Summit Daily letters: Tread lightly on Frisco’s historical legacy | SummitDaily.com

Summit Daily letters: Tread lightly on Frisco’s historical legacy

Tread lightly on Frisco's historical legacy

Please consider all the ramifications to removing the Staley House as a highly visible landmark in Frisco. People repeatedly visiting here love its small town ambiance and the history visible on Main Street.

Pecking away at it piecemeal like this would greatly reduce its appeal — to say nothing of the fact that if moved, the Staley would lose its Colorado State Historical Register designation forever. Such a serious step should not be taken lightly.

I now have more facts at hand than I did at the meeting last Tuesday. I understand that a lot has gone on between each of the parties (Counihans and the Footes) with each other as well as with council. To the Footes — who do indeed want to preserve historical buildings and do own most of a block now — their family's financial survival is now at stake. They have lost other properties and now are even living in Denver due to monetary considerations. They want to preserve this block and their family, too. But please try to find a way to do this without moving an iconic building.

Do most visitors even care or know about the Ruth House or Lund House? I very much doubt it. But do they care about the look and feel of Main Street? You bet they do.

Charlotte Clarke

Recommended Stories For You

Former Frisco Historical Society Board Member

President, Alliance for Historical Preservation

Timberline's bottom line

Don't blame Timberline for making a business decision that still serves their client's needs and is more cost effective for them. Blame for this thinking lays with the foundation of American capitalism's need to forever increase profits. In a business, recycling profits don't pay enough to make it sustainable so why would a business recycle? Instead of looking at the profits made, or cost to recycle, we should look at recycling as a social issue, like the management of state parks or even welfare.

State parks make very little money, yet there is a collective responsibility of people and government to maintain the land so it can be enjoyed by countless people and generations to come. Trails have to be made, fire laws have to be followed, pack it in and pack it out are all services that keep state parks and state wilderness areas benefitting everyone involved.

Welfare costs taxpayers and the government lots of money each year. Welfare is a nonprofit organization that supposedly seeks to help people stay economically afloat in a society that isn't quite as equal as we think. Welfare is a social responsibility that we might not all agree with but are a part of whether we receive it or not. Recycling should be the same way; a social responsibility not only to our fellow humans, but to the land we inhabit.

Also, a lot of potential recycling still ends up in the landfill. If a person doesn't drive, will they take the bus to the recycling center? Similarly, why does Breckenridge have a recycling can on every block, which only takes cans? Is the town advocating public intoxication or just trying to look like it cares. What about the pizza boxes or take out boxes? SCRAP actually sorts the recycling and though they might have to sort more, it'll make it easier for the recycler.

Although recycling is shallow ecology, it is still a step towards a deeper ecology view. In the long run, deep ecology view will give the landfill more than 60 years and might even help the planet.

John Quincy

Breckenridge

Go back to article