Double play at the Village at Wolf Creek

Recently there was a must read article in the Durango Herald.

I'm trying to stay within Fair Use guidelines so I'm posting a chopped up version of the most important points.  I recommend reading the entire article at:

http://durangoherald.com/article/20121010/COLUMNISTS37/121019986/0/SEARCH/Double-play-at-the-Village-at-Wolf-Creek

The Durango Herald

Double play at the Village at Wolf Creek

by Dan Randolph

October 10, 2012

[...] 

[...] 

[...] 

To proceed with the swap, the Forest Service had an appraisal done to establish the value of the now public land parcel... The value of five single-family home sites is clearly less than the value of the proposed Village. 

[...] 

However, the appraisal that is being used to establish the value of the public land that would be traded used five single-family homes sites as the proposed use. 

The Forest Service and McCombs... can’t have it both ways. If the proposal is for the Village, then the land must be appraised for that use. Alternatively, the EIS could match the appraisal and should consider only five homes. 

[...] 

The Forest Service argues in the EIS that the agency must allow year-round highway access, of the type needed for the Village, to allow for the “reasonable use and enjoyment” of the current private land parcel. The question becomes whether “reasonable use and enjoyment” necessitates the Village. 

There are thousands of private in-holdings... Do they all have the right to the access necessary for 1,700 units?... The whole EIS is predicated on this absurd notion... The appraisal is based on the “highest and best use” of the parcel – five homes – rather than the dreams of the McCombs family. 

Before the analysis goes any farther, the public has the right to understand why the Forest Service appears willing to trade the value of five home sites to facilitate a development of more than 1,700 units. 

[...]

Dan Randolph is executive director of the San Juan Citizens Alliance.