This letter is in response to Don Rogers’ column “Season of the absurd” and “Our View” in the Oct. 31 Vail Daily.
Don Rogers’ diatribe about the golf clubhouse project is simply inaccurate. While it may be true that the town of Vail is in a good financial position, does that mean that the Town Council should be able to push through whatever project they want, wherever they want, while disregarding the intent and history of a legal document, the Pulis covenant, meant to protect property owners? Or the fact that even the most ardent business community supporter could logically look at the location of the proposed commercial “event center” and, if honest, would agree that this is an inappropriate location for such a venture? And, yes, maybe the clubhouse has been used in the past for a few weddings, but let’s be honest, dramatically increasing the size and number of events obviously creates a whole different ball game.
Then Don talks about the “over 87 percent support for renovating the clubhouse.” That’s accurate, however, most people assumed the renovation was to rebuild a golf clubhouse, not create an events center for the business community. When the choice was between refunding the money or keeping it in Vail, it’s no surprise to anyone that the vote was to keep it. But then he goes on to say that the renovation was “to be an attractive venue for weddings.” Actually, the ballot language was “improvement of the clubhouse ... including multi-use community space.” Since when did community space become a commercial wedding venue?
The actions of the Town Council, with regard to the clubhouse, should raise gigantic red flags to all of Vail’s taxpayers. If the council is willing to push forward with the “event center” (regardless of what they say now, these were their own words) and use your tax dollars to stubbornly defend a position they never should have gotten themselves into, they are sending a clear message that no neighborhood is safe from their reach, all under the guise of prosperity.
The one thing I do agree with him on is that, in fact, it is a “season of the absurd.” We just disagree on who is being absurd.