Article Contributed on: 12/18/2006 11:44:10 AM
I'm a Colorado nativeand have been an active builder in most of the communities in this metropolitan area (including Lakewood) for coming up on 30 years. Recently a most competent and skilled appraiser (Allan Berger) expressed objective observations on the parameters defining the trade outlined in the original appraisal by the city. As a builder, I would absolutely love to have the land that is Iron Springs Park. It is fairly flat. It has views of the front range mountains to die for (something that Lakewood is supposed to "recognize and protect".) It if FAR easier to overlot anddevelop than the ditch at the bottom of the hill that we'll get in trade. I'd be able to capitalize on this by having the most expensive lots in Lakewood. Unfortunately, the land was deeded to the city to be used as a park in perperuity, and as a Coloradoan first, I think it should stay that way. Lakewood can very easily give the developerthe density they want with their existing land. Yes, it is topographically challanging, but that is what land planning is for. Having looked at the site I believe drainage will be easier. As has been pointed out by others, too, implementing this trade will not make any kind of "wildlife corridor", but a death trap for any animal using it. Using my 40 years of experience in the building business there is not doubt that with their current land Carma can still meet their density needs and leave Iron Spring Park to Colorado as was intended.