How can anyone oppose Question A?
As a working mother of 3 I’m too busy to follow the details of local politics. I appreciate what our Mayor and Council do for this beautiful mountain community. That said, I looked into Question A and am unclear how anyone can oppose this. I’m also confused by some of what I have heard.
Question A doesn’t say, “don’t build affordable housing” or “don’t use public lands for housing”. Question A says, “let’s vote on it on a case-by-case basis”. Let’s keep it democratic. Let’s keep it fair. If a project using public lands can get 50% of the people to approve it, let’s build it.
I work in education where 50% is not a passing grade. I can’t maintain my job if half of the administrators don’t approve of my performance. Fifty percent in life is generally a failing grade. Getting fifty percent of us to approve selling or giving away our public lands is not a big ask.
Opponents claim that new housing reduces traffic. It may on I-70, but not in Glenwood. Our growing city has tried this. Countless apartments have sprouted in Glenwood like dandelions in recent years. Has traffic been reduced? I don’t think so.
If you move from Rifle to Glenwood and work up-valley, you still drive on 82 through Glenwood to get to work. If you move here and work locally you still have to get to work on our public streets — usually in a car. Either way a new family has been added, which is awesome. They take their kids to school, shop at the grocery store, go to soccer, church, the doctor, and run errands. All on Glenwood streets. That’s an increase in traffic, not a decrease. Please don’t get me wrong: I welcome new families to our city with open arms. But I’m confused because they won’t reduce traffic here.
And if the homes they live in are to be built on public lands that we can no longer use, could we all please just have a say? That’s all we are asking.
Please vote YES on Question A.
Jen Angeloro, Glenwood Springs
Question A protects Glenwood from Aspen NIMBYs
The 120-125 billionaire property owners in Aspen influence the entire real estate market in the Roaring Fork Valley. The high level of wealth of this sector creates an extreme inequality related to the workforce that supports this reality. The Aspen community has become the biggest NIMBY in the region promoting the need for affordable housing, just not in Aspen. Some of that wealth could and should be allocated towards building public housing. Focusing on a public funded housing strategy along the Highway 82 corridor with rapid transit between Aspen and Glenwood Springs would mitigate the affordable housing problem at this critical moment in history and could provide workforce housing that includes access to schools, parks, shopping, and other opportunities of a healthy community. Aspen relies on too many workers making a five hour commute through Glenwood Springs, an inefficient transportation system with a carbon footprint detrimental to the health and quality of life of everybody in the region. It is too big a price to pay and untenable to continue this manner of support of the extreme inequality resulting from the Aspen/Snowmass economic model.
Glenwood Springs residents are relying on the city council and staff to preserve and protect the two rivers confluence area and the constrained valleys from overdevelopment. The greatest need for affordable workforce housing communities is south of Glenwood Springs. The residents of Glenwood Springs need not fall prey to any exaggeration of the need for workforce housing within its city limits. Developing partnerships in the Roaring Fork Valley with Aspen contributing to the funding of public housing is the key component of an overall housing strategy that could ensure the long-term health and sustainability of the region. The challenge is to balance the needs of the diverse communities between Aspen and Glenwood Springs.
Vote YES on Ballot A today.
David Hauter, Glenwood Springs
Question A ‘has nothing to do with affordable housing’
This letter refutes comments by the anti-A ballot measure contingent.
First, Steven Smith’s 4/11/24 letter to the editor stated that having citizens of Glenwood voting on City property would “undermine healthy community engagement and the quality of local life.”
Mr. Smith, being able to vote on City land IS healthy community engagement!
Second, Ben West’s 4/9/24 letter incorrectly states that this measure would make housing more expensive.
No, Mr. West, it would not.
However, as a developer, Mr West knows and accurately states that if a development meets Code, “there is little the public can do to stop the development.”
The PI did a front-page story titled “How Question A will impact affordable housing and the development process in Glenwood Springs”.
I found five sentences that mention “affordable housing” in the article spanning four pages.
Lastly, ballot measure A has absolutely nothing to do with affordable housing.
Linda Holloway, Glenwood Springs
Consider the consequences, vote no on Question A
“Keep Glenwood Glenwood; Love where you live; Democracy” — great slogans that no one who lives here can disagree with and yet…
Glenwood Springs is not exempt from the multitude of issues, including growth, that face the towns and cities of Colorado. Boasting a beautiful location at the confluence of two rivers it boasts a temperate climate, many recreation facilities, extensive hiking and biking trails, proximity to summer and winter sports, and a storied history. It is little wonder that it is a favorite spot for many tourists as well as dwellers. How fortunate to reside alongside a state of the art medical facility, with dedicated law enforcement, emergency workers and public servants, a bustling downtown that provides great shopping and dining venues, as well as good schools to educate future generations.
We “democratically” elect public officials to oversee the functioning of Glenwood Springs. We may agree or disagree with their thoughts, and are invited to join in conversations pertinent to varied public opinions. Regular meetings are held and are sadly under attended. Controversial issues are presented at the ballot box, without holding a costly and time-consuming special election, no matter who is footing the bill. “DEMOCRACY” is a two way street. As residents of Glenwood Springs our input is needed and solicited; it is up to us to make our voices heard at town meetings and to consider all of the ramifications of our opinions and the opinions of others.
I do love where I live. I am also concerned that this vibrant community will be tarnished with unaffordable housing for medical staff, teachers, retail owners and their staff, restaurant and lodging owners and their employees, law enforcement and emergency service staff, and a hard-working contingent of public figures.
With admiration for a well-canvased point of view presented by the group “Keep Glenwood Glenwood,” I encourage voters to consider the consequences and vote no on 2A.
Susan Anderson, Glenwood Springs
Reader responds to hotel name change
I traveled to Thompson ND, and called the Thompson Hotel, and was told that it was 927 miles away in Denver, Colorado. I traveled to Halcyon, CA, and called the Halcyon Hotel to get directions to the hotel, and was told that it was 1150 miles away in Denver, Colorado. My next trip was to Clayton, New Mexico, and called its namesake hotel for directions, and…..was told that it was 300 miles away in Denver, Colorado. I’m going to stay at home next time….and that’s not in Alaska.
Brian Claxton, Denver