News
Opinion
Being schmoozed by developers to the town of Eagle is so textbook that it's scary some have actually fallen for it. These stereotypical, I do homogenous and, in my opinion, junk show-looking developments have pockmarked our country and are rapidly going out of business due to the struggling economy and the need to have more sustainable urban and land-use plans that truly benefit a town and its residents long term.
Everyday, these types of developers are running out of places to go that can support the colossal size of their “lifestyle centers” and, especially in this economy, overzealous revenue expectations.
You can pick up The Wall Street Journal any day of the week for proof and read about another big box that's bankrupt and going out of business or simply take a drive through any suburb USA and look at the empty gargantuan structures scarring the landscape due to irresponsible, unsustainable development.
Once-rural suburbs, along with once-vibrant urban areas, have learned their lesson the hard way by allowing these types of developments in the ‘80, ‘90s and early 2000s.
Fortunately, many areas hurt by these ERS-type developments are now looking into ways to resurge the downtown and place restrictions on the sprawling big box developments that make sense and are appropriate for the demographics of the area.
However, the eyesores that lay, many abandoned or at best under-producing, on the outskirts of the town are dismal reminders of why they should have never gone down that road to begin with.
The trend now, at least for forward-thinking towns and urban areas, is to look at more sustainable, greener and smarter growth that takes into account long-term goals and visions, buoys the town off its natural strengths (i.e., historic downtowns, natural beauty, plentiful recreation, etc.) and paints an overall healthier picture for the future of the town.
The big-box swindle, as it's been coined, was a short-term fix, a mere Band-Aid, for more complex issues that needed to be dealt with at a town level.
Selling out to the big box in this economy is nothing but a big mistake as these developments eventually dry up in a good economy and are sure to in this one.
A town the size of Eagle (approximately 5,800) in a valley that doesn't even have 50,000 people is surely not able to support a 550,000-square-foot big-box shopping mall (40 percent larger than Glenwood Meadows).
Not to mention that once the land is gone, there is no going back and the town must support the additional infrastructure created regardless of whether the development produces as promised.
Eagle is just the next victim in this never-ending cycle as these developers try to push their outdated, “build it and they will come” concepts during an economically vulnerable time.
Hopefully, Eagle is smart enough to protect its future.
To sum it up, these developers spent $19 million on a horse pasture during a booming economy and now the economy has dried up and they're looking for the town of Eagle to bail them out of what was a bad investment.
This is currently the developers' problem and need not be the town of Eagle's problem.
Let's not go down with this obviously sinking ship. Vote “no” on ERS.
Colleen Downard
Eagle
Everyday, these types of developers are running out of places to go that can support the colossal size of their “lifestyle centers” and, especially in this economy, overzealous revenue expectations.
You can pick up The Wall Street Journal any day of the week for proof and read about another big box that's bankrupt and going out of business or simply take a drive through any suburb USA and look at the empty gargantuan structures scarring the landscape due to irresponsible, unsustainable development.
Once-rural suburbs, along with once-vibrant urban areas, have learned their lesson the hard way by allowing these types of developments in the ‘80, ‘90s and early 2000s.
Fortunately, many areas hurt by these ERS-type developments are now looking into ways to resurge the downtown and place restrictions on the sprawling big box developments that make sense and are appropriate for the demographics of the area.
However, the eyesores that lay, many abandoned or at best under-producing, on the outskirts of the town are dismal reminders of why they should have never gone down that road to begin with.
The trend now, at least for forward-thinking towns and urban areas, is to look at more sustainable, greener and smarter growth that takes into account long-term goals and visions, buoys the town off its natural strengths (i.e., historic downtowns, natural beauty, plentiful recreation, etc.) and paints an overall healthier picture for the future of the town.
The big-box swindle, as it's been coined, was a short-term fix, a mere Band-Aid, for more complex issues that needed to be dealt with at a town level.
Selling out to the big box in this economy is nothing but a big mistake as these developments eventually dry up in a good economy and are sure to in this one.
A town the size of Eagle (approximately 5,800) in a valley that doesn't even have 50,000 people is surely not able to support a 550,000-square-foot big-box shopping mall (40 percent larger than Glenwood Meadows).
Not to mention that once the land is gone, there is no going back and the town must support the additional infrastructure created regardless of whether the development produces as promised.
Eagle is just the next victim in this never-ending cycle as these developers try to push their outdated, “build it and they will come” concepts during an economically vulnerable time.
Hopefully, Eagle is smart enough to protect its future.
To sum it up, these developers spent $19 million on a horse pasture during a booming economy and now the economy has dried up and they're looking for the town of Eagle to bail them out of what was a bad investment.
This is currently the developers' problem and need not be the town of Eagle's problem.
Let's not go down with this obviously sinking ship. Vote “no” on ERS.
Colleen Downard
Eagle
