Dear Editor,

Nederland appears to be on the verge of some very large changes. With Ron Mitchell’s plan to develop downtown and Kayla Evans’ upcoming proposal to annex land and turn open space and natural forest into a large condo development, Nederland needs to be very thoughtful about how it approaches the next few years.

Combined, these two proposed projects will nearly increase Nederland’s population by 50% and the town’s character will forever be changed. I argue the town cannot support both projects without wrecking our accustomed way of life.

Change is inevitable and if we are to embrace change we better be as thoughtful as possible.

There are clear reasons to support and prioritize the redevelopment of downtown and clear reasons to avoid annexing open lands and developing them. The former is thoughtful town planning, the latter creates the kind of urban sprawl that can wreak havoc on nature and deplete our finite resources.

Here are several reasons to prioritize the downtown development and forego annexation of Bobcat Ridge.

1) Aging infrastructure will need to be replaced. Much has already been said about the aging infrastructure of the buildings downtown. The buildings are old, their plumbing is failing. Yes, they have character, but it is inevitable these buildings will need to be rebuilt and replaced. It is very unlikely the town will have another private owner like Mr. Mitchell, able to create a cohesive update to these aging structures.

2) Traffic. More households mean more cars, more traffic, and even less town parking. We already have traffic problems and we already don’t have enough town parking. Building a large community outside Ned’s boundaries will mean substantially more cars commuting into and through town – exacerbating our traffic issues and even further straining limited town parking. Adding parking and concentrating housing in the center of town, as Mr. Mitchell’s plan does, provides the opportunity for these new residents to travel by foot – which will significantly reduce the impact of traffic and the carbon footprint of the new residents.

3) Our tax dollars. Nederland has existing utilities to support development IN TOWN. On the flip side, adding a large development outside of our boundary requires considerable dollars for new utility infrastructure and will undoubtedly increase our tax dollars to support a sprawling utility network.

4) Nature/Open Space. The difference between these two options cannot be overstated. We humans are continuously encroaching into the natural areas around us, displacing more and more wildlife. The population of wildlife species has decreased by nearly 50% in the last 50 years, a trend that is accelerating. The downtown development utilizes space that ALREADY exists for us humans. Annexation on the other hand, means we are encroaching even further into the natural environment we’d all love to protect. Most of us live up here because of our open space, why encroach further if we don’t have to?

5) Water. Being at the headwaters (high in the mountains) does not mean that we have the right to all this water. In fact, our water rights are paltry compared to larger and thirsty municipalities. The town of Nederland currently has water rights to support all of the citizens within the boundary of the town and historically our water has been sufficient.

But our water rights are NOT infinite. Nederland’s water rights exist for citizens living within our town boundary- including Mr. Mitchell’s proposed development.

Annexing land outside of town for major developments such as Bobcat Ridge, begs the question about water availability. Should the town really consider stretching our limited water rights to developments that are not already a part of these rights?

Nederland can and should use several areas within town to build water storage facilities to increase our water storage capacity. But what effect will climate change have on the reliability of our water source? Can we support this additional growth during drought years? As citizens of the town, are we OK diluting our current water rights to extend the town boundaries and pull in hundreds more people?

Let’s not trade away our future water rights for the sake of massive condo developments OUTSIDE of our boundaries that don’t currently have these same water rights.

We must encourage the Board of Trustees to reflect on these two proposals with extreme care – taking into account costs, water, public safety, public service, traffic, parking and most importantly open space/ wildlife preservation. It is obvious that the downtown development better suits the citizens of Nederland.

Barbara Cochran

Nederland