Mayor Suthers: After the recent appellate court ruling supporting the City/Broadmoor land exchange you said there was a "lack of controversy" in the case. But the trade was profoundly controversial since 80 percent in public surveys opposed it.
The Gazette article said you believe "the swap will benefit the city." Please explain. How does alienating the public benefit us? And how does privatizing and building on maybe the most beautiful meadow in the city benefit us? The proud purchases of magnificent Red Rock Canyon and Stratton Open Space were celebrated for avoiding development. It appears that you disagree based on the opposite effect of the swap: the destruction of acres of beautiful meadowland.
I applaud you for the good accomplished with your stormwater and homeless initiatives. Your legacy will include these, but maybe the recently coined epithet, "Mayor Anschutz" as well. Let's hope not. Does "benefiting the city" mean benefiting yourself? How can it be otherwise given the Anschutz tentacles reaching with their campaign contributions, unethical amicus briefs, and your refusal to put the land exchange to a vote? City benefit? Ponder this: The war for control over the city between the citizens who live here and the wealthy who treat the city as their personal plaything is just heating up.
As for the recent, but not final, loss of Save Cheyenne in the Denver appellate court, the confines of the law are narrow but the scope of right, fairness and respect is unlimited. Perhaps only you can reverse the present and pending damage. Please consider your legacy.
— Bruce Hamilton, Colorado Springs
To submit a letter:
Mail to: Editor, 235 S. Nevada Ave., CS, CO 80903 • email: firstname.lastname@example.org
If your comments are mailed or emailed to us, we'll consider them for publication — unless you request otherwise.
Please include your name, city of residence and a daytime phone number for verification.