Letter: A different take on planning for future generations
Thank you for printing Rol Hamelin’s “Planning for future generations” in your October 6 edition. After a few days thinking how to respond to this one, I decided to be charitable, and assume Rol is insulated and therefore unaware. So, Rol, please read on.
First: Vail’s problems are Vail’s to solve. “Downvalley” is not a solution. That is the NIMBY thinking that has forced Vail into the pickle it’s in now. Like it or not, building a resort in the mountains involves loss of green space and habitat. Had there been more foresight in Vail’s evolution this could have been done with less impact. Now the impact is going to be greater.
Second: “Loving a place to death” includes leveling chunks of the habitats of “iconic wildlife” to build large homes that are occupied only a fraction of the year.
Third: The definition of “eyesore” depends on who’s defining it (some people would refer to the point above).
Fourth: Everyone who lives close enough to commute into Vail actually does “live in paradise.” Perhaps Rol hasn’t noticed this.
Rol is the one who needs to be more “thoughtful,” or he should move back to Hawaii or Carmel.