LOCAL PERSPECTIVE
For a Couple of Good Nights Sleep: Yes to Night Flights!
by Seth Cagin
Mar 25, 2011 | 8963 views | 24 24 comments | 20 20 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Like a lot of local political battles, much of the comment from the public about night flights at the airport on Thursday was about how such flights might affect people personally.

So allow me to get personal.

I travel on occasion to Florida to visit family. I really prefer to fly in and out of TEX, rather than Montrose, because the extra hour and a half on each end is a hassle, making a long day of travel even longer. And more than a hassle, it’s a cost. I’ve often spent the night in Montrose the night before I’m booked out on an early flight out so that I don’t have to wake up at 4 a.m. to drive to Montrose and I’ve spent another night in Montrose after arriving back late at night rather than drive home when I’m tired at the end of a long day of travel. Two extra hotel bills are usually more than the additional cost of airfare out of Telluride, not to mention the cost of the extra time and gas. There’s also extra cost if I take a shuttle.

But here’s the problem with TEX. Because there aren’t any night flights in or out of TEX, which means there’s no early departure either, I can’t leave Telluride until around noon, which means I arrive on the East Coast after 11 p.m., which means I’m not in bed before midnight. Not fun. I sure would like to be able to leave TEX at 8 or 9 so I could arrive at my destination early enough to get a good night’s sleep and make the most of the next day.

Then there’s the return home. I have to get a flight at dawn in Florida, departing at 6 a.m., wake up at 4 a.m. or earlier, in order to catch a flight to TEX. This is 2 a.m. Telluride time. So I arrive home dead tired and lose another full day. If I could leave Florida at, say 10 a.m. or even noon and still reach Telluride the same day, what an improvement that would be!

You might say that I knew Telluride was inaccessible when I moved here, so I should suck it up. I might as easily say to those who live near the airport and oppose night flights that they chose to live near an airport and so they should suck it up. These retorts, it seems to me, cancel each other out and are irrelevant to our present moment. Times change and just as Telluride need not remain as inaccessible as it was twenty or thirty years ago, so might an airport add service over that same period. Just as Telluride will never be exactly easy to get to, so the airport - serving a small community - will never be so busy that it will truly be obnoxious.

In any case, I have sucked it up for years, accepting the fact that it’s not easy to get here. But the fact is, it doesn’t have to stay this way because there is a potential solution: night flights at TEX.

If we allowed night flights year-round there could be an early morning flight out of here, a night arrival back home, and suddenly it would no longer be so debilitating to get to and from the East Coast and Telluride.

Keeping it personal, just as the residents of Aldasoro and Last Dollar ask, “Please don’t disturb me with additional noise over my house between the hours of 6 and 8 in winter,” I ask them, “May I please disturb you by having the possibility of arriving home to TEX at 8 p.m.?”

And the question becomes, which of us is more inconvenienced? Which of us would be suffering the greater imposition?

If asked to choose between an inconvenience to me and to others in my situation and an inconvenience to people who live near the airport, how is a decision-maker to decide? A little extra noise to some locals means a shorter trip to and from Telluride for others, locals and visitors alike. How are these impacts and benefits to be measured against each other?

So the discussion turns to other, seemingly bigger questions. Maybe allowing night flights would be unsafe. Maybe allowing them would break a solemn promise made thirty years ago. Maybe longer airport hours would fail to bring more commercial service, and so it wouldn’t solve anybody’s problem and we’d get the adverse impacts of more general aviation traffic without the benefits.

In that spirit, I want to justify my selfish motive by referencing bigger benefits of allowing night flights. I imagine there are lots of others who feel the way I do. Some of them may be tourists with other options, like Aspen or Utah or even Switzerland. They would like to check out Telluride but would prefer not to devote an entire day of travel to getting here and another day to getting home. They look at the travel options and decide to do Telluride another year, when they have more time. If I am right in imagining that these folks are out there, and it wouldn't take many of them to fill a couple of flights, then night flights could truly bring a lot more money to Telluride. Strikes me as a major community benefit.

What if the airport board votes to allow night flights but can’t get an airline to schedule the service? Yes, that’s a risk, but one worth taking, I think, because we know for sure we can’t get the service without permitting it. Plus, thinking like an airline, if such a thing is possible, it makes sense an airline could assign a plane to a destination year-round, but would find it challenging to assign the equipment in summer, when there is less demand for air service to Telluride but more demand for it elsewhere, and then find another use for the plane in winter, when its precisely the reverse. Not to mention the other costs of changing schedules seasonally. Plus, if I were an airline executive, I might calculate that flights that depart early from Telluride and return late would probably be popular and have great load factors so I’d go for it. Those additional flights could make the whole business of serving TEX far more viable, possibly reducing fares.

Continuing to make my argument, there is a tendency to discuss the downside of allowing night flights at TEX as if there were no downside to limited commercial service here. This shouldn’t be a case of measuring the new risks and costs of allowing night flights against no risks in maintaining the status quo; it’s a case of weighing risks against risks and costs against costs. Sure, more flights to TEX means more risk of an accident, and possibly even more so after dark. But there is also risk associated with driving to and from Montrose airport after dark. Statistically, I would wager that the driving risk is greater than the flying risk, and not only to the traveler. The driving theoretically risks harming a local bystander, a local on the highway, as much as the flying risks harm to a local bystander. After all, a taxi could crash into your car on the highway just as readily as a plane could crash into your house on the mesa. Moreover, while night flights in winter may be marginally riskier than daylight flights in summer, so is driving at night over Dallas Divide in winter more dangerous than driving the same route during the day in summer.

The task before the Telluride Regional Airport Board of Directors is to weigh costs versus benefits. In the abstract, this sounds easy, but it’s not because the benefits and costs don’t fall on everybody equally or in the same way. Some of us don’t live near the airport or under a flight path. Some who do live there might find a few more flights overhead than what they already experience to be a significant increase. Others would hardly notice. Some locals don’t fly or don’t fly much and therefore don’t mind the commute to and from Montrose when they do. Some don’t care about whether or not there are more tourist dollars flowing in the economy. Some would benefit directly from those dollars.

I would like to think the trump card when the airport board begins its final deliberations is that the community-at-large would see far more benefit from allowing night flights than those who are impacted would suffer adverse impacts, that the benefits do clearly outweigh the costs. But many of those impacts and benefits not only hit different people differently, they are also are subjective, making it easy for me to favor night flights since I have subjective personal reasons for hoping I can book one of them soon. I would get two more nights of good sleep per trip out of the deal. To me, that's worth a lot!

As it happens in this particular debate, there is one solution that seems tantalizingly out of reach: allow commercial night flights only. Most of the opponents would be fine with that, they have said, but apparently the FAA wouldn’t allow it. It's either allow both commercial and private flights or neither. Is there no appeal? Has the airport board pursued that possibility to the end of the line?

If so, and if that sensible solution can't be had, when the dust settles and the decision over night flights is reached, some of us - maybe me, or maybe it will be some of my friends and neighbors - will be sorely disappointed.

Comments
(24)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
ResponsibleFreePress
|
March 31, 2011
Mr. Face-

Yes it will pass.

In my opinin, it wasn't impatience on the light show. It was condescension.

Absolute power...

OK, off to ski-101 days this year!
prettyplease
|
March 31, 2011
PS

FOM

Dont forget we live in a place that has a 90 million dollar prairie dog town -we can afford everything !

prettyplease
|
March 31, 2011
FOM

I agree with you-the per capita is extreme-but the tax dollars have already been spent. We should be using the public transport much ,much more -not less. We had a huge expenditure in infrastructure we should not let it go to waste.

Our -airline guarantee taxes should all be spent here not in Montrose-many/most tax set ups are askew ,as Ive said before, life is not fair,but we cant just sit on the sidelines and point that out-you gotta play the game. Federal tax dollars will be drying up and we should keep ours flowing back to us.

After all, I've paid my fair share and now have access to Fed funded public transport.
FaceOnMars
|
March 30, 2011
PP: you said "Using our Federal tax dollars and public airport is practical"

Since when is spending upwards of 60 million dollars on an airport located in a county with a population of 5-10k a practical endeavor?

My suspicion is the per capita value would far exceed the national average (by many fold) for similar federal expenditures.
FaceOnMars
|
March 30, 2011
Thanks for the link Greg ... although it doesn't really change my understanding of the situation. I have never disputed the very real possibility there exists a legal pathway for TRAA to unilaterally approve night flights without engaging the BOCC.

Even if the restrictions were not legal when the SUP was approved, unbeknown to the BOCC at the time, it still does not sway my belief that this at least a flavor/variety of an "end run" with respect to the substance of the agreement.

I've known for a while that you can't "legislate good manners", it is now apparent to me that they can't be contracted either. You are absolutely correct about due diligence; in the real world, if there's even a tiny legal opening, there will always exist the possibility that someone seek to utilize it for their gain & it's up to all parties to be aware of such "openings".

Of course this will pass, we're going through the motions right now. That's why it was laughable to hear the objections to the lighting demonstration. Why not just play along in all respects that don't leave you legally exposed? Impatience is my guess.

It's not a political decision, it's a marketing decision driven by special interests. Too bad the public was roped into it.

(BTW, interesting 1983 BOCC docs to read @ www.sanmiguelcounty.org ... which detail some of the reservations some people had at the time and where we're at now.)
ResponsibleFreePress
|
March 29, 2011
To TFP-

Whoah! A fabulous contribution to the debate.

Yes, a new load of heroin has arrived and where is our Marshall? Ticketing on Main Street!

Where is our City Manager? Waxing on about needing more money as if he simply cant get some hot patch for the roads! He doesn't want to fix the roads-he is professionally educated..and knows better than we do about our needs. (FTR, I graduated a Baker Scholar, worked four positions, retired a CEO of a 7 billion subsidiary..I know a thing or two..but Clifton, wax on a bit will ya? Drivel!)

TFP for Mayor!
gcraig
|
March 29, 2011
FOM:

If you haven't read Zwick's memo I recommend you do (see bottom), it's a key piece in the debate.

A) From SZ Memo: "Among the conditions and requirements included in the BOCC’s SUP approval resolution were the following limitations on airport’s operations: “The airport, the attendant runways and facilities shall at all times be available to the general public for general aviation and commercial aviation uses. N. (1) For general aviation flights, hours of operation shall be from sun – up to sun – down, as defined by F.A.A. regulations. (2) Commercial aviation flights shall operate from sun – up, as defined by F.A.A. regulations, to 10:00 p.m. “"

B) It turns out that under United States v. Westchester from about 1978 these restrictions were not legal but no one ever challenged them. From Zwick: "It is my understanding that it is the position of TRAA’s attorneys that the BOCC’s legal authority to impose such conditions/restrictions on the TEX hours of operation was preempted by federal law when the SUPS were issued in 1983/1985." - since this memo is the redacted version I suspect due to what Steve Zwick said at the meeting the other day - and reading the case law - that his full version to BOCC supports this position because clearly case law does.

3) The change in the early 1990's was not a change in "interpretation." Congress passed ANCA - the Aiport Noise and Congestion Act. ANCA grandfathered existing restrictions like ours BUT also explicitly banned any new restrictions. The FAA has been diligent in enforcing this ban and case law at federal level has confirmed this. ANCA and the FAA forbid discriminating between types of traffic. San Miguel County has not lost "purvue" on zoning in this matter. First, it never had it and second the original agreement anticipated night flights in winter time from the beginning, albeit commercial not general aviation. What has changed, or more accurately been realized, is that federal law does not allow this distinction between the types of flights. So to fulfill the original intent of the county approval - letting in winter time commercial evening flights - you have to let in general aviation as well.

4) We heard repeatedly from pilots at the meeting as well as in print that Telluride, while challenging, is a safer airport that Vail/Eagle and Aspen both of which have mountains or other terrain directly in the approach path. Our airport runway is visible 20 miles out. Thus I'd say if these more challenging airports have had only two fatal crashes at night in the past thirty years when hundreds of thousands of night flight operations have occured the statistical risk is low and much lower than alternate activities like say driving to Montrose at night, or even on the spur (see latest Marshal/elk interaction), or skiing. Obviously Telluride airport is extreme when it's snowing, then planes would divert as they do during the daytime.

5) When I bought my land in the Peninsula I knew there was a tiny tiny chance that federal mineral rights below it could be leased, I did the research. Guess what it happend, fortunately we ended up being the ones who leased it. I don't claim the federal government is engaged in a "taking."

Similary someone who bought in 1994 in Aldasoro - as did the major opponent - could have done their due diligence on an airport that had 17,700 flight ops a year at that point (versus only 7000 now) and determined that the county approval of the airport contained the ability to have flights until 10 pm. To buy near the airport then fight it tooth and nail at every turn is slightly hypocritical in my mind. It's as if I bought downtown next to the Buck (oh wait I did) and then tried to get it closed.

6) Finally, let's be clear about that we're talking about. People refer to "no night flights" yet we already have night flights for almost 2/3 of the year when current airport curfew and length of day combine to allow flights up to 9:08 pm during longest days of year. April 1 - October 30th this would only add 7% to airport operating hours. What we are really discussing is winter-time additional hours. A grand whopping total of 30% more hours on average roughly Nov 1 - April 1.

7) I disagree on process/lack of public input, there have been several public meetings over the past 6 months, properly notices, etc. including the latest last week. Over 100 people attended and everyone got to air their views, some multiple times. There will be another meeting May 4th between county and TRAA where again the public will be able comment. The letters to editor have been stuffed with letters on the subject. There is a website full of fibs by the opponents and almost 120 people on the Facebook group supporting the airport and expressing their views.

I think what really gets some folks is that in the end this is not a "political decision." Due to federal law it is a fiduciary decision by the TRAA Board and in the end they have to put the interests of the airport first because they are legally bound to. That's what's bugging people who find they can't derail that fundamental situation through political intervention.

Prediction; this will pass and will be a non-issue once implemented. Not that many GA flights will come in and some added commercial service will be obtained. But that's just one person's guess.

Cheers,

Greg

PS: Don't know if Seth allows links but you can read Zwick's memo at:

http://www.gregcraig.us/AIRPORT/CurfewSJZMemo03-22-2011.pdf

prettyplease
|
March 29, 2011
Dear FOM

You are wavering-now owners after early 90's were promised something different than the owners of the 80's ? Maybe we should make a promise list to keep all the promises straight.

Please do some historical research-The airport land was owned and developed by one family-a planned development.Property owners knew what they were buying, the airport did not just appear!

After all isn't it all our responsibility to make sure expensive lot owners get what they were promised -not just what they bought ?

Im sure those million dollar homeowners need our protection since they weren't savvy enough to know what they were buying in the first place.

Its time to stop "representational level of abstraction" and "I do believe ...a similarity in perception" and get back to practical contracts and solutions.

Using our Federal tax dollars and public airport is practical-having to placate a few homeowners because we want to keep our Federal tax dollars is silly and they are selfish. If the airport is too much for a homeowner let them move to the Mountain Village- its verrrry quiet there ! MV owners will probably get together to have a no fly zone to keep their property values up !

The wants/promises of the few outweigh the needs of the many.

Please quit going on perception and promises-reality bites and we need a practical solution.
TellurideFreePress
|
March 29, 2011
The Town with the Perpetual Bellyache

This is one of those small issues that Telluride loves to make into a huge controversy (much like the plastic bag silliness or the fly tower at the Palm). Whether intentional or not, it detracts from real challenges that face the community.

While I doubt that increasing a few flights will have a substantial impact on the economy as a whole, it may bring in more private jets with New Yorkers or Texans to buy up the glut of empty castles for sale. I guess that is a good thing for the Realtors now working second manual labor jobs.

As long as the community focuses on a few more flights, we don't have to discuss the crumbling streets, greenwashing, the new load of heroin that just arrived, the rising price of gas and food or a local judicial system that is out of control. I can guarantee that fewer people will be impacted by extending airport hours than are impacted by the potholes that stretch from Idarado to Society Turn or by local law enforcement that has no accountability. Zero in on the tiny things and maybe, just maybe, no one will notice the big problems we face. Hey it works for the federal government, why not Telluride?

Shalom

FaceOnMars
|
March 28, 2011
gcraig: I haven't seen Zwick's actual memo, but as far as I'm aware, there isn't an explicit mention of "phase-in" of night flights in the special use agreement ... as you allude to mentioning an anticipation of night flights.

As far as an "end-run", maybe it wasn't the most precise choice of words, but I believe it does strike at the essence of the matter. It is my understanding the interpretation of federal law which stipulated that local zoning laws could not be used to regulate airport hours came about in the early 90's ... after the airport came into existence and the special use permit agreement with SMC. The "end run" is the discarding of a prior agreement -- without directly engaging the county as an official body or its residents -- because there is now a possible legal pathway in so far as federal law dissolving (or making it ineffectual --- not sure of the correct legal word) this existing agreement. Personally, I keep my word & have never used a non/3rd party to absolve myself of a direct agreement.

I never claimed it was a "legally defined taking", but rather one which has a relation in so far as sharing the essential qualities of such. From my perspective the "takings" are clear: San Miguel County loses significant pervue with respect to oversight of zoning and associated special use permits and neighboring property owners are also affected by what amounts to an upzone of sorts.

I suppose land owners who purchased after the federal position was staked out might have done better due diligence, but it would seem to be a very nuanced pursuit at the time given that there was what seamed to be a reasonable SUP in place & the historical context of Telluride. Nonetheless, I'm sure there are land owners who bought prior to this early 90's federal decision/position ... and probably still quite a few before the airport even came to be.

As far as safety goes, stats are always a reflection of the past & every situation is different. You can't escape the fact that Telluride is an extreme environment in terms of terrain and weather. For that matter, the airport itself is a bit of an "all or nothing" proposition if we look at the bigger picture along the lines that RFP raised earlier re: ballistics ... given that three sides are highly exposed, present little room for error, and if the "dart doesn't even hit the target" (the mesa) chances are extremely bleak of a positive outcome. It's a stationary aircraft carrier as far as I'm concerned. If I'm not mistaken, I believe many Navy pilots have described night time landings on aircraft carriers to be a hair raising event! Granted, it's moving and on the sea ... but I do believe TEX to share at least a similarity in perception.

As I mentioned earlier, the airport itself is not my big issue ... rather it's the way the TRAA has pursued this and how the public is affected by this on many front; most importantly how we were removed from the decision making process on a more representational level of abstraction.
gcraig
|
March 27, 2011
Just to correct a few bits of mistaken information in the posts below:

1) The original aiport authorization by San Miguel County anticipated commercial/airline night flights and specifically authorized them until 10 pm. See County Attorney Steve Zwick's memo to the Board of County Commissioners.

2) This is NOT an end run around zoning process. Local governments CANNOT restrict airport operating hours. The Airport Noise and Congestion Act from the early 1990's makes this clear as do several subsequent court cases. The same act grandfathered existing operation hours restrictions. So the County has NO control over airport operating hours and any attempt to do so would be challenged by the FAA. The aiport board has sole authority in the matter. The County Commissioners can express an opinion as can anyone and they probably will in early May after yet another public meeting.

3) The aiport has agreed to do a light test and the airport landing lights are controlled by pilots and automatically shut off after 15 minutes.

4) Changing the airport operating hours, particularly to something less than was in the original county authorization IS NOT a "taking." Airport hours are not a vested property right. The loudest most prolific objector to this change bought his now $3m house in Aldasoro in 1994 when there were over 17,000 takeoffs and landings in the year. Last year there were 7,700. To claim the minor addition of 30% more operating hours over the course of the winter is a "taking" after buying a place when the airport was 100% busier is ludicrous. The other primary opponent of this change has their primary home in an subdivision in Care Free, AZ THAT IS built for pilots, has an airport in the middle of it and he's on the board of that airport which, guess what, operates until 11 pm year round. It's hard to see him claiming a "taking" as well.

5) The safety issue is a TOTAL red herring by the opposition. There have been two, count 'em, TWO night flight fatal crashes at Vail/Eagle/Aspen in THIRTY years.

Face it, FOM and others never wanted the airport and would like to see it go away along with many of us and all of the visitors.

If you'd like more real facts as opposed to misinformation please take a look at the Facebook Group "I Support a Healthy Telluride Regional Aiport."
prettyplease
|
March 27, 2011
Dear RFP,

When the airport talks began ,we/I thought we'd all be George Jettson ! Okay mabey too far into the future-but how about Tom Cruise? The point was to land ,be in your home in five minutes and then skiing on the mountain in 30 minutes ! A pilots/jettsetters dream.

Living near the airport, you get more sun and better views,bigger lots and a short drive to the airport. Some of the nicest homes in the county are built up there-plenty of reasons for property values to only fall as much as the rest of the property values in the county.

PS Lets talk about lights-People who live at the airport know the real light and noise problem comes from the SNOWPLOW ! I can see the lights from town -not too often this year since it has not snowed.
ResponsibleFreePress
|
March 26, 2011
Mr. Pretty Please- You crack me up! You have a great attitude when you comment. Good on you. And yes, using our 65mm dollar investment sounds like a great idea...

Yes, the poor buggers who bought near the airport..they will never sell the house!

Yes, Jbenson-cheaper would be better. Good thinking.

prettyplease
|
March 26, 2011
Right on jbenson !
prettyplease
|
March 26, 2011
Dont forget ,in town, a rock as big as a house hit a house,smaller rocks have crashed through homes,Coronet and Butcher Creek have run right through and over homes.Every shelter has its hazards.

I have gotten less expensive tickets out of TEX twice in the last two years-I planned 6 months in advance.

We must use and improve our public transportation-keep our Federal tax dollars flowing back to us !
ResponsibleFreePress
|
March 26, 2011
Mr. Face on Mars-yes, this isn't really a critical path issue for me but the method, the TRAA board members, all of whom do not live near the airport, behaving so cravenly as to not do a trial run of the night lights..shame on them.

Detective Wontrobski-I have a business and spend a good portion of my time in Telluride in town. I once qualified as an expert marksman and understand the word trajectory fairly well. A G5 traveling at 350 miles an hour is moving 6 miles a minute. In this view we are all in the crash pattern of a poorly flown private jet. Off by a degree on the compass, lose orientation, do a John John Kennedy..we are going to be lit up here in Town. I am assuming that you understand trajectory as a police officer for the town.

Seth-good on you for putting it out there on how convenience in your Florida trips is the number one reason to trump the understanding of your neighbors. That is what we all like about you. Your honesty! (For the record, I have taken to love flying from Tex in the last year-the lack of the travel to and from Montrose is a big time factor for me).

Yep, we are going to get night flights into Telluride..it is the method and by whom that is regrettable...

FaceOnMars
|
March 25, 2011
Seth, fair enough about being honest how night flights in the winter would positively impact you personally. I've also felt the pain of traveling to far away places from Telluride and what it entails in terms of timing & logistics. I knew about it before moving here and even appreciate the remote location of the place I call home.

Not to put a negative spin on it, but I suppose people do need to suck it up in so far as living with the consequences of the choices we make in life. There are many trade-offs I live with here and I'm more than content to do so even though things don't always work out the way I'd prefer.

I do believe there is a distinct difference between the examples you cite: the convenience of travel for an individual ought to be trumped by official agreements the county has adopted to govern and regulate acceptable land use activity. Convenience is an amenity vs. hunkering down in a house and community you might call home for 20-40 years & at least having a basic understanding that such and such will or will not occur next to your living room.

As to whether there would be some synergistic effect of bringing air travel within greater reach for more people who were on the fence due to inconvenience: I believe this still falls within the same camp as the "getting to and from Florida more conveniently".

In other words, I believe there ought to be an extreme threshold for what amounts to a "taking" of this nature. It's akin to eminent domain, but not a full condemnation ... rather like having just your mineral rights severed by compulsion. In this case, it's your right to expectation of permitted activities (i.e. zoning) which is being taken. In the absence of an emergency, dire infrastructure NEED (in the true sense of the word), etc., it's all the same as far as I'm concerned ... whether it's convenience, increase in local economy, security of airport, etc.

I believe this to be an end run which happens to be legal ... pure and simple. That's what gets me the most, not necessarily the "content" of the matter. As I alluded to in another post, if this expansion of operating hours proposal had moved through the proper re-zoning channels, I would have much less issue with the substance of the matter ... although if forced to choose I'd personally I'd prefer to keep air traffic minimal. I'm OK with living with our system of laws & letting the chips fall where they may, it's just difficult to condone the apparent loophole guidance system which is at the helm on this one.
jbenson
|
March 25, 2011
Night Flights? How about some more day flights? Seth even admits that he can't get a flight before noon. Why aren't there 9am or 10am flights? Not to mention, most locals that I know can't afford to fly out of Telluride anyway. It's at least $400.00 just to fly to Denver.
johnhans
|
March 25, 2011
Seth, I totally support the small increase in operating hours the TRAA is contemplating. It really is not an excessive hardship on anyone. I was thinking about how many months a year windows are even open at the few houses in the flight path? Our struggling (and always) difficult economy needs this small boost and it aligns so well with our ongoing sustainability efforts. I hope our county commissioners will show some leadership here after getting all of the info they need. FLY TELLURIDE!
telluride
|
March 25, 2011
Seth Cagin responding to John Wontrobski.

You make an excellent point that I FORGOT to include in my commentary. I live across from Town Park and feel the full impact of large music events in the park, particularly Bluegrass, Yankee Doodle Doo-Dah and Blues and Blues. I knew what I was getting into when I moved to that neighborhood. Yes, it is inconvenient and a disruption (and beyond noise impacts, I could complain that I face increased risk of burglary or break-ins) but tolerating concerts in the park is a price I'm very willing to pay for the greater good of the community.