Letter: Misleading information regarding Booth Heights
Last week’s Vail Town Council meeting featured appellants to Booth Heights whose eloquent arguments elucidated many of the misleading statements made by Triumph Development.Here are just a few:
1. The maximum density of Booth Heights is twice that of what Triumph has promoted, a maximum of 458 inhabitants, not 200-250 people. Triumph continues to say this density is justified by comparing it to Timber Falls which is 1.5 miles away. There is no comparable housing density near the site of Booth Heights.
2. An adequate traffic study has not been performed. Triumph contracted a study to be done on a Saturday in December 2017 when the immediate neighbor, the Vail Mountain School, was not in session, Epic passes were restricted and the weather was good with no snow or highway closures. The marked density on the site along with an artificial suppression of traffic numbers makes Triumph’s traffic study inaccurate and misleading.
3. An artist’s rendition of the development is wholly inaccurate. The drawing does not show the steep hillside with a rock band overhanging Booth Heights (rocks from which have fallen and jumped the current berm as lately as last summer), nor does it show the necessary additional 60-foot berm upon which nothing green will grow, nor does it portray the destruction of all foliage on the hillside behind this highly-visible entrance to our community, which would take decades to revegetate.
4. No plans to create a safe pedestrian underpass have been discussed. Triumph finally admitted it they didn’t look at pedestrian safety because the developers don’t feel it is in their purview to do so. This lack of concern supports the narrative that Booth Heights is less about workforce housing than it is about the profit to be made from developing our sheep herd’s critical habitat. The deciding vote by the mayor was made with the statement that “nothing new was heard” from the appellants.
Is it possible that the council leader knew in advance that the development is denser than portrayed, the traffic study was meant to underestimate the number of cars and that alleviating risks to pedestrians is just an impediment to maximizing developer’s profit?
Support Local Journalism
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User