Vote "NO" Against Misinformation in Frisco
April 21, 2009
First of all: “FAMILIES FOR FRISCO.”
I emphasize our group’s name here to be sure that we’re not mistaken for the town council or the planning Commission. I feel it’s important to make that distinction. Past offerings in this paper from “vote-yes” supporters have ignored broad-based opposition from voters, business owners, local workers, renters, homeowners (including several adjacent to the Peak One parcel), long-time residents and relative newcomers, and pretended that only the unanimous town council and planning commission support a “NO” vote.
It’s also convenient, and hypocritical, for the same “pro-yes” writers to claim some sort of high road, while accusing others of mudslinging. Offering a stream of polite misinformation from one’s position out in front with the megaphone, while one’s supporters sling mud from behind you, does not constitute the high road. Concerns about the details of Peak One parcel development are entirely legitimate; misinformation is not.
For example, in Gail Culp’s recent column, she asks questions about Peak One parcel development, including issues such as density, trail buffers, and park space, and leaves these questions unanswered, urging a “yes” vote. The implication is that the answers to these questions don’t yet exist, and therefore we should vote “yes” to ensure that these issues are resolved appropriately. What she fails to mention is that these questions have already been answered. Adequate trail buffers, park space and density issues are all addressed in the Peak One Master Plan.
More importantly, these same issues have been made requirements ” not guidelines ” in the town’s Request for Proposals. These requirements-not simply guidelines anymore-include:
– “Neighborhood park amenities must be included. The park(s) should be considered an amenity for Frisco and not solely for the Peak One Parcel.” (Park issue addressed)
Recommended Stories For You
– “Appropriate buffer areas must be maintained between development on the parcel and the existing Summit County Recreational Path” (Trail buffer issue addressed)
– “The development concept for the site must be based on 50-75 residential units, and focus of the development should be to target the 80 percent to 160 percent of the Area Median Income” (Density issue addressed. Compare Ms. Culp’s assertion that “75 homes are to be built with a possible 75 detached carriage houses” to the actual figures; a range in which 75 is the maximum, and carriage units are encouraged, along with attached accessory apartments as another option.)
This information was easily accessible on the town website at the time of the publication of the aforementioned column. If your reason for a “yes” vote is over the concern that the above issues won’t be properly addressed, they have been. Perhaps it’s time to review the available information and vote “no,” based on facts, rather than illusory concerns.
Perhaps as well it’s time to recognize that the purported purpose of the charter amendment ” to allow an increased voice ” for Frisco citizens, also represents a manipulation. The truth behind the smoke and mirrors is that such a voice already exists, including for those who can’t vote in Frisco, and has already shaped the existing plan.
Among the most recent of the dozens of factual inaccuracies and/or manipulations in nearly every pro-yes vote letter or column that has appeared are William McDonald’s claim that affordable housing doesn’t appreciate (it does, though it’s capped); J. and M. Kearney’s suggestion that the vote is about preservation of open spaces (they are not open spaces); Don Cacace’s ongoing erroneous assertion that only through a “yes” vote on this ballot question will Frisco residents have a voice in land use issues (we already have); and Diane Moser’s letter in which “the majority” of vote-no letters “have been written by people who don’t even live in Frisco” (most have been written by Frisco residents, others by people who work in Frisco, and would like to live here, but can’t afford it. I think their point of view is pretty relevant to this discussion, don’t you?)
Stick to the facts, ignore the misinformation, and vote “NO.”
Rob Murphy represents Families For Frisco.