ZIPLINE at Delwood/Ravenswood Subdivision

Reverend, I'm happy to say that most of the developments up there are directed to the other vistas, specifically those (in relative order) to the E, N and W. It seems unlikely that is coincidental, too, instead I believe there was an expectation a fairly major development would be at the corner of 285 with 43.

Not sure how I feel about this.

If my property was near where they wanted to put the zip line I would probably not be too happy.

But...I can see how the revenue would help the county and maybe some of the businesses up here so I am on the fence.

You can't stop progress and I would rather see a small grocery store vs a zip line place but I guess those that are closer to this will need to voice their opinion with the county.

If it were me and I could not stop it I would want them to deal with the lights at night and such.

One thing I really believe, the person who purchases this property has to cover any road maintenance and/or extra street lights. We can barely get them to plow the roads at times with the budget they have so at best I would say they need to pave the road to the entrance to reduce all the dust but that is just me.

Everything in life is a learning curve...we bought in Mill Iron D in 2004. The easy of commute/access to
285 was a great thing at first. THEN the CDOT project at Crow HIll was brought on line with the first
phase. The ORIGINAL plan was to eliminate BOTH lights,do a fly over. THAT would have been a better
traffic flow for 285 and would have eliminated MANY problems. 43A was contested by the owner of that
property and the end result was what you have now. WE MOVED in 2007 because of the road noise. WITHIN that same period of time, a community church bought a private lot with house(in MID) and proposed a mega church platform for the property. In the end, the traffic studies, REQUIRED pre plans were to expensive and the deal went south and STILL languishes to this day. (Some questionable practices were exposed and the membership was NOT behind the expansion.)

We NOW live 5 miles in on 43 and altho the commute is more dicey, the issue of road noise/congestion/expansion is NOT an issue. LESSON LEARNED.

When we were looking for homes in Bailey we also looked in Mill-Iron-D and almost bought one there but realized the noise from 285 at the house. It is not bad in that area if your house sits down or you are closer to the elementary school.

We bought in DCVR we have 5 acres and so do the lots the boarder our property so they houses are quite far apart.

We moved from Conifer Mountain as they built on the parcel behind us and the builder did not want to deal with driveway rules in Jeffco so he placed the house on skinniest part of the property so the house set about 20 feet from our property line. He then cut all the trees down so that there was a view of Denver from the house.

We moved to Bailey 4 years later and made sure we selected a home where this could not happen again.

I like neighbors but not right on top of me.

I am sure that many of the houses have been there for years so I do feel for them.

My husband saw this happen and reported it on the two consecutive days that it occurred.

A couple, man and wife, standing outside their brand-new home in MID across from what is now the building that houses the dental office and other commercial facilities, in the meadow just SW of the Loaf n Jug. At the time, it was still a meadow, and there were elk grazing there.

The couple was standing arm-in-arm, quietly enjoying their Score of such an incredible piece of land and a new home on it, just for them.

THE NEXT DAY the same couple was standing in the same place, and they were not arm-in-arm anymore. Rather, they were clinging to one another in horror! as an earth-digging construction machine was planted in the meadow right exactly where the elk had been before.

That is a PURCHASE flaw, the buyers need to know not only what IS there but what WILL be there as well as what MIGHT be there, and make that decision on that basis and no others. In Colorado, we have the remarkable and extraordinary ability to control those factors, and even if we have to downsize the residence to achieve them, we can ENSURE what we will see outside if that is our objective.

If our objective is a close commute, then that will be the Priority on that purchase, so of course it comes down to an issue of Priorities, from cost to location to that precious isolated setting.

What is the PRIORITY for Bailey? To be a great place for people to sleep, or for people to eventually not have to drive down to Denver for work and groceries? This is a vision that I would not impose on any community or client, but rather simply point out that it is a CHOICE to be made and considered among all the other Essentials.

Just for starters, if you are housing an elderly person in need of rapid medical care, that proximity to 285 looks pretty sweet -- and the DCVR setting that is so preciously tucked away? -- that is a dangerous place where Grandma might be found on the cold floor someday while neighbors worry not a bit since after all, she is a reclusive person and is undoubtedly just FINE over there as always.

These are CHOICES so it is with gladness that I see them being discussed, no matter how toxic or upsetting the topic, it needs to be put on the table and without any more BS. I have heard enough complaints from prior business owners and members of the Chamber of Commerce who have just flat given up on Bailey, such that those in title of RE deeds should wake up.

For the RE buying consumer, the issue is, Is there PEACE FOR ME UP THERE? So I would ask you, is there? or do you feel you have to Schmooze one or more Insiders in order to EXPERIENCE peace? this is a factual matter and not an opinion, that is what licensed people MUST report and so now the question is On the Table for public consideration and PUBLIC DECISION on whatever issues actually exist and are in Power and Control over others' investments.

Readers should consider these published remarks, and consider WHAT IS THE AFFIRMATIVE VISION before they OBJECT to someone else's.

We who object are free to do so based on what we don't like about the project. If another proposed use doesn't seem something we want, we can object to that one too.

These issues fall to the Squeeky Wheel Syndrome. Who has the TIME to spend on issues like this?

As an analogy: How are Home Owner Associations generally managed? BY THE PERSON WITH THE MOST TIME TO SPEND and those WITH THE MOST TO WIN at that Game, that is how. Is that the most ACCOMPLISHED person, for that task? is that the person with the best vision? and if so, then

Is that a COMMUNITY vision, or is that a PERSONAL vision?

For this we have elections, and in Bailey which is an unincorporated entity, we have GOSSIP in lieu of a Community Vision.

And THAT is what my consumers have uniformly told me is the case, and why they are not very happy in Bailey anymore. "If you are in the In Crowd, your objective is supported, and otherwise -- we will see you at the Planning Commission meeting, and GOOD LUCK to y'all."

Rather than remaining an Outpost of Jefferson County with a County Seat in the middle of South Park, I would prefer to see Bailey incorporate AS A MUNICIPAL ENTITY and put itself on the darned MAP instead of watching it continue to struggle as a poverty-stricken Cousin of Jeffco, slung across and divided by US Highway 285 en route to Santa Fe and the southern states Beyond.

Per High Timber Times (pay article)
Park County Planning Commission recommends against aerial park
By Gabrielle Porter
Wednesday, January 14, 2015