Chile John Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "A yard cover of the size we're hearing about, and
> a major Visitor's Center are the kinds of things
> you get one shot at, and one shot only. Thus they
> merit a bit higher level of concern."
>
> You nailed it, Scott. I have dug in my heels on
> certain aspects of both of these items. And I
> won't back off on my opinion until I can be
> convinced that all aspects have been given a
> thorough airing. To date they haven't. My
> internal alarm bells went off when I saw both the
> covered storage and the visitors' center listed as
> agenda items for the upcoming Commission meeting.
> Since there is no amplifying information
> presented, I can only hope that the discussion is
> only to start a dialogue, and that no final
> decision will be made at this time. If that turns
> out not to be the case, I'm going to raise holy
> hell as best I can.
>
> More specifically, and precisely, I would be dead
> set against any new structure which intrudes in
> any manner with the existing yard tracks. There
> are alternatives.First, there has been a great
> deal of discussion the last few days concerning
> buying and utilizing the land at the old sawmill
> site. I think that this would be workable, but
> difficult due to potential complications which
> have been discussed.
>
> I know that I will get fried for saying this, but
> I think the covered storage more properly could be
> in Antonito, and would be to protect the revenue
> producing passenger cars and accessible to the car
> repair facilities over there. Yeah, I know -
> blasphemy !!! But hey, we don't have the
> resources to protect everything, so some tough
> choices will have to be made. That being said, I
> strongly suggest that it be left up to the FRIENDS
> to keep up their good work on the historic
> equipment. Theoretically, the FRIENDS should not
> be responsible for maintenance of revenue
> equipment. That belongs with the operator, in my
> estimation.
>
> If a second covered area becomes feasible, then it
> might be feasible to add a couple of yard tracks
> down where the oil distribution facility used to
> be. I think that the area might be enough lower
> to not intrude on the historic yard area.
>
> Which brings up a question in my mind. It is my
> understanding that the historic status of the C&TS
> was recently upgraded. My question is this: What
> is included, geographically? Is it only specified
> buildings, or is it a geographic area and all the
> structures contained within the boundaries? If it
> is the latter, then how can a structure, like the
> car storage, or even the visitors' center be
> plopped down in the middle without running the
> risk of compromising the historical status and
> potential running afoul of the governing history
> gurus, not only on the state, but also the federal
> level?
>
> Now, following up on Dick Cowles' comments as
> regards the shop area lights, I share his concerns
> and displeasure. But beyond that (and here I'm
> going to share a long standing gripe of mine), I
> never have liked the design of the shop addition,
> as badly needed as it was. There had to have been
> a better alternative. But the shop, plus the
> lights, are prime examples how the historical
> value of the C&TS can be chipped away a brick at a
> time. Do we need to perpetuate this attitude? I
> think not.
>
> Let's see - where do I store this soapbox?
>
> CJ
Hi John
"I can only hope that the discussion is only to start a dialogue, and that no final decision will be made at this time. If that turns out not to be the case, I'm going to raise holy hell as best I can."
Item F. on the agenda
Approval of Friends Interpretative/Visitor Center
Looks to me like it is a action item to be approved or disapproved.
