I was reviewing some old articles when I had the idea, that these news articles, along with a few opinion pieces and letters to the editor should be easily available for folks who may want a better understanding of the current controversy.
I have striven to remain within copyright guidelines and each article is linked to the full Pagosa Springs SUN story.
Pagosa Springs SUN Newspaper
The “Village At Wolf Creek” Archives
{ going back to 2000 }
====================
2011
Nov 18, 2011 ... BoCC to consider ‘Village’ EIS
letter at Monday meeting
“The Board of County Commissioners will hold a
special meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, Nov. 21, in the commissioners’ meeting
room at the county courthouse.
New business:
A. Request approval to submit a letter to Village
at Wolf Creek regarding EIS.”
~ ~ ~ Pagosa Springs SUN Newspaper 102211
Oct 22, 2011... County voices concerns over
‘Village’ impacts
By Randi Pierce
“Stating an interest in ensuring that socioeconomic
impacts are adequately addressed in an in-process Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) concerning the proposed land exchange for the Village at Wolf
Creek, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners, on Monday, approved
a letter directed to the U.S. Forest Service. . .”
~ ~ ~
Sep 15, 2011 ... Forest Service to lead ‘Village’
field trip
By Mike Blakeman
On Tuesday, Sept. 20, Divide District Ranger Tom
Malecek will lead a field trip open to the public to view and discuss the
proposed Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange environmental analysis.
~ ~ ~
Jun 8, 2011... BoCC makes ‘monumental’ move
By Randi Pierce
“In what was referred to as a “monumental” move
Monday, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution
that invokes their statutory right to be a coordinating agency in processes
involving federal government agencies with jurisdiction over Archuleta County
and its resources.
According to County Attorney Todd Starr, being a
coordinating agency will help Archuleta County to be involved on a deeper level
in projects such as the proposed Village at Wolf Creek and efforts to protect
the endangered Pagosa Skyrocket flower. . . ”
~ ~ ~
May 5, 2011 ... Notice of Exchange Proposal
Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange
Rio Grande National Forest
Mineral County, Colorado
“Notice is hereby given that the Forest Service,
United States Department of Agriculture, is considering an exchange of land and
interests in land with Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (the non-federal party),
under the authority of the Act of March 20, 1922, as amended (16 U.S.C. 485,
486), Act of October 21, 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1716), and the Act of
August 20, 1988 (43 U.S.C. 1716). . .”
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
May 4, 2011 ... USFS holds ‘Village’ open house
By Randi Pierce
“A series of open houses held last week by the San
Luis Valley Public Lands Center for the purpose of soliciting feedback for an
environmental analysis involving the proposed Village at Wolf Creek land
exchange showed little in the way of new concerns about the project. . .”
~ ~ ~
Apr 25, 2011 ... Input sought on ‘Village’ land
exchange
By Mike Blakeman
“The San Luis Valley Public Lands Center is seeking
public input for the environmental analysis of the proposed Village at Wolf
Creek land exchange, including during an open house in Pagosa Springs on April
26.
The proposal involves exchanging approximately 204
acres of federal land for approximately 178 acres of private land owned by
Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV). . .”
~ ~ ~
Mar 9, 2011 ... Forest Service to process ‘Village’
land swap
By Randi Pierce
“The Rio Grande National Forest has completed a
feasibility analysis for the proposed Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange and
has entered into an agreement with Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV) to
process their land exchange proposal. . .”
~ ~ ~
Mar 2, 2011 ... CDC board says ‘no’ to director’s
resignation
By Jim McQuiggin
“On Monday, Pagosa Springs Community Development
Corporation Executive Director Steve Vassallo submitted a letter of resignation
to the CDC board — a resignation the board ultimately rejected.
{...}
Later, it was revealed that Vassallo had travelled
to Texas for a meeting with Billy Jo “Red” McCombs (developer for the Village
at Wolf Creek), coming away with a $1,000 sponsorship for the CDC’s Great
Golden Retriever event. . .”
~ ~ ~
Feb 17, 2011 ... Long gone
“Dear Editor: The article on the Village at Wolf
Creek in the most recent edition of The SUN perpetuates the discussion about
this proposed development which has been in the news since 2004, if not before.
The economic impact of this proposal is usually kicked under the rug. In fact, the Environmental Impact Statement prepared a few years ago by the developer scrupulously avoided this subject. Perhaps the developer did not have satisfactory answers to questions such as these: . . .”
The economic impact of this proposal is usually kicked under the rug. In fact, the Environmental Impact Statement prepared a few years ago by the developer scrupulously avoided this subject. Perhaps the developer did not have satisfactory answers to questions such as these: . . .”
~ ~ ~
February 14, 2011 ... Village at Wolf Creek ... ‘a
question of when’
By Jim McQuiggin
“Despite local attitudes that are as diverse as
they are fractious, Steve Vassallo, executive director of the Pagosa Springs
Community Development Corporation, has been leading the charge in advocating
for the proposed Village at Wolf Creek development.
Speaking up at an economic development summit in Durango
last month and again last week following a meeting with District 3 U.S.
Congressman Scott Tipton, Vassallo stated that the Village at Wolf Creek was a
priority for economic development in Archuleta County. . .”
~ ~ ~
====================
2010
Nov 22, 2010 ... Village at Wolf Creek developers
to host public meeting
“Village at Wolf Creek developers will appear in
Pagosa Springs Thursday to explain key details of their revised project plan,
including discussion of the proposed 207-acre land exchange they say is
critical to the project’s success. . .”
~ ~ ~
Aug 4, 2010 ... ‘Village’ developer offers new land
swap
By Randi Pierce
“The proposed Village at Wolf Creek has taken on
another possible form, this time with a modification of the sought-after land
exchange with the U.S. Forest Service.
{...}
“We made a few minor changes to our land exchange,
where we’re not giving away as much land as we formerly were,” said Dusty
Hicks, a broker involved with the development planned by Billy Joe “Red”
McCombs. . .”
~ ~ ~
Feb 24, 2010 ... Rep. Salazar holds ‘Village’
roundtable
By Randi Pierce
“The proposed Village at Wolf Creek was the topic
of discussion Feb. 17 at a roundtable hosted by U.S. Rep. John Salazar in
Alamosa.
Salazar held the meeting to open discussion between
entities for and against the proposed Village project to see if any consensus
could be reached to help him make the decision on whether or not to carry a
bill for congressional approval of a land exchange for the project. . .”
~ ~ ~
====================
2009
Dec 23, 2009 ... No ‘Village’ letter from Pagosa
By Jim McQuiggin
“Developers for the proposed Village at Wolf Creek
will not have a letter of support from the Pagosa Springs Town Council
following a decision by council at its December mid-month meeting last
Thursday.
The letter, had it been accepted by council, would
have gone to Rep. John Salazar and would have signaled support for a proposed
land exchange between Village at Wolf Creek developers and the U.S. Forest
Service. . .”
~ ~ ~
Dec 16, 2009 ... BoCC comments on Village
By Randi Pierce
“The Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners
rendered a decision on a proposed congressional land swap for the controversial
Village at Wolf Creek during its regular meeting, Tuesday.
The BoCC passed a series of four motions concerning
the latest proposed plan for the Village (Plan B), three of which passed with
2-1 votes that left Commissioner Clifford Lucero as the board’s sole voice of
opposition. . .”
~ ~ ~
Dec 10, 2009 ... No legislative process
By Karl Isberg
“The controversy over the proposed Village at Wolf
Creek continues. Few issues draw as much attention in Pagosa Country as this
proposed project in Mineral County, on the other side of the Divide.
{...}
What we are more interested in are the projects
here in Pagosa Country that come along regularly — proposals for large-scale
subdivisions, for example, some of which are adjacent to major waterways and/or
overlap significant wildlife migration corridors — that are subjected to public
scrutiny via the planning and approval processes in town and county. . ."
~ ~ ~
December 7, 2009. BoCC to consider Village at Wolf
Creek statement
The Board of County Commissioners will meet at 1:30
p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 8, in the commissioners’ meeting room at the courthouse.
{...}
New business:
A. Requests the board to review and consider making
a statement regarding their position on the proposed Village at Wolf Creek
Development and direct staff to write a letter — Greg Schulte.”
~ ~ ~
Dec 3, 2009 ... Good idea?
Dear Editor: Save Red McCombs from himself. Red has
been involved in two ski areas in southern Colorado, Cuchara Valley and Wolf
Creek. Cuchara Valley failed. Among the reasons was lack of snow. Red’s
proposed Village at Wolf Creek will fail, too. Among the reasons will be lack
of oxygen. Jim Milstein
~ ~ ~
Dec 3, 2009 ... BoCC to decide on Village
endorsement
By Randi Pierce
“A decision on whether or not to endorse a
congressionally-approved land exchange for the proposed Village at Wolf Creek
is slated to be made at the Dec. 8 meeting of the Archuleta County Board of County
Commissioners. . .”
~ ~ ~
Dec 2, 2009 ... Council considers Village stance
By Jim McQuiggin
“Meeting twice in as many weeks to consider
drafting a letter of support for a proposed legislative land swap for the
Village at Wolf Creek, the Pagosa Springs Town Council stalled just shy of
going forward with the letter, choosing instead to wait to meet with the
Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners. . .”
~ ~ ~
Nov 12, 2009 ... Pro land exchange
“Dear Editor:
Following is a copy of a letter sent to all interested govermental
parties.
The Builders Association of Pagosa Springs, a
non-profit 501(C)(6) affiliated with the National Association of Home Builders
(NAHB) and the Colorado Association of Home Builders (CAHB) promotes smart
growth and engagement in active participation in the regulatory process of
Archuleta County to ensure that the housing industry remains a priority. . .”
~ ~ ~
Nov 5, 2009 ... Developer holds ‘Village’ public
meeting
By Randi Pierce
“Developers of the proposed Village at Wolf Creek
held a public forum in Pagosa Springs Oct. 29, another chapter in the story of
the controversial Village.
The forum, said by developers to be one of the best
attended among those held recently, followed similar meetings in Creede and
South Fork earlier in October. . .”
~ ~ ~
Oct 29, 2009 ... Village at Wolf Creek public forum
tonight
By James Robinson
“Village at Wolf Creek developers will appear in
Pagosa Springs tonight to explain key details of their revised project plan,
including discussion of the proposed 207-acre land exchange they say is
critical to the project’s success. . .”
~ ~ ~
Oct 22, 2009 ... BoCC to host ‘Village’ public
forum Oct. 29
“The Archuleta County Board County of Commissioners
will host a public forum to provide information and answer questions regarding
the proposed Village at Wolf Creek. . .”
~ ~ ~
Oct 1, 2009 ... ‘Village’ public meeting to be
scheduled in October
By James Robinson
“Archuleta County residents will soon have an
opportunity to learn more about an arguably new and improved Village At Wolf
Creek, following commissioner action Wednesday.
In discussions with key staffers representing Sen.
Mark Udall, Sen. Michael Bennett, Rep. John Salazar and Village representative
Dusty Hicks, the group agreed to schedule an Archuleta County public meeting
within a month that would detail the developer’s revised plans to Pagosa
Springs area residents. . .”
~ ~ ~
Sep 10, 2009 ... The Village, or our village?
By Karl Isberg
“Just when you thought it was safe to go out … it’s
back! The proposed Village at Wolf Creek has reared its head in a remodeled
guise, and there is dust in the air as proponents and opponents muster their
forces.
You remember The Village, don’t you? The first
proposal was a massive, 2,000-plus unit extravaganza set next to Wolf Creek Ski
Area — a proposal opposed by nearly everyone who would not directly benefit
from its success. . ."
~ ~ ~
Sep 10, 2009 ... Plan relies on successful land exchange
By James Robinson
“A revised development plan from Village at Wolf
Creek developers depicts a scaled back project — 2,172 units down to 491 units
in phase one —and village point men say the revision, coupled with a proposed
land exchange, will allow for development compatible with the ski area and a
softer environmental impact on the Alberta Park area. They also say
development, of some kind, is imminent.. . .”
~ ~ ~
Aug 26, 2009 ... ‘Village’ developers seek federal
help
By James Robinson
“According to local and federal officials, it
appears Village at Wolf Creek developers may be trying an end-run around the
public by seeking congressional support for another land exchange that would
bypass the public process and ultimately and arguably ease the permitting and
approval processes necessary for construction to begin.
According to Edward Stern, deputy press secretary
for Congressman John Salazar, . . .”
~ ~ ~
Feb 18, 2009 ... USFS unplugs the Village
By James Robinson
“. . . Forest Service staff announced they were
disbanding the environmental impact statement team and halting analysis of the
access to the controversial development.
“We have not received a new application from
Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV) requesting access across the Forest, so we
released the analysis team members,” ..., deputy forest supervisor
for the San Luis Valley Public Lands Center.
{...}
“The bottom line is we’ve received nothing in writing from them (the developers). We had a team assembled with staff from all over the state and all over the country. They had other jobs, . . .”
“The bottom line is we’ve received nothing in writing from them (the developers). We had a team assembled with staff from all over the state and all over the country. They had other jobs, . . .”
~ ~ ~
Jan 29, 2009 ... Year in review continues:
“Village lawsuit settled. The developers of the
Village at Wolf Creek and Wolf Creek Ski Area owners settled a lawsuit, closing
a four-year-old court case regarding the development of the controversial
resort. U.S. District Judge John Kane dismissed the case Tuesday, and the
settlement terms remained secret.
“All terms of the settlement are totally
confidential under contractual obligations,” said developer Bob Honts. . .”
~ ~ ~
Jan 22, 2009 ... 2008 in review
“February:
Village at Wolf Creek. Area conservation groups declared victory in
their battle against the proposed Village at Wolf Creek, when the United States
Forest Service and Village developers agreed to go back to the drawing board
and complete a new environmental impact statement (EIS) for the controversial
development. . .”
~ ~ ~
====================
2008
Nov 20, 2008... Send concerns
“Dear Editor: Horseback Riders for a Wild San Juan
Mountains and Colorado Wild would like you to e-mail your concerns about the
proposed Village at Wolf Creek. This project, which the developer describes as
a “world class mountain resort and village” to be the “premier ski and
recreation resort in America” was originally proposed as a city of up to 10,000
people at the top of Wolf Creek Pass. . .”
B.C.
~ ~ ~
Oct 15, 2008... Village:
Open house, no plans
By James Robinson
“Despite maps depicting lynx habitat and wetlands,
aerial photographs, flow charts on timetable and process, and highway
department engineering renderings, detailed developer plans for the Village at
Wolf Creek were notably absent during a Forest Service-sponsored open house
held in Pagosa Springs Oct. 9, and the omission of key project details left
many attendees wondering what to expect next. . .”
~ ~ ~
Oct 9, 2008 ... Open house for ‘Village’ scoping
process
By James Robinson
“A new public scoping process has begun for the
Village at Wolf Creek — the Wolf Creek Access Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) — and Pagosa Springs area residents can attend an open house-style
meeting tonight at 5 p.m. in the Pagosa Springs Community Center.
The scoping and analysis processes are a response
to an application from Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture seeking transportation and
utility corridors across National Forest System lands to their private property
slated for construction of the controversial project. . .”
~ ~ ~
Oct 3, 2008 ... The Village
Dear Editor:
“The RGNF is holding an open house Oct. 9 {...} concerning the large development called 'The Village at Wolf Creek.' ...Because there is no detailed information, the public is being asked to comment blindly on a proposal that we have no basis for analyzing or understanding. We do not know the size, scope or the pace of development. The public cannot make meaningful, informed comments without comprehensive information on the details of this revised project development.. . .”
~ ~ ~
Aug 14, 2008... New plan for the Village?
By James Robinson
The new application and initiation of a new environmental analysis process are the result of a legal settlement involving Colorado Wild, the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, the Forest Service and village developers — Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture. The groups sued the Forest Service in October 2006, challenging the agency’s decision to authorize construction of two access roads across public land . . .”
~ ~ ~
Jun 5, 2008 ... Village settle court case
By Sarah O. Smith Staff Writer
“... All terms of the settlement are totally confidential under contractual obligations,” said developer Bob Honts ... want to develop on a 287.5 acre parcel of land adjacent Wolf Creek Ski Area, would consist of a resort town capable of housing as many as 10,000 people.
~ ~ ~
Mar 13, 2008 ... Village at Wolf Creek.
“Resolve that the Democratic Party opposes the
Village at Wolf Creek development (Precinct 1).”
~ ~ ~
Feb 21, 2008 ... Back to square one for Village at
Wolf Creek
By James Robinson
“... United States Forest Service and Village developers agreed to go back to the drawing board and complete a new environmental impact statement (EIS) for the controversial development
...
said Ryan Demmy Bidwell, executive director of Colorado Wild in a press release. “After nine years of false starts, behind-closed-door dealings and tainted analysis, the public will finally get a fair review of the Village’s thus far unregulated impacts.” . . .”
...
said Ryan Demmy Bidwell, executive director of Colorado Wild in a press release. “After nine years of false starts, behind-closed-door dealings and tainted analysis, the public will finally get a fair review of the Village’s thus far unregulated impacts.” . . .”
~ ~ ~
====================
2007
Oct 11, 2007 ... Court tells Village developers no
roads, for now
By Chuck McGuire
“For the second time in as many weeks, a federal
court ruling has stymied developers of the proposed Village at Wolf Creek. On
Thursday, Oct. 4, U.S. District Court Judge John Kane halted Texas billionaire
developer B.J. “Red” McCombs’ plans to begin road construction to his
controversial resort development, this year.
If allowed to proceed, the creation of two roads crossing United States Forest Service land would connect the village site — a 287.5-acre private inholding — with U.S. 160. . .”
If allowed to proceed, the creation of two roads crossing United States Forest Service land would connect the village site — a 287.5-acre private inholding — with U.S. 160. . .”
~ ~ ~
Sep 27, 2007 ... Court rules against ‘Village’
developers
By James Robinson
{...} the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled against
village developers and upheld a district court ruling that overturned Mineral
County’s approval of the project.
{...}
...ultimately voiding Mineral County’s final plan
and final plat approval of the project...
decision follows in the wake of the developer’s appeal to Kuenhold’s District
Court decision...
{...}
However, neither the 12th District Court, nor the
Colorado Court of Appeals have seen the access question in quite the same
light. In 2005, Kuenhold ruled . . .”
~ ~ ~
Jun 7, 2007 ... ‘Village’ injunction could continue
By James Robinson
... U.S District Court Magistrate ... to extend injunction ... prevented construction of the proposed Village . . .
Wednesday, West recommended that Kane continue the injunction...
... In their lawsuit, Colorado Wild and the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council charge the Forest Service with failing to address the impacts of the village as a whole by issuing an environmental impact statement focusing solely on the impacts associated with the construction of the two access roads. . .”
~ ~ ~
Friends of Wolf Creek to host
lecture, fund-raiser
By James Robinson
“As part of its ongoing fund-raising efforts,
Friends of Wolf Creek will host a lecture Feb. 27 on the physical effects and
medical implications of living at high altitude. . .”
~ ~ ~
Jan 11, 2007 ... 2006, news in review
“The U.S. Forest Service upheld its decision to
grant the developer of the Village at Wolf Creek two separate access roads to
its 287.5-acre inholding in the Rio Grande National Forest. The Forest Service
decision was questioned by nonprofit groups and legislators, including U.S.
Sen. Ken Salazar, who asked USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong to investigate
allegations of improprieties in the Forest Service's evaluation and decision on
the final Environmental Impact Statement, regarding the access roads.”
~ ~ ~
====================
2006
Nov 30, 2006 ... Developer says 'no' to grooming
By James Robinson
{...}
While the ski area's Web content places the onus of the closure solely on the shoulders of village developers. . .”
~ ~ ~
Oct 26, 2006 ... Environmental groups file
'Village' lawsuits
By James Robinson
“Two area environmental groups filed a lawsuit ... challenging the United States Forest Service's environmental impact statement and record of decision regarding the proposed Village at Wolf Creek.
... the thrust of the lawsuit is twofold.
... the thrust of the lawsuit is twofold.
First, the lawsuit alleges the entire EIS and record of decision is illegal and inadequate because the Forest Service failed to address the impacts of the village as a whole.
And secondly, the suit alleges Forest Supervisor Peter Clark unlawfully modified the record of decision "making it easier for the developer to begin construction.". . .”
~ ~ ~
Oct 19, 2006 ... U.S. Sen. Salazar conducts public
meeting on 'Village'
James Robinson
“More than a 100 area residents turned out Monday
at the Pagosa Springs Community Center to hear U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar speak
about local issues, including fielding questions from the audience regarding
the Village at Wolf Creek.
Of those who questioned Salazar, none spoke in
favor of the Village, and their concerns ranged from water issues, to issues of
public safety, energy, and severe environmental degradation. . .”
~ ~ ~
Sep 14, 2006 ... Inspector General: No wrongdoing
at Village
By James Robinson
“Plans for the Village at Wolf Creek, a 10,000
person, luxury resort village slated for construction near the top of Wolf
Creek Pass and near the base of the Wolf Creek Ski Area moved one step closer
to fruition ...
After a multi-month inquiry, Fong stated in a
letter to U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar that her office had found no evidence of
improper conduct or political pressure regarding United States Forest Service
decisions pertaining to the controversial village development. . .”
~ ~ ~
August 10, 2006 ... Thoughts follow a flyover
By Chuck McGuire
{...}
{...}... 20 years ago, the U.S. Forest Service suddenly and inexplicably reversed its original decision to deny a land swap, thus facilitating the manifestation of the village concept. We know that, despite overwhelming public opposition, Mineral County approved the scheme in its current form, even while developers had no legitimate, legally-required highway access to the site. And, we've recently seen the Forest Service approve developer access across public lands, while refusing to consider the environmental consequences of the venture as a whole, instead focusing on the relatively minor effects of access alone. . .”
~ ~ ~
July 22, 2006 ... Developers encourage support of
Village at Wolf Creek project
By James Robinson
“Village at Wolf Creek developers met in South Fork
Saturday with Mineral County elected officials, including two Mineral County
commissioners and the Mineral County sheriff, South Fork civic and business
leaders and area residents, to rally support for their massive, luxury resort
community slated for construction on Wolf Creek Pass adjacent to the Wolf Creek
Ski Area. . .”
~ ~ ~
May 18, 2006 ... Salazar asks for investigation,
halt to Village at Wolf Creek process
By James Robinson
{...}
In his letter to Fong, Salazar wrote: "I request that you conduct an investigation to . . ."
Salazar said his request stems from the EIS, which, the senator argues, fails to consider the impact of the development as a whole and focuses exclusively on the impact of an existing right-of-way. . .”
~ ~ ~
April 6, 2006 ... USFS approves access for Village
at Wolf Creek
By James Robinson
“On Monday, the United States Forest Service
released its much anticipated final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
regarding access to the controversial Village at Wolf Creek development....
"The major flaw with the document is that the
Forest Service refuses to analyze the impacts of the Village," Bidwell
said, despite the document's acknowledgment that the Forest Service is charged
with protecting public interests, and ensuring compatibility with the
surrounding national forest and the Wolf Creek Ski Area. . .”
~ ~ ~
March 16, 2006 ... Village faceoff date set
By James Robinson
“A faceoff between state, federal and local
legislators, federal agencies, Village at Wolf Creek developers, and
representatives from the Wolf Creek Ski Area is scheduled for April 7 in
Creede.
The meeting follows a move by state Rep. Mark
Larson to bring the controversial Village at Wolf Creek development under
greater legislative scrutiny and was scheduled by Jon Boyd, president of the
Upper Rio Grande Economic Development Council . . .”
~ ~ ~
March 9, 2006 ... Wolf
Creek development hits home hard
By U.S. Rep. John Salazar
{...}
. . . Village at Wolf Creek will result in growth,
but it's not the kind of responsible growth that will be good for the larger
community.
Responsible development is done in a way that
enhances, not dries up resources - like water - which keep our economy running.
Responsible development involves long-term economic growth plans, not
flash-in-the pan ...
{...}
The new Wolf Creek development concerns me for the
same reasons - a hope of new jobs and income twisted into a nightmare of
contaminated water and communities fighting with each other.. . .”
Mar 2, 2006 ... Larson,
Isgar sponsor Village resolution
By James Robinson
“Following a push by 59th District Rep. Mark
Larson, state lawmakers are reviewing a resolution that, if passed, would open
the dialogue on the controversial Village at Wolf Creek, . . .”
The resolution, sponsored jointly by Larson and
state Sen. Jim Isgar, hit the House floor Monday and follows in the wake of
allegations of collusion between the United States Forest Service,
Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (the project developers) and Mineral County
officials, in addition to allegations by Durango-based Colorado Wild that those
same entities violated the Colorado Open Records Act and the Freedom of
Information Act. . .”
~ ~ ~
January 26, 2006 ... Village at Wolf Creek inspires
legal actions
By Chuck McGuire
“{...}
On Tuesday, Jan. 17, Federal Magistrate David L.
West of the U.S. District Court in Durango gave the U.S. Forest Service just
two weeks to fully comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that
project opponent Colorado Wild had made over the past year.
Colorado Wild ultimately sued the Forest Service in June 2005, seeking to acquire documents detailing communication between the agency and village developers, Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture. Until Tuesday, the Forest Service had only partially complied with the court-ordered releases . . .”
Colorado Wild ultimately sued the Forest Service in June 2005, seeking to acquire documents detailing communication between the agency and village developers, Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture. Until Tuesday, the Forest Service had only partially complied with the court-ordered releases . . .”
~ ~ ~
====================
2005
Dec 15, 2005 ... Village at Wolf Creek legal
wranglings continue
By James Robinson
“... wranglings between the
developers of the Village at Wolf Creek and the Wolf Creek Ski Corporation is
unfolding following a number of recent rulings by a Durango magistrate.
The Dec. 1 rulings, issued by Federal Magistrate
David L. West, stem from disagreements, claims and counterclaims {...}
regarding a series of contracts ...
{...}
In other related rulings, West recommended denying
the developer's motion to bring father and son owners of the ski area,
Kingsbury and Davey Pitcher, respectively, into the lawsuit, and not to honor
the village attorney's request to extend the discovery, or fact finding period.
. .”
~ ~ ~
Dec 1, 2005 ... Salazar takes stand on Village at
Wolf Creek
By James Robinson
“After numerous inquiries, conversations with the
developers and written responses from the U.S. Forest Service to a series of
questions, U.S. Rep. John T. Salazar is voicing strong opposition to the
proposed Village at Wolf Creek.
. . . the congressman said: "I've taken the time to meet with the involved
parties, ask questions, and gather information about the proposed development.
With the Forest Service's latest answers, it has become even clearer the
proposal would require many special concessions, without the promise of any real
gain for the greater community." . . .”
~ ~ ~
November 3, 2005 ... Developers
ask court to reconsider Village at Wolf Creek decision
James Robinson
“Attorneys for the proposed Village at Wolf Creek
have filed a motion asking 12th District Court Judge O. John Kuenhold to
reconsider his Oct. 13 decision on access to the proposed village via Forest
Road 391.
Kuenhold ruled on Oct. 13 after hearing arguments
in a consolidated lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs Wolf Creek Ski Corporation,
Colorado Wild Inc. and San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council. . .”
~ ~ ~
October 20, 2005 ... Sides differ on impact of
Village at Wolf Creek decision
By James Robinson
“With both sides claiming victory, it might be
difficult to determine the true state of affairs following a recent judge's
ruling on the proposed Village at Wolf Creek.
The ruling came Oct. 13 when 12th Judicial District
Judge O. John Kuenhold struck at the very core of Mineral County's approval of
the project's final plat by stating Forest Service Road 391 did not constitute
meaningful year-round access to a development consisting of 2,200 residential
units, more than 500,000 square feet of commercial space and up to 10,000
residents. . .”
~ ~ ~
August 25, 2005 ... Commissioners consider Wolf
Creek Village, gas wells
By James Robinson
“The Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners
has formally approved a resolution stating its opposition to the proposed
Village at Wolf Creek.
{...}
The current plan involves more than 2,000
residential units and more than 200,000 square feet of retail and commercial
space all at an elevation of about 10,000 feet and about 30 miles east of
Pagosa Springs.
Part of the resolution recommended that a regional
task force be created to further address issues and concerns. Although the
commissioners did not elaborate on their role in that endeavor. . .”
~ ~ ~
June 30, 2005 ... Suit filed against USFS over
Village at Wolf Creek
By James Robinson
“Colorado Wild, ...
opposed to the Village at Wolf Creek, filed two lawsuits last Friday against
the U.S. Forest Service over their handling of issues surrounding the proposed
village.
Travis Stills, an attorney for the group, said the
lawsuits, filed in federal district court in Denver, are meant to push the U.S.
Forest Service to act in the public interest.
He said the first lawsuit is a Freedom of
Information Act lawsuit filed to combat the Forest Service's alleged "long
standing practice of stonewalling Colorado Wild's access to records,"
related to the village project. . .”
~ ~ ~
April 21, 2005 ... Suits, access wrangling slow
'Village' process
By Richard Walter
“Infighting over access to the planned Village at
Wolf Creek site goes on even as lawsuits seeking to stop the construction are
being heard in Alamosa.
A last-minute decision, or lack thereof April 15,
temporarily halted the developers' request for access by snowmobile to Forest
Service Road 391.
Infighting over access to the planned Village at
Wolf Creek site goes on even as lawsuits seeking to stop the construction are
being heard in Alamosa. . .”
~ ~ ~
April 7, 2005 ... One wonders why
“Dear Editor: County residents need to query the
county commissioners about their stance concerning The Village at Wolf Creek.
The commissioners appear to be avoiding this controversial issue, postponing or
canceling public debate.
Most recently, the work session on this subject
scheduled April 18 was canceled. . . One wonders why.
. . . although in Mineral County, would have
disastrous effects on Archuleta County. We can visualize the number of
construction workers who would bring their families to build the project and
the number of unskilled workers who would work at the development when
complete. . .”
~ ~ ~
Mar 17, 2005 ... Commissioners set meetings to
address 'Village' concerns
By Tom Carosello
“Last March, plans for The Village at Wolf Creek
were unveiled and quickly rose to the top of many Pagosans list of pet peeves.
A year later, the debate surrounding the
controversial endeavor has shown no signs of waning interest, as evidenced by
this week's meeting of the Archuleta County Board of Commissioners. . .”
~ ~ ~
====================
2004
Dec 23, 2004 ... Town resolved: Cannot endorse
'Village' plan
By Tess Noel Baker
“The Town of Pagosa Springs "cannot
endorse," the Village at Wolf Creek as approved by Mineral County
Commissioners.
That's the bottom line of a resolution unanimously
accepted by the town council at a special meeting Tuesday. One member, Darrel
Cotton, was absent.
No public comment was taken, but an audience of
about 20 applauded the decision. . .”
~ ~ ~
Dec 16, 2004 ... Further talks between town and
Honts appear unlikely
By Tess Noel Baker
“A meeting between town officials and Village at
Wolf Creek developer Bob Honts appears unlikely.
Mayor Ross Aragon said Tuesday that after a meeting
scheduled with the Community Vision Council Dec. 6 had to be canceled,
agreement on a second meeting had not been reached.
Honts, chief executive officer and managing venturer
of The Village at Wolf Creek, also known as the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture,
agreed to consider meeting with town officials late in November when the
council took a first look at a resolution in opposition to the project. . .”
~ ~ ~
Dec 9, 2004 ... 'Village' comment deadline now Jan.
5
By Tom Carosello and Tess Noel Baker
“The U.S. Forest Service has extended the comment
period . . . to Jan. 5.
The draft was released in early October and
addresses an application for access easements submitted this spring by the
controversial endeavor's funding entity, the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture,
requesting transportation and utility easements across a 250-foot strip of
Forest Service land that separates the project site from U.S. 160.
In summary the draft environmental impact
statement, or "DEIS," states the Forest Service's proposed action is
to grant the request, allowing developers access to the site via two entry
points.”
~ ~ ~
Dec 2, 2004 ... 3 suits seek to block 'Village'
By Tom Carosello
“As plans for construction of The Village at Wolf
Creek move forward, fresh legal actions aimed at derailing the controversial
project continue to mount.
According to a press release issued this week by
Colorado Wild, Wolf Creek Ski Area, Colorado Wild and the San Luis Valley
Ecosystem Council have all filed lawsuits to thwart development of the village.
. .”
~ ~ ~
November 11, 2004 ... 'Village' huge issue; county
seeks Mineral talks ...
By Tom Carosello
“The Archuleta County Board of Commissioners agrees
The Village at Wolf Creek is a huge issue, but isn't prepared to adopt a formal
position on the controversial endeavor.
During this week's board meeting, the commissioners
offered brief commentary regarding potential impacts the village could have on
the county, but stopped short of condemning - or supporting - plans to
construct an alpine community of thousands on roughly 300 acres of private
property just east of Wolf Creek Ski Area. . .”
~ ~ ~
November 4, 2004 ... Friends of Wolf Creek to
hold public hearing
“Friends of Wolf Creek will hold a public hearing
on the proposed Village at Wolf Creek project. . .
Jeff Berman, director of Colorado Wild, is expected
to attend the meeting and offer his opinions on several village topics,
including a related draft environmental impact statement issued recently by the
U.S. Forest Service.
"The Forest Service, thus far, refuses to hold
genuine public hearings on their draft environmental impact statement, opting
for 'open house' style meetings in an attempt to diminish public
participation," says Berman. . .”
~ ~ ~
September 02, 2004 ... Village at Wolf Creek
review set
By Tom Carosello
“Have an opinion of The Village at Wolf Creek?
In two weeks - Sept. 16 at 7 p.m., to be exact -
the Mineral County Planning and Zoning Commission will meet to consider the
final plat for the proposed development, an endeavor that would occupy roughly
290 acres of private land in the Alberta Park area adjacent to Wolf Creek Ski
Area.”
~ ~ ~
August 19, 2004 ... Plat review of Village at Wolf
Creek Sept. 16
By Tom Carosello
“.The Mineral County Planning and Zoning Commission
will hold a 7 p.m. public meeting Sept. 16 to consider the final plat for The
Village at Wolf Creek.
The meeting will be held inside the Mineral County
Courthouse, 1201 North Main St. in Creede. Bob Honts, chief executive officer and president of
the Leavell-McComb Joint Venture, has submitted the final plat for the proposed
village to Mineral County. . .”
~ ~ ~
July 15, 2004 ... 'Village' foes plan Wolf
Creek weekend
“Friends of Wolf Creek have scheduled a campout
gathering Friday through Sunday to explore the proposed "Village at Wolf
Creek" region. They invite area
residents to show up any time and stay only as long as they like.
The group believes the planned village would
destroy lush meadows, alpine creeks, unspoiled backcountry recreational
opportunities and one of the most critical wildlife corridors in the Southern
Rocky Mountains, all the while competing with a local economy that relies on
tourist dollars.”
~ ~ ~
April 1, 2004 ... Not too late
“Dear Editor: . . . there was a dominant attitude
against the proposed "Village at Wolf Creek’" but many left saying,
"It's a done deal, there's nothing we can do about it."
Exactly what Texas developer Bob Honts, partner of
billionaire Red McCombs, would have us believe!
..., Mr. Honts' outstanding career in town planning
and urban development is obvious; he knows the laws and how to get around them,
but he does not know the value of the wilderness. . .”
~ ~ ~
March 25, 2004 ... 'Village at Wolf Creek' proposal unpopular
with Pagosa crowd
By Tom Carosello
"A rising tide will lift all boats."
Such was the analogy offered by Bob Honts, chief
executive officer and managing venturer of The Village at Wolf Creek, when
asked what economical impacts he feels the pending endeavor would have on
neighboring communities.
Honts' response was one of many given to a Vista
Clubhouse crowd of over 150 attending a two-hour "public scoping"
meeting conducted Thursday night by the U.S. Forest Service. . .”
~ ~ ~
Mar 18, 2004 ... Outdoors: Village at Wolf Creek
info meeting tonight
“. . . application for transportation
and utility systems and facilities easements for the proposed Village at Wolf
Creek . . .
This application, if authorized, would permit a
perpetual easement, through federal lands, for year-round permanent road
access, obtain or modify utility easements, and modify easement terms for
Alberta Lake access for the proposed Village at Wolf Creek.
The village, a connected but nonfederal action, is
a planned community of approximately 2,172 hotel, condominium and private
residence units solely within 287.5 acres of privately-owned land entirely
within the Rio Grande National Forest adjacent to Wolf Creek Ski Area. . .”
~ ~ ~
==========
2003
==========
2002
==========
2001
==========
2000
August 3, 2000 ... Re-think, re-plan
“Dear Editor,
My concerns over the future Wolf Creek Village
bring one big question: Where will the water come from for such a large
development? . . .”
~ ~ ~
Jul 27, 2000 ... Planners leery of Wolf Creek
Village
By John M. Motter
“. . . Archuleta County, county planners have
compiled a list of issues they feel Mineral County has not adequately reviewed
during preliminary plan public hearings.
A 287.5-acre, winter-summer destination resort
called The Village at Wolf Creek is being proposed. . .
"At full build out, The Village at Wolf Creek
could have a population of 5,000 people, about one-half the current population
of Archuleta County," said Mike Molica, the director of county development
for Archuleta County. "That kind of change has to have a huge impact on
our county."
~ ~ ~
Jul 20, 2000 ... Village at Wolf Creek hearing end
By John M. Motter
“{...}
A public hearing ... was conducted in Creede June
29. Creede is the county seat of Mineral County in which the development is
planned.
"That hearing pretty much concluded the legal
requirements for public hearings for the preliminary stage of this
development," said Les Cahill, Mineral County administrator. "Of
course we will continue to welcome input from the planning departments of
surrounding counties." . . .”
~ ~ ~
June 1, 2000 ... Public
hearing set for June 29 on Wolf Creek Village
By Karl Isberg
The Village at Wolf Creek is an idea that has been around for more than a decade, involving a tract adjacent the southeast boundary of the ski area.
{...}
According to a development plan for the project, the 2,172 units will occupy 185 lots in an area of 287 acres - with 111 acres left as open space. Developers propose a total 5,176 bedrooms in the units with 4,532 parking spaces. Commercial space at the development is set at 222,100 square feet.
... variances requested {...}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
No comments:
Post a Comment