What's the reason for four "no" votes on Kane Ranch?
Last updated 5/17/2022 at 2:24pm | View PDF
I attended the Council meeting when there was discussion to de-annex the 2400 acre Kane Ranch property from the City of Fountain. I just read Mr. Gordon Rick's letter to the editor, explaining why he voted to allow the de-annexation. He made it very clear at the meeting, and it is still clear to me. I would like to have heard why four others on Council voted to keep it in the City limits. They must know something. It was made perfectly clear that the City of Fountain does not have the resources to provide La Plata with water. I smiled when I read "The long-term solution is to obtain enough water to serve 16,600 single-family homes, however, it would be a bit more difficult due, in part to the large price tag." What the article failed to mention was the price tag of $212M dollars. Yes, $212 MILLION DOLLARS. The developers want to move forward on this project. Now.
In a perfect world, I would like to have it remain open space, but I was assured 30 years ago at a City of Fountain Council meeting that it's not possible, practical or even imaginable to stop development. Roof tops were needed back then. Obviously, it's a hot spot for developers now.
Would I like to have those 16,600 homes within the City of Fountain? I suppose so. It would seem City governance would have more control over the building densities and safety aspect, but Fountain cannot provide them with the water.
In my world this looks like a broken contract, but when dealing with the government, I suppose it can look like or be anything else. The developer will now take it to court. Dragging out the process. If you have a moment look at La Plata's website. Impressive.
So, the next time a builder, a developer, a grocer or a trucker tells me that "Fountain" is difficult to deal with, I'll remember this chapter.
And, by the way, wouldn't a swimming pool and community center be a plus for this city of 35,000? You know, something for the citizens.
Fran Carrick