Black text = original response from a Longmont City Council Member

Red text = KARES’ rebuttal to disinformation

—

I'm surprised, frankly, to find you referencing "values" on the subject of Kanemoto estates, and doubt whether we are going to agree on this topic. Exclusionary zoning is not a value. Exclusionary Zoning is a "Value". It is the foundation of Zoning Law. It insures different Zoning Districts are restricted to designated areas to prevent intrusion into surrounding districts where they would compromise the nature of those adjoining districts. ie. commercial vs residential do not mix. ...Zoning....Seeks to Conserve our resources for future generations... BCLUC Article 4 pg 4-2. It's puzzling to me to see well-to-do people who have all they need go to almost any lengths to claim some sort of hegemony over a scrap of land… All Conservation Easements are valued for their natural heritage. They are not a scrap of land. The residents of Airport Rd do not consider themselves as well-to-do. As all Americans, they struggle to meet their daily needs and deal with trials and expenses of which others are unaware. We are disappointed the statement above has not displayed a higher level of empathy. We should all walk a mile in some one else's shoes. …that hasn't been under cultivation in decades,… The property was harvested for Hay for all these decades until purchased by the current developer a few years ago.  The County had to force the new owner to cut the hay last summer to prevent a potential grass fire.  We all remember the Marshall fire. …has never been open to the public,… Under the BCCP most all Conservation Easements were never intended to be open to the public. This was an intentional design to preserve private Agricultural Land. See BCCP Pgs AG-2, PPA 2, 3, 5. …and is in the Longmont Planning Area. As outlined in the BCCP Pg PPA-5, and BCLUC, section 6-700, it was illegal to place the 1982 Kanemoto CE/NUPUD into the Longmont Planning Area in 1996.

My values, which I think do align with those of the City Planners, the City Management, and the members of Council who are not up for re-election, dictate that providing affordable housing is the highest and best use of that land, as well as the City's most urgent imperative, given the social and economic harms that our severe shortage of "missing middle" housing has created. No one disagrees with Affordable Housing. However, NOT on a Protected Conservation Easement. The City has multiple revitalization sites it has abandoned to decay. We know why the County has attempted to terminate this CE. They are influenced by a 2.32 million dollar financial gain. It appears the city is assuming a negligent position as it abandons its responsibility to direct developers to the depressed infill sites in desperate need of revitalization. The Somerset Village developer has committed to ensuring that all the homes built there are affordable or middle-income attainable. The proposal is walkable,… It is not walkable. The nearest gas station and grocery store are 1 1/2 miles away. This area is in a service wilderness. …mixed-use with room for childcare and a general store,… There is no room on a tiny 40 acre lot for 426 housing units, roads, sidewalks and required green areas and still have room for an adequately sized grocery store which requires 5 to 8 acres of land. The plan only calls for a Bodega. This is a tiny convenience store that sells cigarettes, beer, candy and soft drinks. …and proximate to primary employers without the use of an automobile. The surrounding employers are currently fully staffed with high paying technology positions. The people moving into this potential development will need to find work elsewhere and need to drive to work. Are the highly paid employees of the surrounding companies considered, well-to-do?  If so, they may seek housing outside an affordable housing neighborhood. The buildings will be placed for optimum solar utilization, use high-efficiency building materials, - you know that drill. It is hard for me to understand how or why anyone objects to this plan. These items are not unique. All new housing must meet the updated City building codes regardless of location.

There's no longer any moral imperative associated with increasing Boulder County Open Space. Combining the land owned (or under perpetual conservation easements) by Boulder County and the City of Longmont, enough open space is designated already to keep Boulder County from becoming a Houston-like sprawl or merging with the more massive urban areas to the south. We are not attempting to increase Open Space, we are preserving the Conservation Easements already in place.  Boulder and Longmont have already liquidated several preserved areas, including the Lane Farms CE and the Rainbow Farms CE. In addition, the West View Acres View Protection Corridor has been approved for development.  Boulder County is now on a mission to continue violating the BCCP by developing the 63rd and Niwot and 79th street View Protection Corridors. Terminating the Kanemoto CE is another attempt to promote Houston-Like Sprawl.  The BCCP specifically forbids Urban Sprawl. Pg OS-2.

I can't speak for the County - which does not seem very serious about managing its open space,… You are correct, rather than assertively preserving our natural landed assets, they appear to be motivated by the 1.9 million payment for Lane Farms and the potential 2.32 million payment for Kanemoto. …frankly - but Longmont's open space is scrupulously cared for as nature preserves or kept under productive cultivation, according to the purpose for which it was acquired. The sensitive riparian areas are all fully protected, with migration corridors preserved, and Longmont owns nearly all its open space outright. Conservation easements are used only for special purposes such as allowing the former owners to continue to live on they land we pay them to farm.  The demands of creating a buffer to urban sprawl and preserving our wild and agricultural legacies are satisfied already. The Kanemoto CE is adjacent to the Left Hand Creek Riparian Habitat Connector. BCCP Map 13. Terminating the Kanemoto CE is a failure to preserve our wild and agricultural legacies. City Council members who endorse the statements above are expected as residents of Boulder County to continue the preservation of natural lands established by the BCCP and BCLUC. 

Now we must turn to the more difficult problem of sustainable urban land management - and Somerset Village is a piece of that puzzle. The concept of suburban land use that fades gently into pastoral land is outdated and unsustainable. Urbs must be dense, mixed-use, and walkable right out to the edge, with commuting discouraged and live-work designs emphasized. Even the Sierra Club embraces this philosophy. The comments above are a personal opinion and not accepted by all. Suburban land use that fades gently into pastoral land is Not outdated and is Very sustainable. The nearly 4000 additional car trips per day expected for Airport Rd (LSC Transportation report May 2023) are an example of why the Dense Urbs being promoted lead to dangerous conditions for residents and their children.

From the point of view of law, first:

1. It is the County Commissioners, not the City of Longmont, who made the decision to terminate the Conservation Easement on the Kanemoto Estates parcel. They aligned with the recommendations of the Boulder County Planners and the master IGA between Longmont and Boulder County. The City of Longmont had no say in the decision, though Longmont's planning department did submit an opinion, also favoring terminating the easement. The Conservation Easement is not terminated.  Boulder County realized the political consequences of terminating a long standing Conservation Easement and cleverly passed the final responsibility to the City Council.  Per the final agreement, No city annexation means No termination. See video, Aug 15 BCC meeting.

2. Not all Conservation Easements are the same. Kanemoto's was never intended to be perpetual, but was issued for the purpose of holding the land in trust until such time as it was ready for development. The above statement is absolute misinformation. The statement is not supported in any legal document. The 1982 Conservation Easement Contract , paragraph 2 specifically says: Whereas the Grantee [Boulder] has determined that to accomplish the purpose of preserving agricultural land, it is desirable to acquire a conservation easement which preserves open land for agricultural purposes within the above described property, and Grantor [Kanemoto] is willing to grant the same.  The CE Land Plat specifically says ...for the use of the public forever... Both Boulder County and the original property owners agreed to preservation of this property for agricultural use.  BCCP AG 1.13 directs Boulder County in preserving...and perpetuating agricultural uses..  For clarification the American Heritage Dictionary defines the word Perpetuate as ...to continue indefinitely ...preserve from extinction. Arguments advanced by KARES, such as the land being designated as Nationally Significant Agricultural Land, are particularly frivolous.  Fully half of the land under cultivation in the US has that designation, including most of the agricultural open space owned by Longmont. We've done our part on that score. The BCCP is not frivolous.  Sections included in the BCLUC are binding law. CRS 30-28-106. The BCCP specifically references Nationally Significant Agricultural Lands as grounds for Preservation and Conservation of Boulder Country landed resources.  Pgs PPA 4, 5, 6, AG 4.

3. The status of the parcel's Transferable Development Rights were established prior to the acquisition of the parcel by a development group. The 1996 TDR designation was a gross legal error.  TDRs are not allowed on Nationally Significant Agricultural Land or within View Protection Corridors. BCLUC 6-700.  The 1982 CE/NUPUD designation protected the Kanemoto property from future development.  Pgs PPA-5, SU-8.  This is why there is a lawsuit in Colorado District Court.

In short, Longmont's failing now to follow through and annex and develop this parcel  would be acting in bad faith with the County government and with the less privileged members of Longmont's population and workforce. I can't see myself betraying their trust, but would be happy to listen to any concerns about the sustainability of the Somerset Village Concept Plan that you may have. It is apparent Boulder County has engaged in violations of the BCCP and BCLUC.  It is the responsibility of the City of Longmont to hold them accountable by denying annexation of the Kanemoto CE and redirecting affordable housing to the multiple depressed infill sites within the City limits.