Let's Support the Second Access Road, It's Important
Trish or Tim (probably Trish) Bermon
proposed by the committee looks like a no brainer to me. For those of
you who weren't able to make it to this very informative session, I'll
share the summary I put together in my letter to the county
commissioners...
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you all for showing more concern for the welfare of Perry Park
residents than many of the residents are showing themselves. I attended
last Monday's workshop not because I felt I needed more information
from the committee, since they and the Sentinel have done an admirable
job of making that information available, but because it's beginning
to appear that a vocal minority is once again trying to stand in the
way of safety and progress, and if they have any valid reasons I'd
like to know what they are. After listening to their arguments, I am
not convinced.
The complaint that was raised most frequently, that the county and the
committee failed to consider the No Road option, sounds a little like a
child, whose parents have taken great pains to thoroughly investigate
and carefully consider the options for his education: public school,
home schooling, private or religious academies and the like. When the
parents have finally come to a thoughtful conclusion, the child says,
"Hey, Mom and Dad, what's the matter with you? You failed to
consider the No School option!" Mom and Dad, of course, understand
that the best interests of the child make the No School option unwise
and properly off the table, not unlike the No Road option for Perry
Park.
Although the anti-road folks made quite an effort to appear to have
facts to back up their position, most of them seemed only marginally
relevant, and the only one that I'm personally qualified to judge was
just plain false. As a block captain on Fox Circle, I can tell you that
the number of homes is not 20, as was stated, but closer to 35. The
facts that seemed to be well-researched and convincing were those
presented by the road committee members, Keith Worley and the county
engineers, all supporting the need for a second access.
Complaints about the additional tax burden may have been the silliest
argument that came up all evening. For heaven's sake, we all know
perfectly well that anyone who can afford to live in Perry Park can
well afford to pay a fair share of the cost to support public safety,
or even convenience for that matter, and many of us are quite willing.
Although convenience is secondary to the safety issue, those who have
long drives to work every day surely will appreciate spending a little
less time on the trip. And getting back to safety, so will the folks
who are being rushed to the hospital. Diverting some of the commuter
traffic from Red Rock Drive seems like another safety plus. As to the
argument that not enough civilians or firefighters have been killed in
forest fires yet to make the ability to evacuate worth worrying our
little heads about, I wonder how many is enough? Would more loss of
life in the Rocky Mountain region or in Colorado be sufficient, or do
we have to lose a few right here in Perry Park before we can take
sensible precautions?
The most striking concern I heard was from Mr. Paulk, and I hope that
if he and his family decide to stay on at the ranch, a way can be found
to keep those headlights out of their eyes. Maybe a carefully placed
row of trees would do the trick? I was surprised and disappointed to
find that the ranchers, whom I've always believed were sincere in
their offers to open their property as an emergency exit if needed, had
in fact rejected the metro board's past efforts to implement that
solution. And I am shocked and appalled at the behavior of Senator
Wiens, who apparently believes it's appropriate to threaten and then
punish his constituents for asking him to make the modest sacrifice of
giving up a small corner of his property for a fair price, with a
proposed development designed to obstruct the process.
Lord knows, I don't blame my neighbors for wanting Perry Park to stay
the way it is. I'm sure most of us would prefer to keep our community
as isolated and peaceful as we can, but that is just not practical,
prudent, or even possible. Failure to build the road is not likely to
stop or even reduce the pace of growth that is already happening around
us every day, compounding the potential danger. Sure, we'd all like
to believe that if disaster hasn't happened yet it never will, and
maybe it won't. Still, I can't help but think it's just plain
irresponsible to bet the lives and well-being of our neighbors and
their children and pets on it, when we have been handed the opportunity
to do something constructive instead. Honestly, if anyone must say "I
told you so", I'd rather be on the receiving end because the road
was built and no disaster followed, than the other way around. I hope
you all will agree and will please not allow the No Road folks to stop,
or even delay, this important project any longer. Please be our
sensible Mom and Dads. Thanks very much!
Jason F
residents in mind by adding a second full time access. I also believe,
however that the quality of life that most people on the opposition are
afraid of losing is not being addressed as well as it could be.
A good example is the lack of meetings/consultations with the lot
owners and current residents of Country Club Drive where the currently
recommended access would drop into (near the water treatment plant).
Could the board have taken the time to meet with these owners and
discuss noise and visible impact mitigation with current and future
home owners in this area before releasing the final report? Did the
board assume that a majority of lot owners in the area were merely lot
"flippers"/Mike Money homes and were not concerned about the road? The
concerns that the Paulk family currently has will be shared with a
number of us. If this road will be the one constructed, I would ask
the board to work heavily with the Paulks and other residents to ensure
that as many mitigation requests are implemented. Construction costs
should not be assumed or proposed until these discussions come to a
close.
-Jason Farrar
Bob Owens
near the Paulk's property is well taken, as are those of the
representative of the Paulk property owners. A couple of points should
be made.
The Perry Park Metro District Board did not release the report of the
2nd Access Advisory Committee, the committee released the report. The
committee was jointly chaired by a Douglas County engineering person
and by a resident of Perry Park who was a former Board member.
All of the meetings of the committee were open to the public. There was
opportunity for any of the affected or potentially affected parties to
comment during the fact-finding segment of the committee's activity and
during the reviews of the drafts of the report. The input of the owners
of the adjoining ranches was sought and all of the input from the
interviews or written responses is included in the report. The
committee did not specifically approach Country Club Drive residents,
but I don't remember any showing up at any of the committee's meetings.
The fate of the 2nd access now rests with the County Commissioners. The
current PP Metro District Board may reaffirm the recommendation of the
previous Board to the County to build Alternative 2, it may remain
silent on the issue, or it may offer a different recommendation.
Whatever its actions or lack of action, the decision of what to do
rests with the Commissioners.
Having served on the committee for its 18 month life, having attended
all but one of the committee meetings, having been present at all the
presentations, and having heard all the public comment at the meetings
and presentations, I still think Alternative 2 is the best solution. I
definitely think that the "no road option" is neither safe nor wise. I
hope that the Commissioners will decide to build Alternative 2 and that
the County Engineering folks will work to minimize problems of the
precise route with the land owners and those affected on Country Club
Drive.