|  |
 |
|
Putting Us Into Debt, for Fun and Profit, Part Four |
Bill Hudson | 1/31/12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read Part One
“Yes, we have been working on getting petitions signed,” explained Reservoir Hill Task Force member Thad McKain, holding up a small stack of printed forms with names written on them.
Mr. McKain was addressing a group of rather skeptical Pagosa citizens, gathered at the Ross Aragon Community Center on January 25. We had come to learn about — and comment on — the Town Tourism Committee (TTC) plans to erect a small collection of mechanized “rides” atop Reservoir Hill using government subsidies and loans, on the assertion that a tiny amusement park in that location would greatly increase Pagosa tourism.
 The task force had apparently spent many days — or weeks? — gathering the names of people who purportedly support the amusement park concept. And Mr. McKain was now contrasting those petitions to a survey recently conducted by the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN newspaper.
“We have 436 signatures. These are folks who are endorsing the proposed plan. I do recall that the SUN did publish an opinion poll... I do not honestly... I don’t remember what their results were.”
According to one audience member, the newspaper's survey had shown about 80 percent of SUN readers in favor of leaving Reservoir Hill as a wilderness park — so it may have been convenient for the TTC to “forget” the results of that survey, and instead focus its attention on a petition drive conducted by a handful of task force members.
“How many of those signatures are tourists?” asked audience member Cynda Green.
“I do not have an exact breakdown,” Mr. McKain replied, “but I will tell you... as I’m going through the petitions right now... here is how the petition reads... this is what they signed...”
"Please sign the petition below if you support the development of recreational amenities on Reservoir Hill including a chairlift, alpine coaster, observation tower, tree-top zipline tour, amphitheater, and enhanced trail system.
“No, I cannot give you an exact demographic where everybody is from," Mr. McKain explained. "And I promise you, and I swear on all that is good and holy, that as I am going through these now... [flipping through the petitions]... I do see a great deal of Pagosa Springs listed. I do see, I will say, some out-of-staters. I do see Texas... I do see Oklahoma... I do see New Mexico... other parts of Colorado.”
I personally found this response quite fascinating. Mr. McKain was acting, at that moment, as if he were somewhat surprised to discover that many of the “436 names” listed on the TTC petitions represented folks from Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and various other non-Pagosa zip codes.
I had attended a meeting of the TTC — a few days prior to the January 25 Reservoir Hill “information session” — and I’d seen Mr. McKain at that meeting, sitting near Reservoir Hill Task Force member Larry Fisher. Mr. Fisher encouraged everyone at the meeting (including, I presume, Mr. McKain) to make a last minute push to gather petition signatures.
“And we are getting signatures,” Mr. Fisher had told the TTC members at that earlier meeting. “I bet Jim Smith Realty could get a lot of signatures over the next week. It's just a little thing and you print out as many as you think you can get. And it can be locals, or visitors, doesn’t matter. And there’s a place they can put down where they’re from. So that’s probably the most important thing, between now and next Wednesday night.”
Can we assume, then, that Mr. McKain already knew he'd been collecting "tourist signatures"?
Another thing I find quite fascinating: the names collected on the TTC petitions were not, in fact, “signatures.” Mr. Fisher had described them as “signatures” at the January 17 TTC meeting. Mr. McKain had described them as “signatures” at the January 25 community meeting. But here’s what actually appears on one of the petitions:
If we look more closely at this petition, what we see are not “individual signatures” but what appear to be “whole families” inscribed in the petition — including children. It’s obvious from the handwriting that, in some cases, one family member filled in the form and was been encouraged, by the TTC member bearing the petition, to simply “sign” the names of everyone else in his or her family. In some cases, it appears that a person may have been encouraged to “sign” his or her neighbors’ names.
As I looked over the “petitions” at Town Hall a few days ago, I noted that in at least one case, the person “signing” the petition — local resident Stuart Royston — had included his dog, Winslow, as one of the citizens favoring the Reservoir Hill development.
I also noted that a few local residents signed more than one petition.
Petitions are a very valuable tool in a representative democracy. When our elected and appointed leaders get off track — as we are all prone to do now and then — the voters of a community can try and persuade their leaders, through the mechanism of the signed petition, to realign themselves with the will of the people.
Unfortunately, in its burning eagerness to win approval for an essentially unpopular project, the Reservoir Hill Task Force has made a mockery of the word “petition”.
A few moments after Mr. McKain revealed his evident surprise that people from Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico had “signed” a petition in support of the Reservoir Hill Amusement Park, one of our Town Council members — Shari Pierce — stood up at the back of the audience and posed a related question.
“Where are the petitions for people to sign, who don’t want the development?”
Mr. McKain responded. “We have this [binder] that we placed with the model, and it has some comments written in it. I’ve not seen a petition against the plan.”
We’ll get back to the binder in a moment.
Ms. Pierce continued: “So why didn’t you have both kinds of petitions available, so people could sign whether they want it or don’t want it?”
“Because we were asking for those who were in favor of it,” said Mr. McKain.
Ms. Pierce explained, in a somewhat heated tone of voice, that the charge given to the Reservoir Hill Task Force by the Town Council was not to merely collect signatures of people purportedly in favor of their project, but rather to find out how the whole community feels about the proposed development plan.
”I want to know what the citizens think, so the Town Council can make the right decision,” Ms. Pierce explained.
So, how about that binder?
Last year, the TTC displayed, in the lobby of Town Hall, an architectural model showing Reservoir Hill and the proposed installation of a second-hand chairlift the Town had purchased in 2010 for $41,000. Sitting beside the model was a black binder where Town Hall visitors could include comments about the proposal. If you read through the binder, you will note that nearly all of the comments raise thoughtful questions about the chairlift installation, or else are downright critical of the idea.
Questions about the chairlift installation were also raised last year, during the initial Chairlift Business Plan meetings, by the group that presents Pagosa’ two largest tourism events, concert organizers Folkwest. Folkwest presents two well-attended folk music concerts each summer atop Reservoir Hill.
Somewhere along the way, the Chairlift Business Plan morphed into a plan for a small amusement park.
Some of us, who have been closely following the development of the Reservoir Hill amusement park concept, feel that the chairlift is a second-hand albatross hanging around the neck of the TTC — and providing the primary weight behind this unpopular proposal for our town’s only wilderness park.
Read Part Five... |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|