Article Contributed on: 12/10/2006 6:52:34 PM
UPDATE:I apologize for the length of this story. But, there are many points to bring up. (All updates are in italics, with the word "update" bolded and underlined").
My bottom line is that the only argument to be made for and against this trade is the value of the land. The land Lakewood is getting is demonstrably of less value than the land it is giving up. I don't know what to say about the appraisal, except that something seems wrong.
Proponents have accused Rita of distorting the facts and engaging in hyperbole. We are not safe from distortion and hyperbole on the other side, either.
Remember, the proponents are asking for a change in the status quo. They have the burden to persuade us that their side is right. Further, the proponents include our elected officials. They have a responsibility to be totally above-board. If any of these accusations is proven to be demonstrably false, I will issue a correction and apology.
First, the proponents have erroneously said that the city council unanimously supported the swap twice. This is decidely false.
It is true that they supported the swap unanimously, once.
But, the second time, the vote was not whether to approve the land swap. Rather, the second vote was whether to vote down the swap or send it to the voters. They decided to send it to the voters. It did not mean, necessarilly that all of the council supported the swap.
The
second distortion is over the land. I have heard that 5% or 14% of the land is a ditch (or gulley, or culvert). Which is it? If it is 14%, then we are given approximately 22 acresof land without a ditch for 18 acres of land without a ditch and 4 acres of land with a ditch.
That leads to the
third distortion. I believe that there is a question that the appraiser was not asked: Assuming the land has roads, sewers, and electricity, what is the value of each parcel of land? In other words, assuming both areas were ready for the developer to move in, what is the value? There is no way that an honest appraiser can say that the parcels are of equal value. Unless, of course, if the appraiser gives greater value to undeveloped land.
Put the appraisal on-line and have the appraiser ready for questioning on-line.
The value of the parcels ot the city and to the developer are the key issues here. The failure to put the information on line makes it look like there is something nefarious going on.
UPDATE:I have looked at the Rooney Valley Master Plan of 2002 (see seventh, below). I am not a surveyor and I have not overlaid the proposed transfer. But, I am more convinced than ever that the land we are giving up is more valuable than the land we are getting. Map 6 on page 13 indicates that the slope of the land we are giving up is much less than the slope on the land we are getting. Map 7on page 14 indicates that the likelihood of swelling is low on the land we are giving up and moderate on the land we are getting. Map 8 on page 17 indicates that the land we are giving up is moderately constrained and the land we are getting is highly constrained. In other words, the land we are giving up is more valuable than the land we are getting.
Don't get me wrong. The land Lakewood is to get should be parkland. It is unsuitable for housing. Nevertheless, it is less valuable and Lakewood is not getting a good bargain.
Fourth, those who support the transfer fail to point out that ALL of the trails on the land were created by tresspassers. Unless they were given permission to cross the privately held land, these folks may have been committing a crime and most certainly were civilly trespassing. And these are the proponents?
Update:As Mr. Sargent says, this may not be a reason, in and of itself to vote the plan down. But it does affect the credibility of the proponents. If they have knowingly tresspassed on land in the past, what does it say of their character?
Fifth, Mr. Parks has been posting as a concerned citizen. He is from Littleton. His real job is as a PR flack for the proponents. If he were honest, he would be up front about his role.
Sixth, the proponents are receiving funding from Carma. Nothing wrong with this. But, again, they should be up front about it.
Seventh, the proponents claim that THIS land swap was part of the master plan. The master plan recommended exchaning land. But, it did not specify which land to trade. It did not mention how much land to trade.
UPDATE:
I stand by my assessment.
Mr. Sargent asks me to look at the 1997 Master Plan. I Could not. But, I did find the 2002 Rooney Valley Master Plan ( http://www.lakewood.org/CP/strategicplan/SPpdf/RVMP-joint2002.pdf).. Indeed, there is a proposed change as reflected on Maps 9 on page 24 and 11 on page 27. But, the exchange did not list exacly how much land to exchange. To the contrary, it looks as if the proposal was to consider exchanging all of Forsberg park.
Also, if you look at Map 12 on Page 30, Indiana is not supposed to go through Forsberg park. I wonder where that change came from.
Further Updates
Eighth, the proponents erroneously claim that, if this referendum is voted down, there will be no corridors between Green Mountain and Bear Creek. However, as can be seen on Map 11 on page 27 and Map 9 on page 24, there are
three proposed corridors.I believe there will be three, even if this is voted down.An important point however. The one in the referendum is the biggest.
Ninth, the proponents disengenouslycomplain that the election unnecessarily costs the city over $200,000 and that it is the opponents' fault. The amount is correct. However, had the city council had less hubris, it would have understood that this matter would have come to an election, no matter what, and they would have put it on the ballot for November.
Tenth. The proponents claim that the sole purpose of the trade is to put in a wildlife corridor. Indeed, the Master Plan on page 25 justifies the corridor: " it is being recommended that a system of corridors be developed along the drainage ways to facilitate the connection of parks and open spaces, connections among existing and new neighborhoods and the movement of wildlife in the area."
However, the plan makes it clear that the primary reason for this plan is not to create an open space, but to benefit current propery owners.First, the existing neighbors are accustomed to having open space behnd their property (page 16). Second, the open space is intended to be a buffer between current and future development (page 28).