Change is happening all around us. Our country is changing. Our climate is changing. Estes is changing. When we moved here 13 years ago, 3 fans and some open windows kept our workspace cool all summer. We gave away our air conditioners. Now, we have twice as many, larger and taller fans. As hard as I try to avoid it, next year may very well mean replacing the air conditioning.
Our wildlife is also adapting to the temperature change. Some are moving to higher, cooler elevations. Some animals and insects, that, a few years ago, found Estes too cold, are now moving here. Change is inevitable. Adaptation is vital.
A flowing river is attractive and invigorating, but a pool with no fresh water cultivates stagnation. Just like the river, a community must direct change to pursue the direction best suited to the healthy sustainability of that country or state, city or village, organization or family.
One cannot see into the future and giving up the right or ability to adapt to unforeseen changes ties the hands of future generations. Do we want to do that? That is the decision that we, as citizens, must make.
Ballot Issue #300, a local Estes Park issue, would prevent anyone from changing their zoning without the permission of two-thirds of all owners of property within 500 feet of the boundary edge of the property in question.
While change should be carefully considered in response to what is needed to sustain the community, this would effectively prevent zoning changes throughout the Town limits.
Under this proposal, we lose flexibility. We cede our ability to allow adaptation. Even the Town could not approve changes without extensive permission. Good or bad? That is our decision.
The Town of Estes Park is surrounded by great expanses of land full of trees and wildlife. The elk mow our lawns and the bear make sure we do not display ugly trash piles. The local wildlife walks the streets and the locals are smart enough to avoid confrontation. This is the charm of Estes Park.
We are a close knit village. We care about each other. We want our neighbors to be comfortable and happy. This, too, is the charm of Estes.
However, too many of our young people graduate high school and leave, until they reach retirement. We are losing – especially in the winter – young, healthy, energetic community members. More and more employees commute, for a year or two.
Results: The average age of Estes is steadily rising. Less locals are employed in Estes. We face long waits for many services. Too many products and services are no longer available in Estes.
While I love the isolation, I find I am “down valley” far too often. If we want to reverse this trend, we must attract young, vibrant families. Do we want a vibrant main street? That is the question.
Under the new proposal, all properties asking for a zoning change, or a PUD, must have written approval from two-thirds of all owners of property within 500 feet of the property’s outmost boundaries.
When testing a single Town owned property, there were 74 properties within 500 feet. The majority of these properties have two owners, some have one, some have three or more. Some are owned by trusts.
There are at least three HOAs and also a sizeable property owned by the Town of Estes Park within range. Oh, and two properties had no owners listed.
This makes it difficult to predict the number of owners, but my guess is that a very conservative estimate would exceed 150 owners, not counting the eventual determination on trust, HOA, or Town ownership.
Using 150, at least 100 property owners must give written permission. And many property owners are not local: not in the Estes Valley, not in Colorado, they span coast to coast.
While it is still unknown how the research would be conducted, it is an expensive venture when you consider time and effort, so it would most likely be the responsibility of the person requesting the zoning change or applying for a PUD.
Those of us who lived through the years of trying to pass the ERA know how difficult it is to achieve a two-thirds vote of those who vote. Written permission would be far more challenging when faced with a count of ALL owners, not respondents. Any owner not responding would count as a “no.”
Judi Smith has written the Eco-Sense column for many years. She has been active in encouraging voter participation and in encouraging the youth to follow local, state, and national politics by coordinating a junior election program in the Estes Park School District.