives in this.

   I’ve a number of questions about this proposal. One of the biggest questions is the justification for it based on possible ‘crime’.

   I’ve asked Dr. Garvin on several occasions for the documented justification for this. On the first, before the PACOG TAC meeting, he seemed quite willing to provide that information. However, at a later sub-committee meeting he became VERY defensive. Challenging my background on such matters and upon hearing that for 10 years I reviewed similar information at the state and installation levels for the US Army, he flatly refused to divulge the ‘study’ conducted by a member of the County Sheriff’s department. [Note: This ties in with my concern about all the elected offices in the county being from one political party. Something about a lack of over-sight.]

   I’m still interested in seeing the official Risk Analysis and will continue to press for a need to see it as an essential part of the decision making process at the City and County levels of government.

   Regards,

   Chuck

   .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/14  at  08:53 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: