Letter: Fraser trustee isn’t adverse to development
To the Editor:
It was a wonderful thing to see a reporter at our last two meetings of the Fraser trustees: Welcome back! A well-informed public is critical to the health of our community.
One quote from your article bears some clarification. “Town Manager Jeff Durbin attempted to address what seemed to be a general aversion to development by some trustees.”
I view the job of governing to be delicately balancing the benefits of new development with the financial stability of current residents. I make my living as a builder – my company and its employees depend on the availability of new projects. But I also hope to live in Fraser through my retirement years, so I depend on the affordability of life in my home town.
The balance to be struck then is to ensure new developments pay their way but are not unfairly burdened by unnecessary regulations and requirements. A belief in this does not make one adverse to development.
Perhaps the article’s author’s mistaken interpretation of my position arose from his misunderstanding of a SIA. He called it a “social impact assessment.” In fact it is a Subdivision Improvement Agreement. It requires a developer to post cash security to complete improvements (streets, etc.) should the development company default on its obligations. Remember the steel skeleton the Town of Winter Park was saddled with after a developer failed? Funds from a SIA funded its demolition at no cost to town taxpayers.
Again, welcome back to hear impassioned discussions among Fraser Board members who all care very deeply about their community.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.