My family left Alamosa this summer for a new job in southern Virginia. Before I left, I was deeply involved in the Polston property issue, finding myself more closely aligned with the KPP group than with those who support Mr. Russellís proposed RV park.
The primary reason why is that I echo the comments of Dorothy Maurer. Having lived in East Alamosa for 4 years before we left, we also heard the trucks at the hotel and the Loaf & Jug every night, were subject to diesel fumes, and the occasional rig operator who decided to ignore the ďNo TrucksĒ sign on Price Ave.
When we decided to leave Alamosa part of that decision reflected our concern about the RV park proposal and our fear about what that would do to our air and noise quality. We didnít want an RV park in our neighborhood.
Iím continually dismayed at the arguments I read about in the Valley Courier suggesting that taxes will be increased to pay for KPP. Thereís absolutely no evidence to support this assertion. However, by accepting Russellís bid of $250,000 less than the KPP offer, there is evidence that the RV park will, in fact, cost taxpayers - it will cost taxpayers and Alamosa schools $250,000 - not in the future, not speculatively - rather actually, now, today. This, it seems to me, would be important to those of you who are concerned about government handouts, who fear that taxes will be raised, who think that government should get out of the way of business.
To me, the RV park is not a good idea (and the KPP is a good one, but thatís a topic for a different letter). But I just canít understand how those of you who do think itís a good idea, think its still a good idea at such a cost.
Mark Finney, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of
Emory and Henry College