IT'S NOT EVEN WINTER YET!

Seven acres of controversy

From the wide porch of Estes Park's historic Stanley Hotel, the view rolls into the hills. Should it stay that way - or pay for town improvements?
By Monte Whaley The Denver Post

Growth and development might be the norm for touristy Estes Park, but residents are beginning to draw the line, especially when it involves the famed Stanley Hotel.

This week, a group of longtime residents took the first steps toward blocking the construction of condos, a shopping plaza, restaurant and wedding reception hall next to the icon.

The old-school, opulent Stanley, built in 1906, has hosted renowned guests such as President Theodore Roosevelt. It's best known as author Stephen King's inspiration for the horror classic "The Shining," and today's guests are warned that ghosts wander the hotel's hallways.

So it galled Byron Hall that the town would consider selling a 7-acre parcel of land near the Stanley to a local developer for $1.25 million. The resulting shopping and condo complex would mar the hotel's scenic vista and degrade its grand history, said Hall, whose grandfather worked as the first superintendent of the hotel.

"The Stanley stands up there as a crown jewel of the town, and people don't want that taken away," Hall said.

His group collected 766 signatures on a petition that would require the city to put any sale of public land in the Stanley Historic District — including the Stanley Hotel parcel — to a vote. If enough signatures are valid, the Town Board would take up the issue Dec. 11. The sale of the land near the Stanley then would be postponed until it could be voted on by residents.

Stanley Hotel owner John Cullen also is against the current proposal, but for a different reason. He wants to buy the land and build nine luxury cottages and include a 100-foot- wide wildlife migration corridor.

Estes Park owns four lots in the Stanley Historic District, including Lot 4, which it sold to developer Ed Grueff of Estes Winds LLC last year. But the contract was rescinded on a technicality in Larimer County District Court, said Town Manager Randy Repola.

Estes Park again is offering the land to Estes Winds with the hopes of using the proceeds to build a performing arts center at the Stanley Fairgrounds and make other improvements there, Repola said.

The complex near the Stanley would help the town raise about $200,000 annually in badly needed sales-tax revenue, said Estes Mayor John Baudek.

Located just southeast of the Stanley, the Lot 4 development would be low-key and designed with a Western flavor, officials say.

"I think a lot of people believe this will be nothing but a strip mall, and nothing could be further from the truth," Baudek said.

Estes Park's population has steadily increased over the past decade to about 6,000. So has the number of residential projects that went unchallenged, said Fred Mares.

The Estes property owner recently led the fight against the proposed 42-condominium project called Wapiti Crossing.

Last week, public pressure helped prompt the town planning board to turn down the plan.
But as more homes compete against open space and wildlife in the town, residents are now more likely to speak up, Mares said.

"I think this and other projects coming in have tapped into some pent-up frustration among people," Mares said. "We used to think, 'We can't do anything about this.' Well, that might be changing."

Monte Whaley: 720-929-0907 or mwhaley@denverpost.com

Here is our dilemma and the seat of the Estes Parkian confusion concerning our collective lot four paradox.

In our mind it is a tale of two hotels, and a bully town board, that sets its jaw and insists on my way or the highway, not that odd for a statutory town running amuck. Granby does the same things and spawned the bulldozer boy. Funny thing, Granby just took a public relations smack in the kisser for building the most expensive volunteer fire house in Colorado; weight rooms and big screen televisions, sound familiar?

At this point, if you are not up to speed on the details of the lot four conflicts that the town board created, and the additional “black eye” to the outside world - that we can notch on our collective embarrassment “coo-stick” - time and redundancy precludes us from spelling out the details. The Readers Digest version will have to do and it goes like this, the town negotiated a deal with one of their buddies (in the back room) and people are fighting it; the citizens of Estes (Friends of the Stanley) and the Owners of the Stanley Hotel. Of course the town board insists on its’ way, laws be damned (a mere technicality, fussy court system). Same old story, we write about it here all the time, same old game - just one more day in paradise.

This is the bigger picture part that is really puzzling.

Over the past twenty years we have spoon fed, and subsidized the Holiday Inn, to the tune of millions and millions of our tax dollars dollars. The Holiday Inn is owned by Forever Living Resorts, a multibillion (that’s billion with a B) dollar corporation. We built for and donated the Conference Center to Forever Living Resorts, using community TIF funding. The conventions that are booked by Town Hall Staff are booked at the Holiday Inn - exclusively. The conference attendees stay at the Holiday Inn - exclusively, eat at the Holiday Inn, virtually never leave the grounds. Town Hall Economic Development Director is a (you guessed it) ex-employee of the Holiday Inn. The funny part to us is the Town leases the conference center from the Holiday Inn (emergency ordinance/more back door stuff) and pays for all the staff and upkeep, advertising and marketing - you read that right - we all get to pay to keep the Holiday Inn afloat on behalf of a Billion Dollar corporation. The funny thing is – the trustees are in court for spending our precious tax dollars marketing - which is evidently not allowed if you are a Statutory Town. Laws be damned!

Why are we, tiny Estes Park, subsidizing the Holiday Inn and Forever Living Resorts, with our precious tax dollars and breaking the law doing it?

Directly across the river to the North, the town is fighting like a rabid cat, to build a wedding pavilion right next door to the town icon Stanley Hotel. The owners of the Stanley invested millions of their own money reconditioning the old girl, and are attempting to recoup their investment; doing their own marketing, bringing in wedding parties and millions of dollars into our economy. The Stanley pioneered the wedding industry here in Estes Park, and people come from all over the world to get married on its grounds. A wedding pavilion and additional retail constructed next door will not bring in more weddings to Estes Park (the town trustees have their very own wedding marketing program, suprised? ) - it will take from a market created by the Stanley. That’s why they want to build that pavilion on lot four, like a Wendy’s building across the intersection from every MacDonald’s in the world.

Side bar; did you know that the trustees at one time, not so long ago, filed suit against the descendents of Stanley, in a failed attempt to take control of the Stanley fair grounds? Did they win, do they ever win? About three years ago in the same vicinity, the town apparently violated the “Sunshine Records Act” it seems they negotiated a height variance on condos, in private meetings. It cost the citizens of Estes Park hundreds of thousands of precious tax dollars. Did they win, do they ever win?


Why does Town Hall keep subsidizing their pals, or more to the point why do we allow Town Hall to subsidize their pals, laws be damned?

When do we get our money from the sale of lot four to build that micro theater on the Stanley Fair grounds?

Didn’t a group of Friends of the Stanley raise $500,000 dollars for a theater on the Stanley grounds that is now smoldering in the Towns general fund?

Didn’t the trustees spend $60,000 of those dollars on a plan to build a theater in Wiese Parking lot down town?

Weren’t we going to get money from the sale of the Amoco retail (Cardinal ,LLC aka Estes

Winds, LLC, aka Ed G. )? Isn’t that an additional cool million? The last time I looked it was more empty retail, new but empty economic development?

Do you see a trend here perhaps?

Town Hall needs fifteen minutes in the woodshed with a rolled up document of limitations.

GREEN? OR BROWN?

Summer shopper shuttle posts rider ship gains. October 17,2006, Trail G.

Estes Park officials not only have their eyes on improvements to the Town’s free summer-time shuttle transit system for the 2008 season, they’ve begun considering options that will need to be studied for 2009 and beyond.

That’s because of increased rider ship, along with the “green” factor public transportation offers. The system officially ended its second year of seasonal operations on Sunday September 30, and posted an 11.6 percent increase in use on the two routs that mirrored services offered in 2006. When rider counts from the expansion route are added to the number of riders served, the increase jumps to a whopping 72 percent increase.

This was the second year of a three-year experiment in mass transit, in Estes Park. In 2006 the system operated from June 30 through Sept. 3. This year the shuttles continued operations on Saturdays and Sundays through Elk Fest weekend.

“We saw substantial growth in riders on our two original routs” east and west of the Visitors Center, said Deputy Town Administrator Jacquie Halburnt. During the systems inaugural year 18,764 riders used the shuttles. This year the number jumped 11.6 percent to 20,953 during the same eight-week period. Another 8,329 riders used the new Brown route that served four major camp grounds in the area.

During a community development committee meeting on Oct. 4 trustees and staff reiterated their commitment to the service and its ability to help reduce exhaust emissions, traffic congestion and periodic high level use of public parking lots. “We just need to continue increasing use of the system”, Halburnt said. Having individuals park personal vehicles in the Estes Park Visitors Center lot or leaving them at their lodging establishment, reduces the number of vehicles passing through the downtown core area. Similar systems are used in other national park gateway communities, including Zion National Park and Acadia National Park.

The Town contracts for services through Rocky Mountain Transit Company, the firm that also provides public transportation for Rocky Mountain National Park. Officials with both government agencies began discussing future operations during a season ending meeting on Oct. 2. Of prime concern is making sure the vehicle fleet is large enough to accommodate future operations expansions, because the current fleet already has reached maximum capacity.

The two systems share a pool of 10 vehicles. Seven of those are dedicated to national park operations while three are designated for Town of Estes Park use. Two school buses are available as back-up replacement vehicles, but according to Halburnt, those are considered “undesirable” vehicles by both riders and operators.

During the same time period when the Town of Estes Park operates its shuttle system, Rocky Mountain National Park also operates shuttle system. Rocky Mountain National Park also operates shuttles on Bear Lake Road. The Town’s routes all start and end at the Visitors Center at the intersection of U.S. Hwys. 34 and 36. The Park’s system is centered on its Park and Ride lot, off of Bear Lake Road.

Following a full analysis of this years’ operations now in progress, adjustments may be made to the system for its last year of experimental operations. Under consideration are operational issues such as service hours, service dates, route and stop use by riders.

During the first year of operations, the transit system cost $99,710. Shuttle advertising totaling $11,500 offsets this year’s expenses of $169,564.


Summer shopper shuttle poses gains. etc.

Managing our community essential services must change from the current mindless yes votes, before we go broke. Our trustees are sadly confused; they can not, and have not differentiated between activity and achievement. They have our community involved in innumerable beaurocratic intergovernmental agreements that do nothing to serve the people that elected them. Staff just runs roughshod all over our elected officials. Why do we even bother with electing trustees?

Shouldn’t a mass transit system be a self sustaining business, at least a break even venture? Shouldn’t we require a minor semblance of a business plan? Couldn’t mass transit be privatized?

We are not anti mass transit, we are not anti green, but we are pro-accountability.

Articles like this one are penned by small town - small time civil servants; that have an entire department of advertising and marketing wan-bees (that all failed in the local business world) on staff, that cannot craft a better propaganda piece than this. The article has a decidedly up beat and positive feel that comes from our town bureaucracy. In a decided up beat and positive spin, they are spending hundreds of thousands of our precious and rare sales tax dollars, giving free rides because it sounds like a good idea! There is particular emphasis placed (in the article) on the fact that there was a “whopping” 70% increase in rider ship on two specific routes. Wow imagine that, after you spent an addition $70,000 dollars and an additional $11, 500 in advertisement, you were able to entice three thousand more people to…ACCEPT SOMETHING FOR FREE! What a concept, what a victory, an epiphany, people will take something free. Town staff is very comfortable with free stuff, we pay them a lot of money and provide great bennfits, what do we get?

By the way, while your trustees are giving free rides at a cost to you of $8.64 per individual free ride, the town government raised your electric and water utility rates; and they are going to affect a fee for fire protection for miles around, that is not an experiment - that is a fact.

FREE WHAT FREE?

When did our town trustees turn into “Sappy the Clown” giving away free stuff to entertain the tourists? When did your trustees get elected by tourists, and who assigned your town government the task of entertainment director on the “Love Boat”? Look through all your town ordinances; do you see an ordinance that mandates visitor services as an essential service? No.

Do we sound negative? You bet we are! We find nothing up beat or happy about incompetent wasteful town employees leaning on a shovel, throwing tax dollars out the window on a whim, and expecting me to be upbeat about it.

This article published in the local press on October 17, 2007 poses serious ethical dilemmas such as:

Is running this little transit for tourists “experiment” good sound community administration on behalf of the local citizens? Why are you “experimenting” with public money?

Is it sound community government?

Is it demonstrating wise stewardship of our valuable tax dollars?

It hints at protecting community health and the environment, but does it really?

I say bullshit! If you throw enough BS on the barn door something might stick. Our trustees cannot lay claim to one single achievement. The trustees can’t simply make claims, they must prove these things - you are spending public money, hard earned tax dollars.

ACCOUNTABILITY!

A STEWARD IS ACCOUNTABLE!

ACCOUNTABILITY IS NOT “HEY LOOK WE SPENT THE MONEY!”

In two years, your elected officials have spent $280,774 of our valuable tax dollars on an “experiment” that was projected to cost us only $300,000 over three years. My projection is they will blow that budget out of the water, and be very up beat and positive about it.

In two years, the stewards of our funds have spent $280,774 (that they admit to) of our precious tax dollars transporting people for free. In 2007 that was a whopping $8.64 per person to transport him/her approximately two blocks? On Bronco Sunday one can pay to ride the RTD bus from Longmont to Invesco Field, a round trip for around $8.50 - that’s 100 miles for less money.

How are your elected officials monitoring the “greening” effect on our community? Public health, the environment, and accountability are serious issues, and demand serious attention - not silly articles.

How are they monitoring the effect on parking?
How are they monitoring the effect on traffic congestion? How are they monitoring emissions?
How do they monitor who get a free ride when and where?
Are they monitoring air born particulates, ozone, and carbon monoxide?
What is the difference between winter air quality and summer air quality at Elkhorn and Moraine Ave.?

In Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland (I used these communities for comparison, because our town administration uses these communities when determining their salary levels), on going air quality monitoring has demonstrated that the Ozone MCL’s set by the EPA - of 80 ppb - is being habitually violated. The EPA is projecting a reduction of Ozone MCL’s to 70 ppb in the near future. Those communities mentioned are monitoring air quality parameters and air quality levels, they know for fact that they exceed the EPA air quality MCL. They know what parameters they exceed, and they know when they exceed them. They have a baseline of scientific data that can be used to measure the effects of whatever steps that are generated to improve the situation. The variables that can influence air quality, automobile omissions, sunlight to air ratios, etc., the list is long and tricky. Source points are difficult to determine, but unless one applies good science to the issue, testing, and analysis, one could never expect to happen upon solutions by accident, thence - marketing crap-o-la.

When 3 million people come to visit the nation’s wilderness - driving through the middle of our town on a state highway - will they kill us with their automobile exhaust? Your trustees do not know, and apparently they could care less. The point is, those three million people are not coming to Estes Park - they are passing through Estes Park on a State Highway to get into RMNP. RMNP monitors air quality in the park, and the State monitors air quality around the State. What we get is a bullshit article, and our local beaurocrats sucking up to the State and the Interior department, with one sided “intergovernmental agreements.” What do we get out of these agreements? What will the consequences be? Move the Park or carve a new highway into the Park?

How could your elected officials take the position that running 10 diesel powered buses – nonstop - for twelve hours a day, at 8,000 plus feet elevation, will reduce emissions or save fuel? That is irresponsible; and if that conclusion was entered as a junior high science fair project, it would receive an F-.

When faced with environmental issues and public health, is it better to make decisions based on intuition or science? We have seven elected officials, and hundreds of thousands of our precious tax dollars going to town government administration - spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on programs implemented on a whim, nothing more than a whim and marketing crap-o-la.

We looked at the state traffic counts from 2005, 2006, and guess what - they went up at Elkhorn and Moraine. Park visitation was up at Beaver Meadows entrance this year. The buses caused traffic jams getting in and out of the bus stops, not to mention the division and uproar within the community. To quote your mayor “we are trying to jam 10 pounds into a five pound sack”… doesn’t sound like a reduction of anything to us…. how do you claim a reduction in traffic congestion? One could not responsibly make that statement in Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont - and not expect to loose your head for being a boob.

It is not up to the Estes Park Citizen to prove; it is your elected official’s responsibility to prove, and take steps to justify the spending of the public chest. They have obligations to prove the air is not killing us - that would be science, not marketing bullshit in the “Trail Pravda”. This whole concept of you elected me, so live with my incompetence, has got to come to an end!

The signs of discontentment are all around us. Our town government habitually goes to voters and habitually gets turned down. They do not adequately explain the need or show they cut enough fat from budgets. Fire districts (twice) in Estes Park, and numerable bond issues, have been “eighty sixed” routinely for these reasons. No one trusts Town government around here, and the list of reasons why gets longer and longer. They spend your money at $8.64 per tourist - to give them a free ride.

When an article like the one we copied from the Trail Gazette gets published as “official” who is responsible for its content? Did anyone check it for accuracy, relevancy, truth or consequences? It does not represent good government, it does not represent good science, and it is a lousy propaganda “marketing” vehicle - full of transparent goofs.

This is not about “green”…….“green” would infer a scientific approach to a science problem. What this represents is Estes Park “brown” the color of crap!

LARRY PESSES FOR MAYOR

Marie Richardson
Bob Richardson
Mike Miller