Krista Pueblo: ‘Friends of Frisco Open Space’ trying to fool us
Frisco, CO Colorado
As one of the very lucky, the very few to have already benefited from affordable housing efforts, this issue is very important to me. I’ve gone to the meetings, listened to a long line of residents who live next to the parcel complain that they were under the impression that this “open space” would always be “open space.” That is why on the day I got the “Friends of Frisco Open Space” pamphlet in the mail, I knew exactly what its true intent was, and that a lot of less-informed people would be fooled by it.
Don Cacace’s Feb. 3 column lays out a pretty compelling argument that the Frisco Town Council is a bunch of shady land-grabbers exploiting “loopholes.” But let’s be clear about a few things, starting with open space versus open land. The “open space” designation denotes a recreational use, such as the Peninsula. The Peak One parcel was never designated or intended as open space. When the town acquired the land in 1998, it was for “future municipal uses.” Let’s also be clear on the fact (I’m amazed I even have to point this out) that there is no shortage of access to open space in beautiful Summit County. What we do have is a shortage of attainable housing for workers, and a shortage of young families, for that matter. If current trends continue, and the state’s demographers say they will, Frisco will soon be a retirement community! If not for affordable housing, I’m sure I would’ve moved back to Denver by now. I’d like to see more of my friends able to stay here.
Mr. Cacace’s citing funding cuts is disingenuous. The economy is down and budgets are getting cut. I was curious about the survey he cited, so I Googled it. Broken into categories, 40 percent of homeowners versus only 28 percent of voter/locals returned the surveys. Of the voter/local group, 175 out 215 respondents own their home. There’s your first clue which way the results will skew. Yes, 80 percent of locals put recreation as a priority, but what Mr. Cacace fails to point out, 56 percent of business owners, 51 percent locals and 48 percent of homeowners put affordable housing as a priority in that same survey. (By the way, the second-homeowner group put “shopping opportunities” at a much higher priority than affordable housing.) I think this shows his assertion the town council is disconnected with citizen values is flawed. Mr. Cacace claims that there are 12 parcels this ballot initiative will affect. There aren’t 12 more parcels. When you hold this propaganda up to the fact that Peak One represents one of only three parcels this would affect, the motive behind it becomes obvious. So it seems this will come to a vote in April thanks to the “Friends” misleading obstructionist efforts. A “no” vote on this issue is a “yes” for families and locals.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.