Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado
I am a concerned citizen with no agenda but to further what I think is appropriate use of precious funds that the city of Glenwood Springs has allocated for affordable housing at Glenwood Meadows. I do not stand to gain financially from this proposed project.
That said, I believe that the city fathers would do well to see this project for what it is: an expensive proposal that does not fit the budget or aesthetic needs of the community. It simply does not fit the bill.
My concerns are:
1. The city should not give in and let the developers not build the one-acre park that is required by the annexation and development agreements.
2. The city is not in the position to allow the developer to abdicate responsibility for the upkeep of the driveway to the project, Flat Tops View Road. I realize that this project is to be built on an alluvial fan, which is unpredictable at best. This could be a future nightmare for the city to maintain.
3. I did see the design at the Jan. 19 meeting, and I am sorry but it does look like the Front Range to me. This is truly not meant as an insult, but rather to point out that Glenwood Springs is different from Arvada or Aurora. The spot on Wulfsohn Ranch is uniquely beautiful and deserves an inspired design. For example, we don’t need air conditioning units in the proposed apartments. This is an example of unnecessary pollutants added to the project. A more open and progressive design would be preferable.
4. The city should not give in on the height limitations that are imposed in the annexation and development agreements. Four-story buildings on this beautiful hillside will be highly visible from much of Glenwood Springs and from I-70.
I apologize for coming late to the party on this. I do, however, think that the city fathers should think twice before rolling over to the developer’s proposed changes. I think we still are in charge here.
I’d like to correct a misconception that Bruno Kirchenwitz seems determined to perpetuate. Again and again I read in his letters to the editor that teaching “pays 12 months for less than eight months’ work and offers more insurance and benefits than most parents can afford.” I keep thinking that someone from one of the school districts will set this straight, but I guess not.
I have been a pubic school teacher for 22 years in the Garfield Re-2 District. Yes, teachers receive paychecks for 12 months a year. However, we are paid for our contract time, which varies district to district, but generally is for 185 to 215 days of work. The pay is spread out over 12 months. It wasn’t always that way, but has been for quite a number of years.
And the benefits? To cover my family at the second lowest level of insurance costs me $1,200 a month. That includes a $2,500 deductible per person, and a $4,000 out-of-pocket expense per person, every year. It’s not the greatest benefit package I’ve seen around here.
I appreciate that Mr. Kirchenwitz is watchdogging the public monies and where they go. The public should know where their taxpayer dollars are spent. In this instance, he is barking up the wrong tree. I ask Mr. Kirchenwitz to get his information correct before he spreads it around.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User