What the Corridor REALLY Needs is Another Shopping Center

I'm OK with responsible development. But the attitude of "If you build it, they will come." is extremely short sighted and definately smacks of greed and dishonesty. I remember a few years ago when the KV property was nothing but rocks, dirt piles and windblown and intentionally dumped garbage. It felt good to drive by and believe that things might actually be happening to better the place. But I also remember hearing how those new units would be occupied any day now. :pop It should have been a sign for the developer at that property of bad things to come when Longs garage could not even stay afloat and other newer properties along the corridor were changing busineses almost annually. (Many are still vacant BTW)

Hopefully the economy will improve and these troubled vacant lands can be fruitful. It makes no sense to tear them down now. BUT, we all should see these things coming and attend the planning meetings to find out the "truths" and who and what are behind these ventures. It is our responsibility to get involved to make sure that the improvements to OUR community are planned correctly and will be of beneficial use. And this is NOT a County boundary issue folks. The Bailey and Conifer areas are too closely linked socially and economically for anyone to ignore future development on the basis of county affiliation.

If you disagree with the way a property is/was planned or developed it is your RIGHT to not spend your money there if you think it will make a difference. It's not like your taking your business all the way down to Denver, but just a few miles up or down the corridor.

No, you can't put back the mountain after they've torn it down to build (overpriced, largely empty) store fronts.

But you are within your rights to choose to boycott businesses in them, if for no other reason than it may discourage would-be developers from tearing down any more mountains.

Personally....I wouldn't. But I can see how some might.

I don't want to hear "It's already there, so use it and shut up." I don't have many options, but the one option I DO have is to NOT give them any of my business...and to encourage others to do the same. I'll say it again, in case it was missed the first time--If I can help bankrupt these a**holes so that they don't scrape any more land, then I will have done the only thing that is within my power to do. If that leaves an eyesore at the entrance to Kings Valley--you're right...it's already there. Let it be a warning to the next bozo that wants to rape my neighborhood.

homeagain wrote:

The Viking wrote:

homeagain wrote: AHEM, May I point out a VERY important part of the equation that no one is addressing......your COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ok these projects and gave them their blessings. Just WHERE does the blame settle? From my POV, you are required to look further into the
problem and truly understand what is the MOTIVE behind the approvals (from the BOCC).......the Safeway complex (new) was NOT a
clear cut piece of land when presented to the public for review. The motive is MONEY,GREED,not what is best for the community/mountain/land.JMO

That is great but how does fighting to make them vacant and unemploy our neighbors (like LJ wants) going to change something that is already here? There is nothing else planned on being built so why are we fighting against business owners who are already here trying to make a living and feed their families?

The problem, as I see it,is APATHY.....people do NOT pay attention to what their government reps are doing(in this case the BOCC). I see this problem from both perspectives. LJ's heart,soul and whole being is
OFFENDED that mountain/land/community is not the first consideration. (I,also,have taken the stance of not/or rarely utilizing Safeway,
as I have stated before KARMA is a true thing,and when the land/mountain is disrespected there ARE ramifications.) I understand that
people need their jobs to sustain their life on the mountain,BUT the businesses that signed onto these insane leases have a heavy hand
in the problem. IF more businesses had BACKED AWAY from the leases and given STRONG feedback why,then other choices/options MIGHT have been worked out.....the business model (for the centers) was poorly researched and THAT factor falls upon the developer/banks/shoulders. SORRY, I would have NEVER agreed to the insane lease arrangements had I been a business owner looking into locations for my business.......DUE DILIGENCE is what was lacking from many of the parties involved.(sorry for break in text)

OK, back to a previous question I asked LJ which she won't answer. Was the mountain and land 'disrespected' as you say, when they tore it down to build your house or the development you live in? And were there ramifications back on you for buying there? Why is it always OK to build up until you are there then after that, everything should stop or they should be condemed for building in a new area, but yours was justifyed? Why?

Photo-fish wrote: I'm OK with responsible development. But the attitude of "If you build it, they will come." is extremely short sighted and definately smacks of greed and dishonesty. I remember a few years ago when the KV property was nothing but rocks, dirt piles and windblown and intentionally dumped garbage. It felt good to drive by and believe that things might actually be happening to better the place. But I also remember hearing how those new units would be occupied any day now. :pop It should have been a sign for the developer at that property of bad things to come when Longs garage could not even stay afloat and other newer properties along the corridor were changing busineses almost annually. (Many are still vacant BTW)

Hopefully the economy will improve and these troubled vacant lands can be fruitful. It makes no sense to tear them down now. BUT, we all should see these things coming and attend the planning meetings to find out the "truths" and who and what are behind these ventures. It is our responsibility to get involved to make sure that the improvements to OUR community are planned correctly and will be of beneficial use. And this is NOT a County boundary issue folks. The Bailey and Conifer areas are too closely linked socially and economically for anyone to ignore future development on the basis of county affiliation.

If you disagree with the way a property is/was planned or developed it is your RIGHT to not spend your money there if you think it will make a difference. It's not like your taking your business all the way down to Denver, but just a few miles up or down the corridor.

How will it make a difference with the already built developments, wanting them to go under? And how will those people feel who lose their jobs when local businesses shut down just because people are trying to make a point rather than realizing that there are REAL people and families involved here and not just numbers and buildings.

The Viking wrote:

homeagain wrote:

The Viking wrote:

homeagain wrote: AHEM, May I point out a VERY important part of the equation that no one is addressing......your COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ok these projects and gave them their blessings. Just WHERE does the blame settle? From my POV, you are required to look further into the
problem and truly understand what is the MOTIVE behind the approvals (from the BOCC).......the Safeway complex (new) was NOT a
clear cut piece of land when presented to the public for review. The motive is MONEY,GREED,not what is best for the community/mountain/land.JMO

That is great but how does fighting to make them vacant and unemploy our neighbors (like LJ wants) going to change something that is already here? There is nothing else planned on being built so why are we fighting against business owners who are already here trying to make a living and feed their families?

The problem, as I see it,is APATHY.....people do NOT pay attention to what their government reps are doing(in this case the BOCC). I see this problem from both perspectives. LJ's heart,soul and whole being is
OFFENDED that mountain/land/community is not the first consideration. (I,also,have taken the stance of not/or rarely utilizing Safeway,
as I have stated before KARMA is a true thing,and when the land/mountain is disrespected there ARE ramifications.) I understand that
people need their jobs to sustain their life on the mountain,BUT the businesses that signed onto these insane leases have a heavy hand
in the problem. IF more businesses had BACKED AWAY from the leases and given STRONG feedback why,then other choices/options MIGHT have been worked out.....the business model (for the centers) was poorly researched and THAT factor falls upon the developer/banks/shoulders. SORRY, I would have NEVER agreed to the insane lease arrangements had I been a business owner looking into locations for my business.......DUE DILIGENCE is what was lacking from many of the parties involved.(sorry for break in text)

OK, back to a previous question I asked LJ which she won't answer. Was the mountain and land 'disrespected' as you say, when they tore it down to build your house or the development you live in? And were there ramifications back on you for buying there?

MY subdivision was not clear-cut,I bought a previously owned home and the landscape was intact when I bought. I know from my
neighbor across the road that the parcel had minimal clearing of the land and the trees were NOT ripped out. We have lived in MANY
houses thru the years and I can tell you that my VERY first prerequisite for purchasing is this......the integrity of the land is ALWAYS
present....I will NOT buy a clear-cut piece of property for my home. But then, I am an oddity when it comes to purchasing a home.....
I ALWAYS view the land/house/'hood as my sanctuary and my respite from the world. It is who I am.....

homeagain wrote:

The Viking wrote:

homeagain wrote:

The Viking wrote:

homeagain wrote: AHEM, May I point out a VERY important part of the equation that no one is addressing......your COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ok these projects and gave them their blessings. Just WHERE does the blame settle? From my POV, you are required to look further into the
problem and truly understand what is the MOTIVE behind the approvals (from the BOCC).......the Safeway complex (new) was NOT a
clear cut piece of land when presented to the public for review. The motive is MONEY,GREED,not what is best for the community/mountain/land.JMO

That is great but how does fighting to make them vacant and unemploy our neighbors (like LJ wants) going to change something that is already here? There is nothing else planned on being built so why are we fighting against business owners who are already here trying to make a living and feed their families?

The problem, as I see it,is APATHY.....people do NOT pay attention to what their government reps are doing(in this case the BOCC). I see this problem from both perspectives. LJ's heart,soul and whole being is
OFFENDED that mountain/land/community is not the first consideration. (I,also,have taken the stance of not/or rarely utilizing Safeway,
as I have stated before KARMA is a true thing,and when the land/mountain is disrespected there ARE ramifications.) I understand that
people need their jobs to sustain their life on the mountain,BUT the businesses that signed onto these insane leases have a heavy hand
in the problem. IF more businesses had BACKED AWAY from the leases and given STRONG feedback why,then other choices/options MIGHT have been worked out.....the business model (for the centers) was poorly researched and THAT factor falls upon the developer/banks/shoulders. SORRY, I would have NEVER agreed to the insane lease arrangements had I been a business owner looking into locations for my business.......DUE DILIGENCE is what was lacking from many of the parties involved.(sorry for break in text)

OK, back to a previous question I asked LJ which she won't answer. Was the mountain and land 'disrespected' as you say, when they tore it down to build your house or the development you live in? And were there ramifications back on you for buying there?

MY subdivision was not clear-cut,I bought a previously owned home and the landscape was intact when I bought. I know from my
neighbor across the road that the parcel had minimal clearing of the land and the trees were NOT ripped out. We have lived in MANY
houses thru the years and I can tell you that my VERY first prerequisite for purchasing is this......the integrity of the land is ALWAYS
present....I will NOT buy a clear-cut piece of property for my home. But then, I am an oddity when it comes to purchasing a home.....
I ALWAYS view the land/house/'hood as my sanctuary and my respite from the world. It is who I am.....

Fair enough and I can respect that. As long as you are consistent. But I know that the house LJ lives in is part of a development that use to be a mountain, even if it was many years ago, but now has many roads through it and hundreds of homes where the mountain use to be. But she had no problem living there but anything AFTER she moved in should be stopped. THAT is a hypocrite!

Gee, I wonder which part of "I HAVE YOU ON IGNORE" (so I don't see his questions) he doesn't get? If not for HomeAgain's quote, I wouldn't have seen it at all.

I'm not the original owner of my house... The land my house sits on was not "cleared". They didn't "tear anything down.".. I'm sure they had to remove 3-4 trees to build it, but the rest of my property is so dense with trees that when you stand in the driveway and look north, you can't see the road. *I* didn't clear anything--The house was an existing house. It looks to me like the builders removed the fewest number of trees possible, and there is still a beautiful moss-covered rock outcropping in the back; and there is a 200' tall Douglas Fir so close to my bathroom window I can't see anything except to the right and left of it.

He can take "hypocritical" and shove it up....... For someone who basically doesn't care much about other people's jobs, isn't it amazing that he's suddenly bat-sh*t crazy about the 2 or 3 at the Kum & Go...?? I'm still waiting for an answer to MY question: He's either an investor, a partner, or good buddies with the a**holes who built it... Which is it? How much money did he lose?

I say again, I don't have many options, but the one option I DO have is to NOT give them any of my business...and to encourage others to do the same. I'll say it again, in case it was missed the first time--If I can help bankrupt these a**holes so that they don't scrape any more land, then I will have done the only thing that it's within my power to do. If that leaves an eyesore at the entrance to Kings Valley--you're right...it's already there. Let it be a warning to the next bozo that wants to rape my neighborhood.

The Viking wrote: How will it make a difference with the already built developments, wanting them to go under? And how will those people feel who lose their jobs when local businesses shut down just because people are trying to make a point rather than realizing that there are REAL people and families involved here and not just numbers and buildings.

In reality, it probably won't make much of a difference at all to the businesses. (I seriously doubt anyone is losing their job over this. Nor do I believe that anyone here purposely intends to harm any specific individuals because of where they work.)

At worst, they will lose some of their customers to another business just down the streeet but still in the area. Maybe when business picks up at this other place they will need to hire another person?

At best it may make that developer and future developers look a little closer into what the local community actually needs and wants and possibly approach them for some input on their next plan (What a concept). This is why I say we all must make it a point to attend the planning mettings and be heard. If you don't, you have no cred to bitch about it after it is built.

Sorry I had a whole bunch more to say but my fingers slipped and I lost everything I typed. I have not the time nor the patience to remember what I ranted about. Maybe later, but I doubt it. It's Friday and I'm starting to feel a bit lazy.

For the record, the house I bought in 2001 was the first built on my block in 1968.

You have a good weekend.

A responsible zoning board would never have approved the Safeway development simultaneously with the King Soopers. Obviously the amount of commercial space suddenly thrown on the market up here is excessive and it will take years for stable businesses to take up the slack. Another development at Schaffers Crossing will just exacerbate the situation further. If developers used their own money I doubt we'd have this issue.