Thank you for presenting your perspectives on Proposition 484, which would encourage the City of Prescott to create and maintain Natural Open Space in perpetuity. You raise many good points for both sides. However, I feel that arguments favoring Prop 484 remain more compelling than the opposition’s. I'll explain.
To summarize my points articulated more fully below,
Proposition 484 essentially asks the following questions: Do we want developers and outsiders to transform Our Hometown of Prescott into a bustling City with all its commotion and problems?
OR,
Do we choose to trust the citizens of Our Hometown of Prescott to decide for themselves just how much development we want and how fast we want it?
With that said, here are a few more brief details.
A). The question comes down to this. Do we want mid-sized-town Prescott to transform into a significant urban cityscape with few remaining parks, green spaces, or natural areas within? If the majority of true remaining Open Space is relegated to the National Forests, then that peripheral and hard-to-access nature will remain elusive to most in our community and lie often behind a paywall (if parking is even available). What makes the Prescott region regionally unique and so attractive to tourism and residents is the interplay of residential and natural spaces. Voting YES on Proposition 484 allows us to maintain that rare and attractive attribute rather than descend into the bustling and fraught cityscape that a no vote on Prop 484 could easily create.
B). The limiting factor on otherwise endless growth will likely be water availability. Given that the aquifers upon which our current and future welfare quite literally depend are finite and replenishing more slowly than our draw, water will ultimately limit both our quantity and our housing affordability. As you are talking about 2045, this limitation is not trivial.
C) I admit to being unmoved by your argument about the development timelines (delays) related to the passage of Prop 484. You are rightfully calling for SMART development, NOT FAST development. So, that strikes me as a non-issue. If anything, it is meaningful to slow the pace of irrevocable development so that we can consider, process, and deliberate properly just how big a city we are trying to create. When the citizens are calling the shots on "how much" and "how fast", I consider that a good thing.
Finally, D). Certain Open Space might require some city funds to keep, but Nature has a lot of practice taking care of itself just fine. While there might be some nominal expenses for upkeep, the more Natural the Open Space, the less upkeep will be required. Additionally, given that a majority of the Open Space would be in the Granite Dells, that area needs little if any human input to remain functionally viable. Nature is naturally self-regenerating. By contrast, once we humans step in and convert nature into a human habitat, yes, that is precisely when significant expenses to upkeep accrue. Thus, if our main objective is to keep costs down, let nature remain nature.
I hope that I was able to articulate clearly my wholehearted support for this modest 484 measure to simply place the decision-making power and future into the hands of the Prescott Citizens (rather than our elected officials).
I confess that I am not afraid of allowing our citizens to decide our own futures directly. Truly, allowing some level of citizen autonomy is what we need to make sure that Our Hometown remains... Our Hometown and not someone else's bustling, (increasingly crime-ridden?) City.
Thank you for expressing your views and allowing me to express mine. I appreciate the constructive and healthful discussion. With much respect, Peter Sherman (Prescott, AZ)
Thank you for presenting your perspectives on Proposition 484, which would encourage the City of Prescott to create and maintain Natural Open Space in perpetuity. You raise many good points for both sides. However, I feel that arguments favoring Prop 484 remain more compelling than the opposition’s. I'll explain.
To summarize my points articulated more fully below,
Proposition 484 essentially asks the following questions: Do we want developers and outsiders to transform Our Hometown of Prescott into a bustling City with all its commotion and problems?
OR,
Do we choose to trust the citizens of Our Hometown of Prescott to decide for themselves just how much development we want and how fast we want it?
With that said, here are a few more brief details.
A). The question comes down to this. Do we want mid-sized-town Prescott to transform into a significant urban cityscape with few remaining parks, green spaces, or natural areas within? If the majority of true remaining Open Space is relegated to the National Forests, then that peripheral and hard-to-access nature will remain elusive to most in our community and lie often behind a paywall (if parking is even available). What makes the Prescott region regionally unique and so attractive to tourism and residents is the interplay of residential and natural spaces. Voting YES on Proposition 484 allows us to maintain that rare and attractive attribute rather than descend into the bustling and fraught cityscape that a no vote on Prop 484 could easily create.
B). The limiting factor on otherwise endless growth will likely be water availability. Given that the aquifers upon which our current and future welfare quite literally depend are finite and replenishing more slowly than our draw, water will ultimately limit both our quantity and our housing affordability. As you are talking about 2045, this limitation is not trivial.
C) I admit to being unmoved by your argument about the development timelines (delays) related to the passage of Prop 484. You are rightfully calling for SMART development, NOT FAST development. So, that strikes me as a non-issue. If anything, it is meaningful to slow the pace of irrevocable development so that we can consider, process, and deliberate properly just how big a city we are trying to create. When the citizens are calling the shots on "how much" and "how fast", I consider that a good thing.
Finally, D). Certain Open Space might require some city funds to keep, but Nature has a lot of practice taking care of itself just fine. While there might be some nominal expenses for upkeep, the more Natural the Open Space, the less upkeep will be required. Additionally, given that a majority of the Open Space would be in the Granite Dells, that area needs little if any human input to remain functionally viable. Nature is naturally self-regenerating. By contrast, once we humans step in and convert nature into a human habitat, yes, that is precisely when significant expenses to upkeep accrue. Thus, if our main objective is to keep costs down, let nature remain nature.
I hope that I was able to articulate clearly my wholehearted support for this modest 484 measure to simply place the decision-making power and future into the hands of the Prescott Citizens (rather than our elected officials).
I confess that I am not afraid of allowing our citizens to decide our own futures directly. Truly, allowing some level of citizen autonomy is what we need to make sure that Our Hometown remains... Our Hometown and not someone else's bustling, (increasingly crime-ridden?) City.
Thank you for expressing your views and allowing me to express mine. I appreciate the constructive and healthful discussion. With much respect, Peter Sherman (Prescott, AZ)