|  |
 |
|
Putting Us Into Debt, for Fun and Profit, Part Two |
Bill Hudson | 1/27/12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read Part One
This morning, I have to apologize to our Daily Post readers. Yesterday, in our Reservoir Hill articles, I included links to a “Reservoir Hill Survey” found on the Town of Pagosa Springs website.
I have removed those links from yesterday’s articles.
I came across that survey while trying to locate the Town Tourism Committee’s “Business Plan” presentation, which — we were told at the Wednesday night meeting at the Ross Aaragon Community Center — we could download from the Town website, according to TTC executive director Jennie Green.
A somewhat nervous Thad McKain addresses a sizable crowd at Wednesday evening's Reservoir Hill Task Force presentation at the Ross Aragon Community Center. A few minutes later, Mr. McKain would reveal the "petitions" to us. |
When I came across the Town's Reservoir Hill Survey, very early on Thursday morning following the meeting, I assumed it was a brand new survey. It asked one single question: Which of six proposed amusements would I like to see installed atop Reservoir Hill? It also allowed me to answer “None of the above; leave it as it is.”
Those were my simple options. Choose from five amusement rides and an amphitheater, or do nothing at all.
No questions about improving the road. No questions about upgrading the cross country ski or snowshoeing, or adding horseback riding or mountain biking, or any of the other possible enhancements that might keep the park “undeveloped” while increasing user satisfaction and tourist visits. No question about whether I wanted my town to incur $4.3 million in new debt on a very risky venture.
Choose from six pre-selected amusements — or do nothing at all.
I checked my answer, and hit the "SUBMIT" button. The Survey then revealed its current results. Apparently, I was the only person who had voted so far, because only one vote was tabulated. I assumed the Town would appreciate additional input, so I placed a link to the Survey into our articles yesterday. Helpful guy that I am.
Later in the day, our office was contacted by confused Daily Post readers, telling us that they’d clicked our links to the Town website, but had not been able to find the Survey. When we checked out the situation, we found that indeed, the Survey had disappeared. We found instead a blank, white page, with no explanation of why the Survey had been removed.
So, my apologies for including a link to a blank page in yesterday’s articles.
 Surveys are useful tools, of course — if a government board or committee truly wants to know how We, the People feel about a certain issue or proposal. But I’ve done some survey work in my distant past, and I realize that surveys can easily be misused or abused. Yes, a survey can provide honest statistics about taxpayer feelings, if it is designed in a transparent, competent manner. But a clever person — a person who might have a political motivation to skew the results, for example — can easily engineer a “survey” which does nothing more than support an ongoing propaganda campaign.
Skewing survey results can be incredibly simple, really. You can simply ask very limited questions, phrased in a tightly controlled manner, and you can additionally perform the survey within a limited population whom you know would support your project.
We saw that happen last August, for example, at the first “public meeting” concerning Archuleta School District’s proposed mega-campus ballot measure, Ballot Measure 3B. I attended that meeting, which was held at the Elementary School and advertised mostly to parents of elementary school children.
That’s step one: control the group you are going to survey; limit it to people you think will support your proposal.
The presentation at that meeting then included a very limited amount of information about the proposed mega-campus. We heard only about the supposed benefits of a new consolidated campus; we heard nothing at all from people with questions about the proposal.
That’s step two: control the information your audience is allowed to receive.
After hearing about all the wonderful benefits we’d get from passing Ballot Measure 3B, this select audience was then handed a “survey” to collect public input. The “survey” asked us what amenities we’d like to see included in the mega-campus proposal. Would we like playing fields to be included? How about geothermal heating? Demolish the existing school buildings?
You can click here to download that one-page survey as a PDF.
But what the School District failed to include in the survey was one very simple question:
“Do you favor increasing Archuleta County property taxes to repay $98 million in new debt for a consolidated campus?”
If the School District had asked that one question back in early June, and if they had honestly surveyed a representative selection of Archuleta County citizens, they would have quickly found out that three out of four taxpayers disliked their mega-campus proposal. That simple question would have saved the School District a lot of heartache — along with the $49,000 they allocated for the failed Ballot Measure 3B campaign.
But back to the story at hand: a proposal to convert the top of Reservoir Hill into a small amusement park, with the intent of getting Pagosa tourist families to spend $500 or so riding a few mechanical rides among the pine trees.
(A family of four, taking a ride on the proposed Zipline, will spend $356 on that one ride. Add a couple of rides on the Alpine Coaster and maybe a ride on the Tethered Balloon, and they’ve spent exactly $500. For comparison, an all-day admission to Disneyland — including unlimited rides — would cost that same family about $308.)
The survey on the Town website, related to that controversial proposal, disappeared yesterday.
So do we have any kind of survey, to tell us, honestly, whether the TTC’s Reservoir Hill amusement park, and the accompanying municipal debt it might incur, are popular among the townspeople of Pagosa Springs?
Well, not a “survey” exactly. What we have is a stack of “petitions.”
Most of us first heard about these “petitions” at the Wednesday night meeting at the Community Center. At one point in the discussions, a gentleman from the audience noted that the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN had published a casual survey of its readers, and that about 80 percent of the SUN readers did not approve of an amusement park atop Reservoir Hill. The gentleman, whom I believe is one of my downtown neighbors, asked if the Town would be allowing the voters to officially weigh in on the future of Reservoir Hill before making any final decisions.
Moderator Thad McKain handed the question off to Town manager David Mitchem, one of the foremost proponents of the amusement park proposal.
“The intent, at this time, is not for a public vote,” explained Mr. Mitchem. “The citizens elect Council members to make decisions. And if we look at the public input thus far, what I’ve seen is, about 30 people have written negative comments, and we’ve got about 300 people who have said they want to see it happen. So, overwhelmingly, thus far, it’s in favor of moving forward.”
Mr. Mitchem actually said this, in a public meeting. I have the recording. Only 30 people have posted negative comments, he said, and 300 people have said they want to see the amusement park happen.
Which “300 people” would that be?
We found out, a few minutes later, when Thad McKain showed us a stack of “petitions” that had been circulated at the Chamber Visitor Center, at the Ski & Bow Rack, and at the Plaza Grill restaurant. 300 people who said they wanted an Alpine Coaster, a Zipline, a Chairlift, and other mechanical amusements installed atop Reservoir Hill.
For reference, we might note that Reservoir Hill Task Force member Larry Fisher owns the Ski & Bow Rack. Reservoir Hill Task Force member Thad McKain manages the Plaza Grill.
Audience member Cynda Green then asked Mr. McKain, “How many of those signatures are tourists?”
“More importantly, how many are Town residents?” asked another audience member.
“And what did you ask them?” Ms. Green continued.
Let’s find out, shall we? Who are these 300 people that Mr. Mitchem claims are supporting a proposed amusement park on Reservoir Hill, and what information were those people given before they signed the petitions?
Were they told, for instance, about the new $4.3 million debt that the Town may incur funding this project?
Read Part Three... |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|