[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST LETTERS

DeBoer neighborhood

Wednesday, February 28 at 1:15 PM

Robert C. Bayers of Centennial writes:

I am a native of Denver and of Colorado. I attended Park Hill, Smiley, and East, and graduated from the University of Colorado. I remember when Larimer Street had old saloons on it with 60 foot long mirrors behind the bar counters. I remember the Tabor Theatre and Opera House. I remember the old downtown, which development destroyed, foolishly destroyed, taking away—forever!—the character of old Denver. Only Larimer Square remains. It was all foolish. Now, when visiting cities that have preserved their old characters, I envy them their foresight. Travelling in Europe and in other cities that have kept their history and their charm is small compensation for the destruction of the history and charm of the city I live in. Please preserve the DeBoer district! Don’t allow the same old, same old development to take place. Don’t let the generic-looking development destroy the trees, the old houses, the distinctive Tudor-style house on Iliff, the integrated character of the place with its hundreds of trees and bushes... People can live here. Single families enjoy living here with yards and trees and the small-town feel of the place. Instead, the developers come in with their ideas to aggolmerate, agglutinate, conglomerate, and concentrate families into a little stack with the “quintessence of condo.” If there must be development, at least force the developers to preserve the natural beauty of the place. It takes a hundred years to grow those cottonwoods, but really there is no way to keep the total atmosphere of the place if developers come in and tear apart sections of the neighborhood. Thank you for listening.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

First of all, it's not a district. The DNPC refers to it as such to create the picture in peoples minds. But alas, no district. Now if it's to be designated, sure. But we're hoping that for the sake of personal property rights and legitimate historical designation it's not. It would be a tragedy.

The locations you speak of in your letter were BUSINESSES. This is private property. As I say in my YourHub article, private property is not for public consumption. People keep writing in as if "The Office" (tudor) is in imminent threat of demo. It's not and never has been. It's just what the DNPC claims. So they claim it, therefore it's true? Hardly. They lie. We've never seen the plans for the supposed condos going in. Although, the DNPC will have you think that they have. Not true. NOT TRUE! How many times do we have to SAY IT? WHAT THEY CLAIM IS NOT TRUE!

Another thing, this isn't a small town, it's DENVER, CO in case you've forgotten. If people want a small town feel, the move to a small town and stop trying to steal our property rights to obtain that "feel". How ridiculous is it that we have to be the ones to suffer so you can "feel" like you live in a small town?

Another thing, I can tell you've never visited our property because the living cottonwoods HAVEN'T EXISTED since the City of Denver TOOK AWAY my Great Grandfather's ditch rights in the 1960s.

Let me address the claim of the removal of the cul-de-sac. Ridiculous. We only have 14ft visible feet opening to the Pinon Court cul-de-sac. The ridiculous claim that the cul-de-sac will be REMOVED is beyond a lie. Where is the critical thinking? There is no way this could happen. The suggestion that we actually want that is a lie too. There are HOMES there. Please use your heads when listening to the lies spewed by the DeBoer Neighborhood Preservation Committee. They are really ramping it up for the City Council decision and it's more than obvious by the increase in accusations (read:lies).

At what point do people start using their brains and listening to us or just realize that some of the stories are not true? I guess it's so hip to be historical that even lying is OK to get what you want. Right? It's pretty sad and the community should be ashamed.

Posted by Catherine Potts on March 1, 2007 09:33 AM