I remember reading a story about this a year ago. Not bad for a brother and sister with zero real estate development experience.

Okay.

I read that article the day it came out on CNN.com and I remember thinking "who paid to get this piece of PR fluff onto the site?" I mean... isn't this just another development with the very same eco-friendly, harmonious community living claptrap that EVERY developer uses when they turn 40 acres into sprawl?

How is a "neighborhood where people can walk" in any way newsworthy? Back in the day, we used to call them sidewalks. If someone has the time to do some legwork on this "brother and sister" team I think you'll find they are just developers who are slightly younger, but with a more nuanced PR department.

Look at this choice quote from "Jed" if you have any doubts about the tree-huggerness of their development...

>> "The reason we chose to do a project in Buena Vista is that it really represents the last [relatively] untouched place in Colorado," Jed added.

That's swell.

Jed and his sister got the last untouched place in Colorado and they're putting in sidewalks!

Way to stay green.

In fact, after a couple seconds of Googling, I came up with THIS info on Jed and Katie Selby...

http://outside.away.com/outside/destinations/200508/best-american-towns-13.html

Look at this offensive tidbit...

>> While the Selbys will oversee development of the river park and green space—underwritten largely by a $187,000 grant from the state's open-space preservation fund, Great Outdoors Colorado, and $30,000 from the city of Buena Vista—private developers will build the homes and businesses, following strict community guidelines.

Right.

They're getting almost $200,000 from a fund which is SUPPOSED to support open spaces. Obscene.

Jed and Katie are likely just the younger, greener front placed on Yet Another Development funded by their dad "Buzz" Selby, real estate investor in Arizona.

Gosh Jez, such bitterness...

Let me take your criticisms point by point:

1: "who paid to get this piece of PR fluff onto the site?"
Nobody paid to get it on CNN. CNN called us. And regarding this project being just another Development utilizing a "green-washing" PR campaign; you might just be surprised by the steps we're taking to introduce and mandate green/sustainable building practices in the County where we're located. Our biggest problem right now is figuring out how we’re going to make sure the individual local builders can become trained in green/sustainable practices to the degree that we will be demanding of them.

2: "How is a "neighborhood where people can walk" in any way newsworthy?"
Well, I don't know if you've looked around lately, but our country is designed more for cars than people. As you said, "back in the day"- well those days are over, but luckily some folks involved with Traditional Neighborhood Design and New Urbanism are trying to bring back the days of pedestrian friendly design.. one might think you'd thank them.

3: Regarding the Green-ness of sidewalks etc- the 40 acres where the development is located used to be a turn-of-the-century city dump- right up against the Arkansas River! Now there’s going to be a community park alongside the river, as opposed to a dump or private riverfront estates, as other developers wanted to do with this tract of land. This is what Jed was referring to in regards to his “last untouched place in Colorado” remark. All along the Arkansas River here in Colorado, as well as most rivers here, private landowners are buying up all the riverfront property and then closing it to public access. “Privacy & Seclusion” are the favorite marketing slogans of most developers here. Our big selling point is “Community.” One of our main goals here was to create a beautiful civic space, for everyone to enjoy, not just a few living behind gates.

4: Regarding your comments on the “offensive” use of the Greater Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) grant; what was not mentioned in that blurb you copied was that South Main also donated $30,000 dollars cash and land valued at over $200,000. dollars toward the river park. Have you or anyone you know kicked down the equivalent to help create a public space? The monies from the City’s donation, our donation and the GOCO grant are going to construct the river park and its adjacent trail network. The park will benefit rafters, kayakers, the town and the river ecosystem! When we finish the river park, it will encompass almost a mile of river improvements, contain multiple pedestrian trails and the whole park will be public and within walking distance from Main Street, Buena Vista, several schools and many neighborhoods. Obscene? No, actually pretty damn cool! Come check it out when we’re finished- I bet you’ll be impressed.

5: And finally, regarding your comment on Jed and Katie just being, “just the younger, greener front placed on Yet Another Development funded by their dad.” Yes, they are younger and they are greener, but just a “front” they are not. Come visit South Main sometime and you’ll realize that this isn’t your typical development that we’ve all come to expect from most developers. As I said, I bet you’ll be impressed, probably to the point that you’ll want to live here too!

Sincerely,

Bob Dergay
South Main Development Inc.

>> Gosh Jez, such bitterness...

Yes.

And outraged, furious, disappointed, dismayed, offended, and indignant. All of the above. I cop to them unrepentantly. As the saying goes... if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

>> you might just be surprised by the steps we're taking to introduce and mandate green/sustainable building practices in the County where we're located.

Please educate me then.

In the CNN article, the one I linked to in my previous post, and in other related articles on this "new type" of developer team, all I have seen are three themes: 1) sidewalks, 2) Jed and Katie are young, 3) kayaks. No specifics. None. If you have some specifics to demonstrate incontrovertibly your company's commitment to true eco-friendly development, please provide details.

>> well those days are over, but luckily some folks involved with Traditional Neighborhood Design and New Urbanism are trying to bring back the days of pedestrian friendly design.

You're incorrect.

Those days never left in many communities who have always remained committed to rehabilitating decaying urban areas rather than searching for Jed's "last untouched area." Just because some developers have adopted marketing memes and talking point sloganeering like "Traditional Neighborhood Design and New Urbanism" does not make it new. It's the same as corporate media astroturf aimed at undermining hybrids and the alleged eco-friendly double-speak of just about every corporation which focuses on labels rather than concrete real world impact.

>> Regarding the Green-ness of sidewalks etc- the 40 acres where the development is located used to be a turn-of-the-century city dump- right up against the Arkansas River!

Right.

I read the portrayal of the site as "garbage-strewn" and I assume the century you are referring to is the 20th century. Am I right in assuming that this spot has remained relatively undisturbed for over one hundred years, but now some trash makes it a blight in need of kayak facilities, jogging trails, and sidewalks? Again, I have not seen the site and I assume you have. If you have specifics regarding the pollution, debris, condition of the site, please share them.

Here's an idea...

Jed and Katie could pick up the garbage.

GOCO could actually fund open spaces.

Sadly, this would leave 800 kayakers without a place to access the river's "ecosystem."

>> All along the Arkansas River here in Colorado, as well as most rivers here, private landowners are buying up all the riverfront property and then closing it to public access. “Privacy & Seclusion” are the favorite marketing slogans of most developers here.

Exactly.

And that's precisely what I assume the "open spaces" grant is funded to address. And yet somehow Jed and Katie have managed to get $200,000 of that for kayak facilities and private development. Private development for the 800 or so people who live there and for the people who can pay. These facilities are not going to be available to the public for free, are they?

Again, if these facilities are going to be free of charge and are available to the public, please correct me.

>> Have you or anyone you know kicked down the equivalent to help create a public space?

As a matter of fact, sir, a number of people I know are citizens of Colorado. And if you read the GOCO.com website, you will see that the GOCO fund comes from lottery dollars. It's paid for by the citizens of Colorado. So not only do I know someone, those people are paying for YOUR development!

You're welcome.

I wonder if those same people know that their "open spaces" fund is going to pay for a private kayak park.

Additionally, you deftly conflated open space with PUBLIC space. The two are not remotely the same.

>> The park will benefit rafters, kayakers, the town and the river ecosystem!

How precisely do you define the word "ecosystem?"

Because when I think of ecosystem, kayakers, rafters, and 800 residents of an upscale development are way down the list. How exactly will this benefit the ecosystem? The CNN article didn't say? Will you?

Saying it doesn't make it so.

>> Yes, they are younger and they are greener, but just a “front” they are not.

Again, you refute, but you don't provide details. Am I incorrect in assuming that most of the money is coming from sources other than Jed and Katie? Why are Jed and Katie's photos always featured in the articles I read? Are they designing the development? They aren't funding it. What exactly are they doing?

Specifics are appreciated.

Correction...

GOCO.org.

Here are some of GOCO's non-kayak related open space projects.

http://www.goco.org/program/openspace.html

However, I am not a resident of Colorado, but I would suggest that those who are might want to inquire into this kayak development and determine how many of GOCO's other open space projects are in fact preserving open space instead of merely gifting developers, corporations, and cronies.

Scratch GOCO and it starts to smell funny.

Owens appoints six to GOCO board
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2002/06/17/daily44.html

Perhaps Treehugger would like me to write an article on precisely who currently makes up the GOCO board and how their actions regarding so-called "open space" have likely changed rather dramatically under this Republican governor than when the fund was implemented under a Democrat in 1992.

Bitter?

You bet.

The truth is out there.

GOCO Under Fire
http://www.coloradoconservationtrust.org/news/cc_gocounderfire.php

>> "When the voters passed GOCO, they thought it was for the acquisition of land," said state Rep. Tom Plant, D-Nederland. "That's the way it was presented. The people felt they were acquiring land for public use and preservation. Conservations easements can take a number of forms, many of which completely exclude the public."

A kayak park may be "public," (the trail portion of it anyway) but the vast majority of that 40 acres paid partially by the taxpayers of Colorado will be completely off limits from wildlife and the public.

Putting a hiking trail that runs along the periphery of the property is not open space. It's not serving the public. It's serving 800 well-heeled kayakers.

Saying the property is non-gated does not make it any less private. A legitimate use of GOCO funds would be to make that 40 acres completely free of development.

That's open space.

Period.

Citizens need to be informed. They need to challenge the Healthy Forests/Clean Water double-speak. They need to make themselves conversant in Google and answer these deceptions and marketing campaigns at their source and do so definitively.

Confront these people.

(Moderator, feel free to combine all of my last posts into a single post).

Jez,

You do not have your facts straight. There is not a penny of the GOCO funds that subsidizes the South Main Project. All of the money from the GOCO grant is being used to design and build out the river trails and the whitewater features. The river park is going to connect to an already existing river trial that is owned and operated by the Town of Buena Vista. The trials and the river are open to everyone in the world, free of charge. I have no idea where you created the idea that the trails were only there to serve the residents of South Main. The GOCO money is not going to develope the South Main project. If you really wanted to do some real investigation, instead of the Google investigation you have done thus far, you could go pull the public records pertaining to the South Main project and you would see that a condition of the South Main approvals was that Jed and Katie donate all of the river front property to the Town along with $30,000 to be used to help build out the river trials. You would also see that Jed and Katie have no control over the GOCO money, the Town of Buena Vista is the sole entity in charge of the GOCO funds and the design and construction of the PUBLIC river park.

Jed and Katie donated the most valuable portion of their 40 acres to the Town to ensure that the river front stays open to the public. Again, not a dime from the GOCO grant will be spent on any non-public land.

Your idea that many towns in our country never support urban renewal may be true, however, in the past 30 years the vast majority of development has been segregated uses and sprawl. Many municipalities proclaim they support urban renewal but they do little to ensure that it happens.

The South Main site was not just "garbage strewn", it cost over 100K to clean up (at the Selby's expense). If Jed and Katie picked up the trash themselves it would have taken their lifetime. I propose that their time is better spent doing things other than picking up trash. You state that you assume the site has been undisturbed for the last 100 years, well you are correct if undisturbed encompasses an occasional person dumping their trash on the surface.

As for the funds used to develop this site, Jed and Katie have borrowed the funds just as any business person would. They are obligated to pay back their loans, with interest, just as any new business that borrows money.

The project is not a non-gated private development. After the streets, sidewalks and alleys are built (and warranted by the developer for a term of years) they will be deeded to the town. The entire South Main project will be open to the public. The only private thing in South Main will be an individuals home.

Jez Lezbro, if you want to fire off unsubstantiated criticism, that is your prerogative. If you want to expose corruption and hollow promises of developers and government, that’s fine, i appreciate it, when it is well founded.

You have asked for specifics to this project yet i am not aware of you attempting to contact anyone form South Main to discuss this project. Please contact anyone at the South Main office and they would be happy to inform you about the details of the project.

Sincerely,

Chris Adelman
South Main Development, Inc

>> The only private thing in South Main will be an individuals home.

"Only," huh?

Behind your "only" hides everything.

I know I'm wasting my time explaining this to a developer, but I am a masochist apparently, so here goes...

A sidewalk in front of a private home is not open space. It's not defined by the state of Colorado as open space and I sincerely doubt anyone with an ounce of perspective would define the narrow strip of concrete that runs in front of one of Jed and Katie's McMansion's as open space.

That sidewalk is open space like ketchup is a vegetable.

A golf course is not open space.

A kayak park, public or otherwise, is not open space.

An airport runway is not open space.

A parking lot in front of a Best Buy is not open space.

Now, GOCO does indeed legitimately provide funds for recreation and this kayak park seems to qualify. But I am willing to bet that that little loophole (big enough to drive your development through as open space) is a gift from the recent Republican administration in Colorado and if brought to light would anger most people who are under the impression that GOCO is money spent on actual open spaces.

Here is some pertinent text from the GOCO site.

http://goco.org/overview/purpose.html

Here is defintion number one. The definition most people would consider an accurate definition of "open space" and a legitimate use of GOCO funds:

>> 1. " Investments in the wildlife resources of Colorado through the Colorado Division of Wildlife, including the protection and restoration of crucial wildlife habitats, appropriate programs for maintaining Colorado's diverse wildlife heritage, wildlife watching, and educational programs about wildlife and wildlife environment."

Here is definition number two, which is simply a loophole to allow for developments which actually destroy open spaces using taxpayer funds which are supposed to be used for the preservation of open space:

>> 2. " Investments in the outdoor recreation resources of Colorado through the Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (Colorado State Parks), including the State Parks system, trails, public information and environmental education resources, and water for recreational facilities."

Jed and Katie's use of GOCO funds may be perfectly legal, but their development is deceptive and completely at odds with reasonable and sincere eco-friendly practice.

They're young? So what. They're kayakers? So what. They wear tevas? So what.

Bottom line: 40 acres of open space is getting turned into a private enclave for priveleged kayakers.

That's called development.

Now, maybe South Main Development would like to call that "New" development. Or "Eco." Or "Enhanced Progressive Best Practices New Millenium Wildlife Friendly Clean Air Blue Skies Sunshine and Lollypops," but the reality is...

Open space disappears.

Houses appear.

That's called development.

This PR campaign on behalf of Jed and Katie's (and their father and the other unnamed business partners who are not as photogenic as Jed and Katie) destruction of open space and removal of 40 acres of largely undisturbed (your unsupported charges about garbage dumping notwithstanding) is immoral and absolutely no different than if this tract of land had been turned into a Hooters, Wal-Mart or any other less eco-marketable commercial development.

Sidewalks.

And a kayak park.

Don't change that.

Spin it any way you want.

This is destruction of open space using open space taxpayer funded resources.

I have used a lot of text to comment on this subject, but as they say... sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

Perhaps this simple graphic will help clarify...

http://homepage.mac.com/spudnuts/notopen.jpg

By the way, Spudnuts = Lezbro.

This TypeKey thing is annoying.