Letter: Represent citizens’ desire for livable city, not more commerce, high end housing
I agree with Bob Durand that the Confluence area would be best as a park/open space free of development.
We need to look at how we got to the place we are now, concerning the three particular plans under consideration. These three plans are left over from our old council, a council comprised largely of real estate interests, and builders and developers.
The three plans were culled from a total of seven. The criteria for the plans that made it for final consideration were not made public, as far as I know. Surely some financial stability was one, but other than that it is unclear. City departments and staff made the cuts, along with the Downtown Development Authority. We have to know how the old council directed their staff and who made the final decisions, and why.
Our new council needs to put out bids with the stated criteria of park and open space design with river banks preserved and a building only possible if distant from the river. This will not be met with the same enthusiasm as was the idea that Glenwood Springs Colorado might be willing to let private companies swoop in on some prime real estate. But we might get some graceful, green ideas. This council represents the change we voted for and I trust they will add better ideas to the table — ideas that represent citizens’ desire for a livable city, not more commerce or high end housing. There is no more riverfront property being made.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.