2A would be a costly mistake

Durango voters face an important decision with Ballot Issue 2A, which asks voters to extend the city’s half-cent sales tax. I believe citizens should vote “no” on 2A, despite strong voices from City Council, city staff, the Durango Herald and Durango Mesa Park, among others. 

Ballot Issue 2A merges funding for open space, parks and trails with funding for a costly municipal project. Open space and a new city hall/police station are separate issues that should be considered independently. Voters deserve to decide on the merits of funding outdoor projects without being tied to an unrelated, ill-conceived and expensive municipal project.

Why are these vastly different projects on the same ballot issue? Is the city hoping voters will be excited about outdoor funding and ignore the enormous price of a new city hall/police department? Residents are forced into an unfair choice. Voting “no” on 2A gives officials an opportunity to write new ballot measures that can be voted on separately: one for funding trails and open space; another for funding city buildings. 

The proposed budget for the new city hall and police station is misleading. Although the city claims that the budget is $60–$80 million, the City’s own architectural consultants put the price tag at over $100 million. The staggering budget is difficult to justify, especially when alternative solutions could be found at a fraction of the cost. Public safety and efficient governance are important, but $100 million? Is this project truly the best use of public funds?

The city should explore a more sensible solution. Taxpayers deserve a transparent breakdown of why such a massive investment is necessary, particularly when the city has never renovated a historic building before and has a troubling history of neglecting other historic buildings, like the Carnegie Building just across the street. Make no mistake – renovating and maintaining the long-term health of a 109-year-old building is no small task. Is that really where we want to direct taxpayer dollars and city employees’ time and energy? Taxpayers need to know if this is the most cost-effective, intelligent way to move forward before choosing to allocate enormous resources. 

Beyond the direct costs of this project, the community faces other costs. If this plan moves forward, an underground parking lot will encroach into Buckley Park, creating a black hole between the central business district and midtown, negatively impacting the vibrancy of the commercial core. Rather than enhancing economic activity, it will create a void where thriving businesses should be, stifle foot traffic, diminish retail activity and reduce the potential of downtown. 

Maybe the old high school should be entrusted to another group with experience renovating historic buildings that could creatively transform it into a vibrant addition that produces sales-tax revenue. A mixed-use development could bring new businesses, housing, cultural attractions and economic benefits.

Instead of sacrificing green space, why not invest in expanding Buckley Park and making it bigger and better? A permanent stage and concert venue could transform the park into a cultural hub, bringing economic and social benefits (think Telluride Town Park). We could even spend the money on making downtown and adjacent areas more pedestrian- and bike-friendly. These types of visionary projects would yield far greater long-term benefits than a costly government facility.

Our community is great, but every once in a while, citizens need to remind the city that their idea needs to go back to the drawing board. I wish I had been more vocal when the City decided to rebuild the sewage plant right next to our riverfront park. This area could have become one of the premier whitewater parks in the state, a town park and music venue, complete with restaurants (think Salida). Instead, we have an awkward mixed-use space – an amazing recreation area that smells like poop. 

This is another one of those times when we need to speak up. Rather than approving a tax for an expensive and potentially mismanaged renovation, residents should push for a more cost-conscious, intelligent solution. Furthermore, our system of voting works when ballot measures are simple and clear, not manipulative or misleading. By rejecting this proposal, we send a clear message: fiscal responsibility and public input must guide major spending.

This is not our only chance to direct funding toward trails and open space, but this is our last chance to keep the City from making another costly mistake. Vote “no” on 2A, and encourage city officials to explore clearer, more reasonable alternatives. Durango deserves a better, more thoughtful solution.

– Charles Shaw, Durango (Shaw is owner of the Smiley Building, which is adjacent to the former 9-R building, which would be home to the new City Hall and police station)