Read Part One
The Pagosa Springs Town Council had a few items on its agenda at Tuesday's meeting, and one of the first items concerned Ordinance 743. That ordinance, first passed by the Council on July 23, had attempted to repeal all the Big Box controls put in place by an earlier Town Council in 2006, following two years of active community debate about whether to allow Wal-Mart and other large scale retailers into our little, economically depressed mountain town. Those earlier regulations had been a compromise solution — one that seemingly struck a balance between those who feared a Wal-Mart would destroy the fabric of Pagosa's culture, and those who welcomed the benefits of a discount retailer — any discount retailer.
 On the welcoming side were some of the community's government leaders, claiming that “leakage” of Pagosa shopping dollars to Durango and Farmington was having a negative effect on our town's economic health — and on our local government coffers. And then there were the ordinary folks who enjoyed the Big Box discount shopping experience, and were tired of driving 60 miles — or more — to Durango, Farmington, or even Albuquerque.
On the fearful side were a majority of our local shopkeepers and business owners — and, according to at least one survey, a majority of all county residents. Hadn't we moved here, most of us, precisely to escape from the urban "work-and-shop" consumer rat race of the big cities? Why would we invite that rat race into Pagosa Springs, in the form of a Wal-Mart store?
But now, the Council's approval of Ordinance 743 had been successfully challenged and was destined for the April 6 ballot, when Town voters — but not County voters — would choose to either support the Council's radical decision, or to maintain the Town's existing Big Box rules.
On Tuesday, the Council had to formally approve the placing of Ordinance 743 before the voters.
Town manager David Mitchem explained the Town staff's position on the matter.
“In an effort to promote a more 'pro-business, pro-development' environment in the Town of Pagosa Springs, the Town Council, on August 20, elected to repeal [Section 2.4.5] of the Land Use and Development Code.”
Subsequently, Mitchem noted, a petition request for a referendum on that Council action was at first denied, and then accepted, and a sufficient number of Town voter signatures were gathered.
“Holding the election will not cost the Town any extra money; we are going to have an election on that date anyway.”
That election will include a chance to vote on the mayor and three Council positions as well.
“If you will recall, when the Council voted to approve Ordinance 743 and repealed the Big Box regulations, we had a pending inquiry from a large format retailer. Our analysis showed there might be as much as $110 million in retail 'leakage' that might be recouped from outside the community, should a large format retailer come in.
“I think it's important to note that those who have filed this petition have been courteous; they've been respectful; they've handled this affair with integrity, and certainly staff appreciates how they've approached the issue.” Continued...
Town manager David Mitchem addresses the Town Council at a meeting earlier in December, as Town planner James Dickhoff listens. |
The motion to place the referendum on the April ballot was approved unanimously.
“Just as a point of information,” Mitchem noted, “given the Council's action this evening to take this matter before the voters, staff is precluded from advocating one way or another on this matter, until the electors make their decision. Staff is, however, permitted to provide information. And we will. Just factual information. But staff will not take a position, in favor or against, while the matter is coming before the voters.
“Just bringing that before your attention.”
Now the problem facing the Town staff, and the original petitioners — Matt Roane and Ann Bubb — is crafting some ballot language that makes the referendum clear to the voters,
That could be tricky. The matter before the voters is not exactly about whether to regulate Big Box retailers or not; the matter is whether to preserve or reject Ordinance 743, an ordinance that tried to repeal Section 2.4.5 of the LUDC.
So a vote “for” Ordinance 743 is, in essence, a vote to support the repeal of a previous ordinance.
How to word that ballot language will take some careful negotiating, if the voters are to be able to clearly understand what, exactly, their yes or no vote is supporting. The Town and the petitioners luckily have several weeks to get that language ironed out.
Then comes the problem of “educating” the voters on the issues. As mayor Aragon has noted during previous debates, Pagosa Springs has hardly seen, in recent years, a more divisive issue than the Big Box question. Many people have seemingly formed a strong opinion on one side of the issue, and I must wonder if any of my neighbors here in town would be willing to change their opinion, no matter how compelling the “education” process might be.
The final decision may ultimately come down, not to which side has the most forceful argument, but to which side is best able to get their supporters to the polls on April 6.
If any of my neighbors need a ride to the polls, my van will be ready. Just give me a call. |