Over the past two years, I have followed the review process surrounding the potential annexation of the Amara development with great interest. As a state legislator regularly dealing with the challenges of growth and affordable, attainable housing, I frankly have been dumbfounded by the twists, turns and roadblocks along with the fierce opposition from former elected officials, and biased reporting and editorials in the media, much of which has been engineered by competing members of the development industry who are themselves currently developing large annexations to Colorado Springs. The effort is nothing less than an anti-competitive move to control the housing market, along with every other aspect of growth in our community.
Our local community has rightfully pushed for job creation, worked to ensure we maintain over 40% of our economy in the aerospace, defense, and cyber sector, including a crucial and successful effort to keep Space Command here in Colorado Springs. The past and current city leadership has created an image of Olympic City USA to entice visitors and adopted a flagpole annexation to bring a new visitors center to the Air Force Academy and over considerable neighborhood opposition, approved the building of the Ford Amphitheatre, along with apartment building after apartment building in and around the city, revising our transportation corridor and demolishing the Drake Power Plant early, for what were arguably more aesthetic reasons, than interest of the ratepayers--all of this as we read about the potential for a dual purpose rail yard that will be light and heavy industrial and bring up to 8,000 new jobs to our region. All of these decisions, many right on and others motivated by political or even personal visions which only time will tell of their wisdom, are intended for the growth and prosperity of our city and region.
So why now do these past elected officials lead the opposition to Amara? Anyone paying any attention at all knows that if all goes as projected, our community is over 9,000 units short of needed housing—particularly affordable, attainable housing for our military, first responders, teachers, healthcare workers, and others. Why would we not embrace this development and add a beautiful well-planned community providing housing for all income levels in an area of our community open for development within short community distance of the new jobs? Bob Gardner Colorado Springs According to the Gazette’s coverage, the La Plata developers propose to devote 665 of 9,500 residential structures to “affordable” housing. If you make the average salary in El Paso County, “affordable” would mean you could pay up to $1,575 per month on rent or a mortgage payment.
This would allow you to put down about $15,000 on a $200,000 house, so 665 lucky families might be able to buy or rent a house there, if La Plata lives up to its promise. No enlisted person below the rank of E9 could even make a month’s payment without completely depleting his/her monthly salary and still having to borrow. Don’t know what those lucky people would do for food or utilities.
Yet the project’s supporters cite as one reason for their support “to support . . .
the military service members and their families.” Guess they’re hoping for a population explosion among the field grade officer ranks. It appears that the true intention of La Plata is rather “to provide .
. . high quality needed housing in upscale communities to support the region’s continued growth.
” The Gazette coverage offers no estimates of the effect of providing utilities, police, fire, etc. to an additional 3,200 acres containing 9,500 homes and “millions of square feet of retail space, schools, parks and public facilities.” But guess who’ll be footing the bills? To pretend that the Amara development will contribute in any way to the crying need for affordable housing in this city is cynically absurd.
Those council members supporting this annexation should be required to explain their support more honestly. Malcolm McCollum Colorado Springs Here we go again. 105 acres of land west of Colorado 115 from Fort Carson to be considered for annexation to the city of Colorado Springs.
The flood gates are open. Yet, our mayor remains silent and our City Council continues to support the development community despite considerable opposition from the public. This is another annexation that is not in the best interests of the city of Colorado Springs.
Our local governance and decision authority needs change. We need to amend the City Charter to limit our City Council’s decision-making role and require a vote of the public for large annexations. We can no longer count on our City Council to represent public concerns regarding new developments.
I am surprised Fort Carson would support residential development near its post boarders when it requires a sizeable buffer for its military operations. Hopefully we can stop this annexation before it gains any momentum. Alan Goins Colorado Springs I do not approve of multi-high rise buildings and high density housing concepts: Colorado Springs is recognized as one of the best places to live in the country.
Why? I assert that low population density is one of many reasons Colorado Springs is so highly valued by others. The city planning employees of City Council seem to be bent on increasing population density and growth. Then mass transit can be pushed for environmental reasons.
They will look good meeting all the new concepts in housing. And Colorado Springs will look like Denver. No thank you.
Tall buildings are not low population density housing units. Once again, the City Council should allow the voters in Colorado Springs to voice their opinion on such monumental growth and view degradation. I am certain that most citizens prefer quality mountain views as opposed to tall buildings blocking city views.
We like residential soft as opposed to urban heavy. Daryl Kuiper Colorado Springs.
