Wellness center: an opportunity missed

Wellness center: an opportunity missed

There are 32 comments on the Estes Park Trail-Gazette story from Nov 15, 2013, titled Wellness center: an opportunity missed. In it, Estes Park Trail-Gazette reports that:

There's no question that the Estes Park Town Board's 4-2 vote to not approve a contract for the sale of Lot 4 in the Stanley Historic District was a punch in the gut to Stanley Hotel owner John Cullen .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Estes Park Trail-Gazette.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Snarky comments

Fort Collins, CO

#21 Nov 17, 2013
won't get you anywhere, RFi, not anywhere at all.......
RFi wrote:
At least we know how to use a smartphone...LOL. They are a good time management tool.......... Its part of living in the 21st century, you should try it sometime.......... If you don't agree with progress, then move to Pinewood, Allenspark, or Ward.
Five hundred seventy five

Fort Collins, CO

#22 Nov 17, 2013
votes for the youngest candidate in the 2012 trustee elections. That would be Mike Williams -{who I voted for, BTW}.

RFi - talking about change is one thing, but apathy and not showing up at the polls trumps 'wanting' change......complaining afterwards is easy. It's a bit of a cliche, but the oft heard comment "If you didn't vote, you have no standing to b^tch" applies to local trustee elections, too.......

The total voter turnout - 4709 - was pathetic.

And back to your snarky ageism comments - there are plenty of people over 50 who want to see change in this town. For most of them their apathy matches the younger generation. If you think you're going to make progress with an "us vs them" theme pitting young against old, you best think again.....
Sabercat 48

Estes Park, CO

#23 Nov 18, 2013
Truth wrote:
Actually those trip wires were met... all that was expected to be turned in was turned and approved before the Board meeting. The clown that stood up and scathingly accused the project of failing to do so was completely wrong, no matter his little self-righteous speech. There was a memo from the Town project planner that stated all the submissions were complete. I can post the email if you would like. So that is just typical of how uninformed people say whatever they want and it can go unchallenged.
Also, communities across our country fast-track projects all the time. This was an opportunity and it is what is required in business sometimes. Fast-track does not mean short-cut. This was a professional project with checks and balances along the way to make it a viable project for the community. The fast-tracking was a compression of time not a reduction of submittal requirements.
Please post the email that shows that all submissions were complete!
Sabercat 48

Estes Park, CO

#24 Nov 18, 2013
Adam Shake wrote:
Tuesday evening was not about the project. It was about the peoples right to vote. You should be offended, regardless of whether you are for or against the project, that your voice was taken from you.
And speaking of voices, instead of using a pseudonym to write comments, how about posting your real name, lest your comments not be taken seriously. My name is Adam Shake and I don't wear a mask.
Agreed, this was about the peoples right to vote which was clearly spelled out in the editorial written by the Trail Gazette. In addition, they ran a front page story also! The ed-op was on the editorial page only!
you had

Denver, CO

#25 Nov 18, 2013
"The total voter turnout - 4709 - was pathetic."
better check the total population---not many more than that...not everyone that has an Estes address lives in the city limits---
Carolyn

Ann Arbor, MI

#26 Nov 18, 2013
Five hundred seventy five wrote:
votes for the youngest candidate in the 2012 trustee elections. That would be Mike Williams -{who I voted for, BTW}.
RFi - talking about change is one thing, but apathy and not showing up at the polls trumps 'wanting' change......complaining afterwards is easy. It's a bit of a cliche, but the oft heard comment "If you didn't vote, you have no standing to b^tch" applies to local trustee elections, too.......
The total voter turnout - 4709 - was pathetic.
And back to your snarky ageism comments - there are plenty of people over 50 who want to see change in this town. For most of them their apathy matches the younger generation. If you think you're going to make progress with an "us vs them" theme pitting young against old, you best think again.....
I am following this discussion from a distance because I have family in the area and feel very strongly about seeing Estes Park sustain itself into the future. I don't know enough to have an opinion on the development being discussed, BUT I would just like to make the observation that a turnout of 79%(4700 out of a population of 6000) is pretty incredible from my side of reality. If I were to see that kind of turn out in my community, I would be shocked. We normally get in the 30% range.

To the issue at hand, maybe this "loss of opportunity" can be the start of a dialog within the community to develop a "master plan" about the direction Estes Park wants to take for its future. Surely, there has be a way to come to a consensus on the best way to keep Estes Park's small town charm while helping those who live year round have an easier time making ends meet.
Stats hard to find

Fort Collins, CO

#27 Nov 19, 2013
That '4709' figure was the total number of votes cast for trustees, not the numbers of voters who participated (my mistake - sorry).

Voters could cast votes for UP TO THREE candidates. But nowhere can I find a reference to the number of eligible voters who participated in the election. D@mn - why does the county make it so difficult to get basic information?

The actual participation in Estes Park has regularly been about 1500 voters. And yes, a large part of the Estes Valley can not vote for Estes Park trustees. Most of those subdivisions are out of 'city' limits by their own choice.
Mark Keegan

Canton, OH

#28 Nov 19, 2013
I recently purchased one of the bank owned condominiums at Marys Lake. My wife and I decided to invest in this town, because of the beauty and charm that is Estes Park. We are extremely disappointed that the trustees did not support this type of project, which is exactly what is needed in this community.
As a municipal banker, I have been involved with many credit evaluations of cities and towns. When the commercial sector is willing to invest and drive tax dollars into a municipality, especially a town so dependent on tourism, it's hard to understand the rationale.
The trustee's responsibility is to enable the continued economic growth of the town, while balancing the environmental boundaries that make this area what it is.
This project wasn't another go cart track or putt putt golf course. Too many former tourism towns, nested in beautiful locations like this, have become displaced by areas that understood that growth is a necessity.
EPVirtualNative

Denver, CO

#29 Nov 19, 2013
Perhaps the editorial should have been themed, "John Cullen: Hoisted By His Own Petard." If memory serves, about ten years ago, Mr. Cullen, through a "third party" worked within the system to make sure that Lot 4 and it's sale was subject to citizen approval. This was not because he was THAT concerned with preserving Lot 4. Obvious to nearly everyone who wanted to see it, Mr. Cullen did not like the idea that a wedding/event center that would have competed with his hotel was being planned for Lot 4. Never mind that the developer and his family were already operating a wedding venue a mere stones throw behind the Stanley. It was not like a new operator was proposing this. This would have probably added to the interest in weddings and events at both facilities. Mr. Cullen should know that furniture stores and other businesses like to be near similar businesses. It builds traffic and increases interest So now Lot 4 has to be voted on by the people.
I did not detect the trustees being against or negative toward this proposal. You could reach and say that John Phipps was a somewhat skeptical voice on the board. The board granted an option to the EPIC people for a town owned parking lot. They will have to submit plans for review. Have funding in place. We await their next move. Go through the archives and read about the once in a lifetime opportunity that the Pinnacle/Peregrine Golf Development was going to be. People got behind it and supported it. Turned out to be a big nothing. While we are at it, Outlet Mall, anyone?
This whole deal seems like it was rushed on purpose. Less than two weeks after the flood and a seeming white knight on a steed is going to rush in to rescue Estes Park? It had the feel of being at a car dealership or any other vendor of big ticket items. When you are told you have to decide today it should be a red flag. It was almost like he thought that Estes Park would be so strapped for cash after the flood that the board/citizens would jump at the chance to get some quick cash to meet a temporary shortfall by selling Lot 4. Cullen himself said that this was a part of HIS master plan for the future for the Stanley Historic District. Lot 4 is not going away. If this proposed center is as solid as we're being told, making sure the i's are dotted and t's crossed is not going to hurt anything over the long term. There is still a chance to make this happen if Mr. Cullen wants to go through the review and really sell it as the shot in the economic arm it is being billed as.
In the beginning we were told that 20-30 equivalent full time jobs would be created. That "e" word is a tricky one. Does that mean 30 jobs at 40 hours? Or could it be 60 jobs at 20 hours a week? The most recent number is up to 60 jobs. Who will hold these positions? Folks from the valley? People that move here from out of town? None of that really helps families that live here now who are looking for opportunity.How will it help the underfunded school district/hospital district? Too often we hear, "It will be good for the economy" when a developer is proposing something that they want fast tracked through. Yes, you answer when opportunity knocks. But even the most forward thinking companies understand that some of the most progressive cities have layers of review and approval that projects have to go through. The question still seeking an answer is this: If this was a part of his long term plan, why did he wait until we were at our lowest point to float this proposal? Too many people are confused about this concept and what it actually is.
Maybe some stories on the progress of the Multi Purpose Events Center and it's potential impact on the local economy would be helpful. How has the Ranch complex affected the economies of Loveland and Fort Collins? Have those facilities been a positive or negative for the communities they are located in?

And what if the people voted no on the Lot 4 sale? Who is to blame then?
Become a resident

United States

#30 Nov 19, 2013
If you become a Colorado and Estes Park resident, making Estes your primary residence, you will be able to vote and have some say in town matters. If your condo is just a second home or a rental investment, well, you'll have no vote, and your opinions will matter little. BTW - it's the second home market that has been driving up housing prices and makes a housing purchase prohibitive to younger and lower middle class workers - one of the BIG problems here is Estes.
Mark Keegan wrote:
I recently purchased one of the bank owned condominiums at Marys Lake. My wife and I decided to invest in this town,........
Mark Keegan

Powell, OH

#31 Nov 20, 2013
Become a resident wrote:
If you become a Colorado and Estes Park resident, making Estes your primary residence, you will be able to vote and have some say in town matters. If your condo is just a second home or a rental investment, well, you'll have no vote, and your opinions will matter little. BTW - it's the second home market that has been driving up housing prices and makes a housing purchase prohibitive to younger and lower middle class workers - one of the BIG problems here is Estes.
<quoted text>
While you have a valid concern regarding affordable housing, investment in a community by individuals and the private sector, without using local tax dollars to subsidize growth, benefits all in the community.
Non resident owners are still paying taxes, which support the community and provide another option for tourists to choose this magnificent area for their vacation dollars.
Aging towns need to reinvest, or everybody loses.
Estes is not a aging town

Estes Park, CO

#32 Nov 21, 2013
just look at our brand new roads leading into Estes from Lyons and Loveland. Fool.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Glen Haven Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Longmont man convicted of stalking ex girlfriend Jul 2 Zebra 1
News The government may soon decide who's a craft br... Jul 2 Miss Id 2
News Woman finds 8.52-carat diamond at state park Jun 28 Jenji Licious 2
News Hartford Homes begins construction on 287-home ... Jun 10 jenny010101 1
News Colorado valedictorian comes out during graduat... Jun '15 Fa-Foxy 22
News Colorado braces for more storms after tornadoes... Jun '15 Satan Pickets 1
News Longmont School Asks For Outside Review Of Ban ... Jun '15 Belle Sexton 8
More from around the web

Glen Haven People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Glen Haven Mortgages