Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Town’s landscape

Dear Editor:

It is now necessary for me to make the following points of clarification to correct the misrepresentation of facts authored in Mr. Fincher’s article in last week’s paper entitled “Recommendation could change town’s landscape.”

The article refers to the hill in downtown Pagosa located between South 6th and 7th streets and Navajo and Piedra streets which includes an undeveloped alley running north and south between Navajo and Piedra.

Mr. Fincher states that the alley “runs the full length of the ridge above the cliff” which is totally inaccurate. In fact if you walk the alley to be vacated which is stacked out and, anyone interested may do so, you will notice that the alley is well below the ridge and the views of the river and town are for the most part obstructed by the ridge.

Consequently, with limited views, the alley is not suitable for use as a trail and, if in fact, the alley did traverse the ridge I doubt the planning commission would have made the recommendation they did in lieu of a possible future trail.

At the first planning commission meeting to discuss the vacations for the alley as well as the undeveloped part of Navajo Street running over the hill there was an overwhelming majority in support of vacating both the alley and Navajo Street. Not only was there overwhelming support but there were objections to a trail for privacy reasons.

None of the five property owners bordering the proposed vacations as well as neighbors close by had any objections. There were only two objections including Mr. Anderson’s which Mr. Fincher profusely quoted. However I find it very interesting that none of the many supporters were not mentioned nor what they had to say was reported.

Also the suggestive use of the word “concession” in the article for my willingness to work with the town to formalize the use of 6th Street which runs though my property as some kind of “deal” for the approval of the application is not only absurd but I resent the implication. No matter what I would be willing.

The misinformation continues with Mr. Fincher stating at the end of his article that “Adams … also advocated for banning cargo containers and metal sided buildings” which I never advocated in any way shape or form. It is simply untrue.

Mr. Fincher, I believe that the residents of Pagosa place a certain “public trust” in our local news coverage for unbiased accuracy. I would hope that you would honor that trust.

Peter Adams

This story was posted on August 7, 2014.