June 8, 2012

SandBoxBlogs: Glenwood Springs Post Independent "Garfield Greenprint plan seeks to preserve open space"

(See related stories and the flow of public comments by clicking here and here)

Unfortunately, since the Garfield Legacy group made no changes and has instead opted to clone their 'Greenprint' so close to Aspen's values system, while using Routt County's viable system of sales tax carrying the financial burden; there really is no alternative for the majority of Garfield residents but to 'Just say NO'. 

We need a self-sustaining open space and lands blueprint not more land grabs.

This plan will never get past Garfield voters.  That's a shame because the right open space/conservation/sustainable tourism infrastructure would be well received.


sumfu said...

Mary Noone has really let her county down with turning this group into another clone of Aspen Land Trust and Cochran. What's shameful about that is the deceptive wording that tourism will benefit. No, tourism will not. This is a far cry from what tourism infrastructure needs. Kit and Dave names being tossed up for ad use and ink time seals the deal that this is something to shout out loud and clear: NO. It's a shame because it really had possibilities if they had made it revenue and industry generating. A good research for people on the fence on this one would be to get out there and talk to all the landowners that turn these land trust and conservancy groups down every year that they get solicited. It's not a good deal for a landowner, it's a property giveaway. The difference here is that Garfield Legacy wants to use your tax dollars to buy private land. All good if the folks got a goodfreturn on the money. We get little to nothing in return the way they put this together. We aren't Aspen, folks.

Anonymous said...

Routt County doesn't use theirs as mostly private held to a group. It's a government venture. These conservancy groups aren't even a good deal for a land owner and no way are they anything that tax dollars should be used for. This is a private philosophy of a group of people with like minds. Use their own money, not public money. Noone might have had something but her association with the groups and people that hold private philosophy have done her idea in. The second problem she's got where garco voters are concerned is that she has no business plan to make the money pay for itself. Tourism generated big infrastructure would've done that. She's got little to nothing that serves public good in the way this is written now. Say NO because this is not for Garfield county. We're not Pitkin.

blindtuu said...

The last thing this valley needs is more private land lying fallow and useless. Pretty to look at land is not what land is meant to be. Noone had a shot at doing something innovative and cutting edge. It will never happen as long as she ties Garfield Legacy to the names and groups who have so many times in the past let the public in Garfield county down with their theories and beliefs over what the term "open space" means. Doubt many will share an opinion. Instead they work for a living, don't have time to re-talk what they've protested in the past to the same people, same groups. They'll just shoot it down at the polls. If it makes it that far. Public money to buy private land with no profitable return? lol.