Mr. Hughes, your legacy will be writ large in Old Colorado City, as Christopher Wren’s in St. Paul’s Cathedral: If you seek his monument, look around you.
We recognize and honor your many significant accomplishments, sir, in many fields of endeavor. But “let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation” of Old Colorado City residents. Thank you for lighting the torch, and for carrying it so long. Rest now. Pax tecum.
Mr. Hughes, now those same Westside residents and business owners will turn to finding alternative proposals that further the goals you set long ago, and continue the work you started long ago, in Old Colorado City. I’m sure their efforts in support of alternative proposals will far exceed their efforts in opposing the withdrawn proposal. Certainly the separate availability of the more commercially viable south parcel, which had been bundled with the north parcel until Kum & Go’s unsolicited offer (and which Goodwill insisted could not be unbundled, despite interest shown previously by other parties), will make alternative proposals more feasible. In fact, alternative proposals already have been advanced.
Mr. Hughes, the contentious issues never concerned Goodwill. Theirs is a worthy charity, just as Kum & Go is a respectable corporation. The Westside has supported and literally surrounded Goodwill for decades, and faith in their mission remains unshaken. The contentious issues concerned the proposed use, not the buyer or the seller. Do you know that as a matter of law, neither could the City consider Goodwill’s pressing need for funds when deciding an application? Such laws keep us from convenient but unfortunate compromises, the very kind you warn against in your written history of OCC’s redevelopment. Despite this small setback, both Goodwill and Kum & Go will keep calm and carry on.
Mr. Hughes, isn’t this the way American democracy is supposed to work? Proposals are mooted, and discussion ensues. Sometimes proposals are more reasonable than others, and sometimes discussions are more passionate than others. The Westside residents and business owners who rose suddenly and together were exercising their individual political rights just as surely as Kum & Go was exercising its corporate property rights. Eventually all parties heard each other, and the contentious issues were clear. Kum & Go reconsidered the opportunities and risks, costs and benefits, and reached a responsible business decision. They withdrew their proposal so that a more appropriate and harmonious redevelopment could be undertaken … a point they graciously conceded in their message. Sometimes the process is messy and noisy, but no laws were broken, and no bullets flew. Please trust the process, sir, and respect the collective wisdom of your longtime neighbors and friends.
@k&gsolartransport: (1) Kum & Go's CEO states that the convenience store would employ 18 staff, not 35 to 40 staff. (2) Owning property doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want with it; neither can you turn it into a park, not turn it into an adult bookstore, with disregard for city planning. Kum & Go run a successful, and in many ways an admirable, corporation. The crux of the issue is whether a convenience store/ filling station is appropriate for that location, across the street from the Colorado Territory's first capitol building, and adjacent to a National Historical District. Does it further the long-term residential and business goals of Old Colorado City, or is it a compromise of temporary convenience? @Mr Hazlehurst: Thank you for a particularly sagacious article.
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation