The Dillon Town Council approved a major lakefront development by a vote of 4-2. Congratulations Dillon, you obviously got what you didn’t ask for. I applaud Mayor Carolyn Skowila and Councilman Hendricks for voting against this project (thank you), but somehow this column, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that this project is worth voting yes for. This is about the four members who made the decision.
They voted in favor of a project that was strongly opposed by residents, the residents most affected by the project. Pages of objections were filed, mostly regarding the overall height, scale and scope of the project. The town had leverage because building codes require a 35-foot height limit. By waiving this height requirement and granting the developer’s requested variance, the town received absolutely nothing in return.
What could the town receive in return for this valuable concession? Worker housing might be a good place to start. The town has a small motel and restaurant, and he has 200 short-term rental properties (I understand that developers prefer the term “branded housing”, but I’m having trouble using a term that doesn’t make sense to me). And he’s replacing it with three restaurants. Someone will have to work there, but the need will certainly be far greater than the number currently employed there. Where will they live? No one seems to know. “We’re not in a position to understand whether we can afford it or not,” said developer Jake Pollitt. Legal translation: We are not going to eat into our profits to build housing for our employees. According to Town Manager Nathan Johnson,, Pollitt agreed to keep the employee housing issue “constantly in focus” and is “working in good faith to ensure that the real people who happen to be servicing these luxury condos have a place other than their cars.” I intend to work hard to achieve this goal. live. But don’t blame Mr. Johnson. He didn’t have the right to vote and was simply a messenger with bad news about the town’s video summary. Without the workforce housing initiative, the project would have failed without even making a difference in height.
Some citizen comments submitted to the City Council called the project monstrous, offensive, intrusive, impractical, ridiculous, stressful, large-scale and/or a “rich man’s retreat.” There was something that could be expressed in words. Sounds like exactly the type of development people want.
Other comments aptly stated that the entire project violated the town’s charter to provide “honest stewardship” of the town’s resources and was inconsistent with the town’s overall character. One City Council member particularly recognized this, calling the project “big but beautiful, beautiful but big.” Whatever that means, it was good news for developers. Apparently this council member likes “big” and voted to approve the project. Although simple, “big” is an apt description of the project. In fact, Mr. Pollitt regrets his proposal at this point. It was to be a 10-story building with 500 residential units and an entertainment facility comparable to a town-run amphitheater. Why stop at an approved 64-foot observation tower when the town will allow you to build something bigger (and taller)?
I am not opposed to development as I represented development projects in Jefferson County during my time as a lawyer and am generally supportive of the project. I would just insist that Mr. Pollitt play by the rules and abide by the zoning restrictions that are in place. There’s no need to say that he needs to build the project if doing so won’t (enoughly) benefit the project. However, one City Council member disagrees with my assessment and says this is basically Dillon’s last chance. He said, “If we turn this down, it will be the death of this town.” Really? Potential developers are looking at the potential returns for prime lakefront real estate, with a view that explains why people travel thousands of miles to make sure they have to follow the rules. No one wants to analyze sexuality. I highly doubt this is Dillon’s last chance.
There are usually two reasons why such public decisions don’t make sense to the public. Either for money or for stupidity. As an immigrant from Chicago, I immediately think it’s money. We’ve always had the folly to fall back on if money tracking doesn’t work out. Besides Mr. Pollitt, who else might benefit from this project in the future? First, if I own a business nearby and my business has 200 new potential customers, I I think I’m happy. Secondly, I would be very happy if I could work in real estate as an agent, broker, or investor. Because 200 new condos will be on the market and there will be money to be made. I couldn’t be happier.
I think the ultimate question here is who do town council members serve? I thought the answer was obvious. It’s its constituent parts. But apparently in Dillon they work for themselves. Because if they were representing their constituents, they would not have supported this project that was presented to them.
Scott M. Estill’s column, “Challenges, Choices, Change,” appears every other Thursday in the Summit Daily News. Estill is an attorney, author, and speaker who lives in Dillon when he is not traveling or attending legal matters in Denver. Please contact scott@scottestill.com.
