OCR Text |
Show PAGE 4 THE ZEPHYRDECEMBER 1994 To me, there are three major areas of concern: of the three concerns, it still troubles me die most 1) The visual impact. The most subjective While downtown Moab continues Almost a million people come to the Moab area every year. one of the most spectacular backdrops to fill with fast food franchises and motels, we still have still takes my breath away. We may 20 of any town in the West. After living here almost year?, it the West Wall are as pristine and have made a mess of the rest of the valley but the Portal and thousand years ago. The view is unblemished as they were a hundred years ago. Or a hundred as priceless as it bms timeless. all know what thousands of bicyclists have done to 2) Impacts to adjacent public lands. We the Sand Flats area above Moab. It bares little similarity to the quiet, mostly ignored landscape of a decade ago. Why should anyone believe that easy access to the top of the Portal won't lead to the same kind of destruction? The Portal Recreation Area Plan projects 3) Safety Concerns and Costs to the Taxpayer. to reach the tram is via Kane (Seek 200,000 visitors to the tram within a few years. The only way a season using these two road?, through Blvd. or 500 West Imagine 70,000 to 80,000 vehicles residential areas, past the also proposed Grand County Landfill Transfer Station, to reach the lower tram terminus. What is the risk to children? How much will it cost to provide sidewalks and realign the junction for pedestrians along these routes? How much will it cost to will pay for these who most And West? 500 importantly, of Kane Creek Blvd and The Tram & Ridgeline Development... Almost Inevitable? Over the last year, this newspaper has reported from time to time on a plan to build a tram, or to be mare accurate a chairlift, to the top of the Portal, just south of the Colorado River. Most citizens assume the towering sandstone cliffs that provide such a spectacular backdrop for the Moab Valley are publicly owned and will remain unspoiled and untouched no matter how badly developed the rest of the community becomes. They're wrong. Much of die south Portal, the land on top, the diff itself, and the property at die base, is privately owned and has been for years. Most Grand County residents are just now hearing about the proposed tram, assume it's a new idea and think that it has very little chance of becoming a reality. It's not a new idea and they're wrong again. Longtime resident Emmett Mays has talked about this project for decades. And unless there is massive public opposition to the project, it could be operating by next summer. In fact, Mr. Mays obtained zoning for this project more than improvements? What about the Kane Creek Road beyond the tram. The road narrows as it winds its way around the Portal and follows the Colorado River. The road is, in fact, just barely two lanes wide few people use it. But as more right now. It is not currently a major safety hazard because so will make use of the road. of them more and tourists are drawn to that part of town, mare Accidents will occur and demands for road improvements will follow. Again, how much will it cost, and who foots the bill? Last Tuesday, the City Council voted to begin the process for annexation. If the city chooses to annex the property, it then exercises control over the dedsion-makin- g process. The plan would have to be discussed at a public hearing, and finally, the City Council can approve the plan, force modifications, or reject it The City could also require the tram owners to cany a bond on the project that would require removal of the development if the venture fails. And it could pass a "sensitive lands ordinance, an idea the Gty Council has been considering for awhile, that could restrict the use of certain lands in and around the Moab city limits. If the Gty chooses to approve the tram, citizens would have little recourse other than a referendum-typ- e election, similar to the 1988 toxic waste incinerator controversy. Grand County citizens voted to limit and restrict certain types of businesses within a commercial zone. There is another option, or at least there bms. It's a shame the Bureau of Land Management never offered Mr. Mays a land exchange. Far instance, had the BLM considered giving him BLM lands on the east side of the valley, in exchange for the Portal property, he'd have more accessible land to develop and the Portal would be preserved. As saddened as I am by talk of any ridgeline development, I'd rather see a trade than a tram. One thing is certain. Without massive public participation and opposition, the tram is a done deal. Even the public officials who have expressed reservations will do nothing if they don't believe the public is behind them. Election Results... subscribers and for those of you who detest reality and are just now For our crawling out of your underground shelters, here are the election results for the three County out-of-tow- n Council seats: At-Larg- e: The approximate location of the tram. District 1 Ray Pene......l,500 John Hartley....872 Dale Mosher.. ...275 Will Petty .219 District 3 Bart Leavitt. ...187 Tom StengeL....178 Tom Arnold. .62 Vickie Stroud.... CHS a decade ago, and while it has hardly been a topic of discussion until recendy, everyone who has lived here awhile has been aware of the plan, at least as one man's crazy dream. In this age of shifting politics and "individual property rights," the question still has to be asked: When those property rights negatively affect the community, should the individual's rights be compromised? Where do we draw die line? Who decides it's negative? For instance, 1 find almost all development negative because I'm hopelessly dinging to the past I think there is nothing as lovely as a ridgeline devoid of any and all human intrusions. My pal Randy Day, the real estate devdoper, on die other hand, finds almost all development positive. Randy thinks there is nothing so beautiful as a ridgeline subdivision. The Portal Recreation Area will be developed in three phases. Rather than presenting it in my own wards and with my own spin, we've printed the proposal verbatim as it appears in the "Portal Recreation Area Business Ran, September 1993."(S pages 16 & 17) For the governing bodies of this community to make a decision about the tram, based at least in part on the public's response to it, the public has to know what the dan is. So do the governing bodies, for that matter. So., is die tram such an intrusion on the citizens of Moab that consideration should be given the by governing bodies of Grand County to drastically modify or even reject the plan? Would somebody turn off the lights! The National Park Service raised the ire of more than a few Spanish Valley residents last summer when the agency moved into cavernous new offices a few miles south of town. Security lights that ring the building practically lit up all of Spanish Valley according to some, obliterated the night sky for many, and became a public relations nightmare for the NFS. The problem is, the Park Service doesn't own the building. The new headquarters was privately constructed and is leased by the Park Service through GSA (General Services Administration). According to Administrative Officer Gail Menard, the NPS is not supposed to alter the building or the operation of the building in any way. Still, the lights were cut off last summer after numerous complaints from Spanish Valley residents. But now, with ever shorter days, the Park felt the need for some lighting and attempted to find a compromise. Since the lights cannot be turned on and off separately, about half the light bulbs were disconnected. Menard says they are once again receiving complaints. There's no place like home for the holidays,.. Home on the Range Gifts Unique Christmas Fun Furnishings Gift Certificates 125 N. Main St. 259-88- 64 . |