Colorado Politics

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Eeyore

So don't fool yourself Pueblo

Please go repeat this to your bathroom mirror 20 times.. then come back and post more.

[Eeyore]

I was not going to post this but now I think I will. This shows Pueblo is still important in the state.

Third District Facts

District Population:

614,467 (the Pueblo Region is 400,000)

Veteran Population:

70,285

Largest City:

Pueblo (population 102,121)

Median Household Income:

$35,970 (State Average=$47,203)

Counties:

Alamosa, Archuleta, Conejos, Costilla, Custer, Delta, Dolores, Garfield, Gunnison, Huerfano, Hinsdale, Jackson, La Plata, Las Animas, Mesa, Mineral, Moffat, Montezuma, Montrose, Otero, Ouray, Pitkin, Pueblo, Rio Blanco, Rio Grande, Routt, Saguache, San Juan, San Miguel

Colleges and Universities:

Adams State College, Colorado State University-Pueblo, Western State College, Mesa State College, Ft. Lewis College, Colorado Mountain College, Trinidad State Junior College, Northwest Community College, Pueblo Community College, Otero Junior College

Note: CSU Pueblo is the flag ship university for the district.

National Parks:

Great Sand Dunes NP, Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP, Mesa Verde NP, Colorado NM, Dinosaur NM

Ski Areas:

Steamboat Ski Resort, Aspen Mountain, Buttermilk, Aspen Highlands, Snowmass, Sunlight Ski Area, Telluride Ski Resort, Durango Ski Mountain, Monarch, Wolf Creek, Hesperus Ski Area, Howelson Hill Ski Area, Silverton Mountain, Crested Butte

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Eeyore

Are you saying Colorado is like the Sahara?

I'm saying that the 20 counties Pueblo is the "hub" of that supposedly make it relevant are populated about as densely as the Sahara, yes. Baca county and its 1,800 votes. Kiowa and Cheyenne counties, with under 700 and 800 votes respectively. Lincoln, 1,600; Crowley, 1,100; Bent, 1,400. That's a huge area. Prowers County and its 3,300 voters is a veritable metropolis.

I know it's an age old Republican tradition in Colorado, but I had a good feeling when Ken Buck spent the day before the election roaming Yuma and Washington Counties. Sure, they are reliable conservatives. But dear god, man, elections are simple math problems. Pick one new subdivision in El Paso or northern Douglas and go work your ground game! For crying out loud, drive old folks to the polls yourself, you'll still pick up more votes than you will canvassing out in Eckley.

[bunt_q]

From the State Dempgrapher (Excel file) -

http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog/p...ounties5yr.xls

Note that the Grand Junction MSA/Mesa County will be dead even with the Pueblo MSA by the end of the decade. And the Western Slope as a whole is vastly larger.

[Eeyore]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

From the State Dempgrapher (Excel file) -

http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog/p...ounties5yr.xls

Note that the Grand Junction MSA/Mesa County will be dead even with the Pueblo MSA by the end of the decade. And the Western Slope as a whole is vastly larger.

Time will tell.

If/when Pueblo Springs starts, not to mention the proposed Colorado Energy Park, that will change all the state demographic forecasts. Even if that does not happen Pueblo still has the benefit of being home to the regions flag ship university and that will have a profound economic impact on Pueblo. One that can't be matched by Mesa State in Grand Junction.

[wong21fr]

^So would a nuclear warhead going off in the middle of Pueblo.

I'm going to lean towards that being the most realistic scenario.

[bunt_q]

Yeah, population projections do not change because a new subdivision is built.

What's interesting to think about is redistricting. We'll stay at 7 now, at best up to 8 seats in 2020. I think it's safe to assume that districts 1, 2, 6, and 7 will stay focused on Denver. 5 on Colo Spgs. But 3 and 4 will be interesting. The variables there are North Front Range, Grand Junction/Western Slope, and Colorado Springs (assuming Pueblo stays stagnant). District 4 will probably become more and more focused on Fort Collins and Weld County (the eastern plains are a rounding error). The the question is, does the Western Slope grow slow enough that the pairing holds. Are does it eventually grow enough (and depending on who's doing the redistricting, are the north suburbs safe enough for democrats) that the 3rd district starts to pull away from the 2nd (Vail, etc), the 2nd (Boulder) pulls from the east, and Pueblo gets stuck someplace else (remainder). I'm guessing Colorado Springs grows enough to hold the 5th alone, but if not, it sure might be tempting to add Pueblo and reshuffle the 3rd/4th.

Or, do El Paso and Douglas grow enough to someday become the 5th and 8th, with Pueblo tossed in to nullify whatever effect it still has.

[Eeyore]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

^So would a nuclear warhead going off in the middle of Pueblo.

I'm going to lean towards that being the most realistic scenario.

Well given what happened with Bannen Lewis in Colorado Springs I am glad the developers waited instead of starting a major development during this recession only to file bankruptcy and causing a even larger delay in the project. In the end its prime land on the front range urban corridor so it will be developed the only question is when. That is a key advantage Pueblo has over Grand Junction.

[bunt_q]

Banning Lewis isn't really delayed. It's only a restructuring for the developer caused by the delay, which is the result of a rather large recession. The slow part is the approval process, and they've basically got that in the bag. As soon as the demand returns (if the demand returns), that sucker will rocket forward, faster than any of us would like. With the water/approvals/planning/transportation/etc. all in place, they could offload that whole project to another developer (if the bankruptcy were to necessitate that) with hardly a hiccup. That's all a lot easier when the city is on your side. A bigger question is how chopped up that'll all get between development groups over time.

edit: Have you been to Grand Junction (or the whole corridor from Eagle to GJ). Pueblo may technically be "on the Front Range," but to a lot of folks in the metro area, that corridor (which is FULL of developable land - look at Garfield County boom) is every bit as close, and vastly preferable, to parcels on the eastern plains far southeast of Colorado Springs. *Especially* if/when we do something about I-70.

[Eeyore]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yeah, population projections do not change because a new subdivision is built.

What's interesting to think about is redistricting. We'll stay at 7 now, at best up to 8 seats in 2020. I think it's safe to assume that districts 1, 2, 6, and 7 will stay focused on Denver. 5 on Colo Spgs. But 3 and 4 will be interesting. The variables there are North Front Range, Grand Junction/Western Slope, and Colorado Springs (assuming Pueblo stays stagnant). District 4 will probably become more and more focused on Fort Collins and Weld County (the eastern plains are a rounding error). The the question is, does the Western Slope grow slow enough that the pairing holds. Are does it eventually grow enough (and depending on who's doing the redistricting, are the north suburbs safe enough for democrats) that the 3rd district starts to pull away from the 2nd (Vail, etc), the 2nd (Boulder) pulls from the east, and Pueblo gets stuck someplace else (remainder). I'm guessing Colorado Springs grows enough to hold the 5th alone, but if not, it sure might be tempting to add Pueblo and reshuffle the 3rd/4th.

Or, do El Paso and Douglas grow enough to someday become the 5th and 8th, with Pueblo tossed in to nullify whatever effect it still has.

That is exactly why I am a strong advocate of Pueblo Springs Ranch and the Colorado Energy Park. Sure they might not be the best for downtown Pueblo but they are needed for Pueblo so we can keep up with the growth on the northern front range and possibly catch up some.

As far as Pueblo Springs. When it gets developed, it will happen just a matter of when, that will add 200,000 people to the city. That will make Pueblo 300,000 to 500,000 people. Maybe not enough to be the largest or second largest city but more then enough to keep our status and our own district. Will I miss what Pueblo is like today? Sure but unfortunately Pueblo has to keep up with the sprawl of the Springs and Denver and northern Colorado if we want to keep our status this century. That's just a political reality.

[bunt_q]

Why would anybody move there, though? It's not true that if you build it, they will come.

[Eeyore]

As they say. Location, Location, Location.

Pueblo Springs is in the middle of the two largest cities in southern Colorado on I-25 and just a stones throw from Fort Carson and close to the Springs airport and CSU Pueblo. Then if the developers can develop the Pueblo Springs tech park by getting a few large companies to move there using the location as a advantage plus the city of Pueblo's 1/2 cent sales tax for primary jobs as a extra incentive its only icing on the cake. On top of that the development has all of the cheap water Pueblo has at the low rates we pay. That is why in my opinion its not a matter of "if" but "when".

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Eeyore

Will I miss what Pueblo is like today? Sure but unfortunately Pueblo has to keep up with the sprawl of the Springs and Denver and northern Colorado if we want to keep our status this century. That's just a political reality.

No you won't and no it doesn't. Everything you like about a city (re: Orlando) is missing from Pueblo and to have an urban disaster like Orlando you'll have to destroy what Pueblo is today. You won't miss that, you're dying to kill Pueblo as it is now, so don't pretend that you would miss something you'd love to be the executioner for.

Nor does Pueblo HAVE to do anything like what you're proposing. Or rather it does, in that it's powerless, irrelevant, utterly incapable of doing anything original or on its own, and therefore DOES have to follow the exact model that you "think" other cities are going to do (and by "it" I mean you..thank goodness you're not the only mind planning for Pueblo's future). You're not even bothering to come up with new ideas for Pueblo, you're just assuming that the north will make the same stupid mistakes that other urban blops did (COS, Orlando) and saying Pueblo HAS to do the same thing to maintain what it has now. Which is what exactly? The sting of swaying nothing at all in this election?

[Eeyore]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

No you won't and no it doesn't. Everything you like about a city (re: Orlando) is missing from Pueblo and to have an urban disaster like Orlando you'll have to destroy what Pueblo is today. You won't miss that, you're dying to kill Pueblo as it is now, so don't pretend that you would miss something you'd love to be the executioner for.

Nor does Pueblo HAVE to do anything like what you're proposing. Or rather it does, in that it's powerless, irrelevant, utterly incapable of doing anything original or on its own, and therefore DOES have to follow the exact model that you "think" other cities are going to do (and by "it" I mean you..thank goodness you're not the only mind planning for Pueblo's future). You're not even bothering to come up with new ideas for Pueblo, you're just assuming that the north will make the same stupid mistakes that other urban blops did (COS, Orlando) and saying Pueblo HAS to do the same thing to maintain what it has now. Which is what exactly? The sting of swaying nothing at all in this election?

I know this sounds like I am contradicting myself and maybe I am but even though I want Pueblo to grow I know when it does part of me will miss what it is today. Small and a place where everyone knows who I am.

That being said you guys constantly tell me how politically speaking Pueblo is becoming irrelevant because we have had stagnant growth while Colorado Springs and Denver has grown. Pueblo's leaders know that as well so they are doing all they can to try and get Pueblo to grow after the economic collapse. Sometimes with innovative ideas like PEDCo and the 1/2 cent sales tax or the Riverwalk and sometimes with the typical ideas like sprawl and even developing downtown with our convention center that you see in other cities that have been successful like Denver. All of this is with one main goal. To keep Pueblo politically relevant this century in Colorado. I hope they are successful.

[Brainpathology]

I swear Eeyore there is a draw string on your back

[Eeyore]

LOL I am not sure what you mean and I don't think I want to know.

[Eeyore]

Here is another thing Pueblo has done that is ahead of most cities.

This is from the Denver Post:

The city of Pueblo took the road less traveled, enacting a 4.3 percent sales tax on medical marijuana sales. Pueblo's question 2A stated on the ballot that approving the measure would result in a first-year tax revenue increase of $500,000.



Read more: Medical pot: Snuffed in Loveland, taxed in Pueblo - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16...#ixzz14GZw72Yf

[bunt_q]

Your central thesis, then, is (1) Pueblo needs to be relevant, (2) to be relevant, it must grow, and (3) to grow, it must sprawl.

Not, let's grade this.

(1) I'll accept that.
(2) True.
(3) Patently FALSE.

If you accept (3) - the essence of Pueblo Springs - you very much put (1) at risk. Doesn't matter that it's inside city limits, except maybe for revenue purposes (there is certainly no guarantee a development like that will pay for itself, even it builds out exactly as you imagine). Pueblo West hasn't helped Pueblo, if anything it has hurt. And that is not only because it's outside the city. Pueblo West has generated a lot of revenue inside the city (commercial/retail along Hwy 50), and kept a lot of the costs (residential) outside of town, so by that rationale, it should have helped. But no, that type of growth dilutes what little Pueblo has going for it. If you think Pueblo Springs gets you (1) and (2), you are making a terrible terrible mistake.

[Front_Range_Guy]

It's looking like Colorado Springs also re-elected Democratic State Senator John Morse, but just barely.

[Eeyore]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Your central thesis, then, is (1) Pueblo needs to be relevant, (2) to be relevant, it must grow, and (3) to grow, it must sprawl.

Not, let's grade this.

(1) I'll accept that.
(2) True.
(3) Patently FALSE.

If you accept (3) - the essence of Pueblo Springs - you very much put (1) at risk. Doesn't matter that it's inside city limits, except maybe for revenue purposes (there is certainly no guarantee a development like that will pay for itself, even it builds out exactly as you imagine). Pueblo West hasn't helped Pueblo, if anything it has hurt. And that is not only because it's outside the city. Pueblo West has generated a lot of revenue inside the city (commercial/retail along Hwy 50), and kept a lot of the costs (residential) outside of town, so by that rationale, it should have helped. But no, that type of growth dilutes what little Pueblo has going for it. If you think Pueblo Springs gets you (1) and (2), you are making a terrible terrible mistake.

A few things.

I agree 100% Pueblo West was a mistake one that I know Pueblo does not want to repeat. My personal opinion is its worse then anything Colorado Springs has or Highlands Ranch. That is why Pueblo wants to annex Pueblo Springs so the city planners can have a say in how it is developed. One example is the tech park and how it will be compact and bring in more money into the city with the 1/2 cent sales tax and will enable Pueblo to use the tax to recruit companies unlike the DTC despite its name. However, I have talked about that a lot so I want to move the conversation forward.

Pueblo growing -

The bottom line is for Pueblo just to keep its current status it MUST grow, a point we agree on. Sure Pueblo can stay small and develop a cute downtown that causes urbanists to love the city but it would continue to be more and more irrelevant in the state politics. Or it can do what it is doing, work on improving its downtown but not limited it to the downtown much like the Denver MSA has done with developments like Highlands Ranch, Cherry Creek, Lakewood etc compared to Colorado Springs that pretty much forgot its downtown. Sure urbanists don't like those developments around Denver but they are what has caused Denver to move ahead of Pueblo in the past 50 years in state and national politics. For example someone pointed out that the city of Denver and Pueblo are roughly the same difference in size at is has been for a long time as Denver is about 5 times bigger. The difference is the suburbs and that has given the Denver area more political power then Pueblo has, especially in the last 30 to 50 years. Now even with Pueblo Springs the city of Pueblo will be geographically smaller then the city of Denver but give us plenty of land to grow for the next 50 years. The Colorado Energy Park will not be in the city and provide thousands of primary jobs. Then with all these developments the Pueblo MSA will be much less in land area then the Denver MSA and much less population. However, that combined with the fact Pueblo is a hub city for 20 counties will keep us politically important this century in state and national politics.

Given the choice between the cute downtown yet politically irrelevant or nice downtown but more sprawl with political relevance I choose the latter. Now if anyone can provide one example of a U.S. city that proves my theory wrong tell me and I will study it but I can't think of one U.S. city that has grown in the past 100 years with none or very little sprawl.

Finally, I want to say other then politics it does not really matter how much bigger the Springs or Denver is as Pueblo is a fine town for its size and has great amentias as we have no issue investing money to make them better. For example not even Fort Collins, a city with much more money, has a venue like our Memorial Hall especially once it gets renovated. That is not a slight against that city but shows what Pueblo does have because of our long history of investing in the city. Even our university is on the right path although it will take decades for it to become what CSU FC is as CSU P is a young university.

I hope this made sense as I could spend the next few days refining it and adding better examples but I think it gets my point across good enough.