I was recently in Dillon’s core area, after the branded residence referendum vote, and was a little taken aback at the state of that “downtown.” Unkempt landscaping at the post office and some commercial properties and the partially built Uptown 240 concrete monolith greet locals and visitors alike, not giving the best impression of the town. You can’t blame those businesses for this unfortunate predicament given the economic and developmental uncertainty around the core area, especially now that the branded residence project is back to square one. In these circumstances it’s only prudent for business owners to refrain from nonessential spending.

Thanks to the hard work of those who opposed the branded lodging project on Lake Dillon’s shores, the Town Council and developer’s vision for Dillon’s future has been stymied. But the developer has hinted at returning with different plans that may be even less beneficial to local residents in terms of public access and economic growth. It may end up being up to the legal system to determine if his “by right” plans, which may not include input from city officials and locals, come to fruition. 

Presumably those who organized the “no vote” were aware that their efforts wouldn’t necessarily stop development of that area and can with their own eyes see its visible decline. So, it’s reasonable for those Dillon residents who voted to keep the branded residences project in place to ask of that cohort, “if not that, what?”. 

As a resident, I certainly understand those voters’ concerns and hope the council learns the lesson on the perils of ineffective citizen engagement that this is an example of. However, we’re also at the point where those “no” voters may come to realize that it’s often easier to campaign against something and point out perceived problems with it than it is to solve the core issue being addressed. Such “no” campaigns may be successful at the ballot box, but in the end that success doesn’t necessarily resolve the problem in question, in this case, the future of Dillon’s town core. 

And as has been pointed out, the issues that the council are trying to solve aren’t limited to what the waterfront area will look like in the future, but also how to address budget shortfalls that we are experiencing. The town of Dillon is bordering on going broke primarily due to inadequate lodging tax revenue. It also lacks the transfer tax revenue that other Summit County towns enjoy. We can debate how good a job the council did on educating Dillon voters on these complicated budget issues, but those “no” votes cost the town a projected one million dollars in tax revenue from the branded residences project. Those are dollars needed to revitalize those core areas that local residents presumably want to be able to take pride in. 

Revitalizing struggling towns is a difficult task, but it’s not impossible. The revival of Bellefontaine Ohio is an example of a smalltown suffering decades of decline and reversing it through partnership with a private developer. Much of that revival in Bellefontaine is based on the development and growth of retail and hospitality offerings though. And therein lies the rub with Summit County, where municipalities derive their greatest economic benefit from visitors who come to enjoy our ski resorts, natural beauty, and other recreational opportunities. But many residents are vocal about their displeasure with out-of-towners and the resulting busy streets and crowded restaurants that pay our civic bills. So, if someone’s got a great idea for growing Dillon’s financial prospects based on an industry other than tourism, they should lay that card on the table as soon as possible. Otherwise, residents and council alike need to accept that tourism is the primary and likely only feasible driver for our economy and start engaging meaningfully with each other on a plan that meets the needs of locals while also ensuring the flow of funding for much needed infrastructure renewal. The Dillon Town Council could also connect with other municipalities that have dealt with issues like this before, including those from out of state, and see what lessons may be applicable to our situation. 

One of the most common complaints from the “no” voters was that they weren’t consulted enough in council planning. Assuming that’s true, now would be a great time for those voters to proactively join with their representatives on crowdsourcing an answer to the pressing question of “what now?” It will be interesting to see whether they stay as engaged in the planning for what comes next as they were in rejecting the branded residences. I certainly hope so as the future of Dillon depends on it.

Tony Jones' column "Everything in Moderation" publishes biweekly on Thursdays in the Summit Daily News. Jones is a veteran of the IT industry and has worked in the public and private sectors. He lives part-time in Summit County and Denver. Contact him at eimsummit@gmail.com.