Log in

Good reason

If you need a good reason to vote no on the Palisades project, let me give you two.

1. Take a look at the color photo in the developer’s brochure and last Wednesday’s paper. Then realize, that is the view of the project along the last quarter mile of Palisades before intersecting Shea. Now imagine yourself driving that stretch of Palisades toward Shea today, looking left over the existing hills to Red Mountain and Gunsight. Then envision that same view with those hills flattened and 40'-high Park Place apartments replacing them. That’s the view you’ll have post development.

You must be a member to read this story.

Join our family of readers starting at $5 for your first month and support local, unbiased journalism.


Already have an account? Log in to continue.

Otherwise, follow the link below to join.

Please log in to continue

Log in
I am anchor

Good reason

Posted

If you need a good reason to vote no on the Palisades project, let me give you two.

1. Take a look at the color photo in the developer’s brochure and last Wednesday’s paper. Then realize, that is the view of the project along the last quarter mile of Palisades before intersecting Shea. Now imagine yourself driving that stretch of Palisades toward Shea today, looking left over the existing hills to Red Mountain and Gunsight. Then envision that same view with those hills flattened and 40'-high Park Place apartments replacing them. That’s the view you’ll have post development.

2. Consider the economic environment we presently find ourselves in. What do you think is the likelihood the developer will actually break ground on this project any time soon? Not bloody likely! However, if they are successful in getting the zoning changed, the land suddenly becomes readily marketable to the next Park Place developer who comes along with no chance for negotiation while existing home owner values take the hit.

Maintaining the views and character of our community? Poppycock. Bringing tremendous revenue to the town? A measly $200,000 (their estimate) annually, at best! Vote no on 427 and 428.

Share with others


Have an opinion on this story? Click here to send a letter to our editors.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here