HomeMy WebLinkAboutArthur Forbes_19-FEB-26Subject: Sanders Ranch
Name: Arthur Forbes
Email: aoforbes@crms.org
Phone number: (970) 618-6566
Message: I am tired of money from people who do not live in the valley pretending to
address issues but truly making too much money and at our collective expense!! It is time
to say no… we can’t afford more cars, fumes, lost habitat and the list goes on! This valley
has a choice to make if we want to live in any semblance of a sustainable future! Money
and excessive wealth and the voracious appetite of people like these developers are
expensive to our valleys well being!! Please don’t let this happen!! The Harvest proposal
fails across all three metrics—housing affordability, traffic mitigation, and wildlife
protection. By reasonable assessment, it earns “goose eggs” in all categories.
A responsible alternative would include a moratorium on development in lands with even
moderate potential to sustain wildlife corridors, paired with regional planning that places
housing near employment centers. A multi-county effort spanning four interconnected
watersheds is essential. To date, no such effort has meaningfully reduced commute times
or restored wildlife connectivity across increasingly blocked highway corridors—
connectivity that is critical for genetic health, winter survival, and safe passage.
Sanders Ranch represents a pivotal choice. Its irregular boundaries, rail rights-of-way, and
setbacks already make it a poor development candidate, which is why the proposal
depends on extensive variances that undermine existing protections meant to preserve the
valley’s rural character.
The ranch itself has supported grazing for nearly a century and wildlife for thousands of
years. Though its topsoil has been stockpiled and neglected for decades, biologists still
identify the area as an important loafing and potential high-value winter grazing zone.
Restoration is possible. Development would end that possibility forever.
This site is also a high-priority wildlife crossing. One bus collision nearby killed 11 elk.
Existing highway fencing funnels animals into dangerous choke points, fragmenting herds
and reducing genetic resilience. These are problems that thoughtful planning can solve—
but only if we choose to.
Adding development here would worsen traffic congestion, increase wildlife mortality, and
permanently degrade habitat. More vehicles never solve congestion; they simply slow
traffic and amplify collisions. We would barely address one problem while exacerbating
several others.
None of this means abandoning the housing crisis. It means solving it intelligently. Proven
measures—such as wildlife overpasses paired with proper fencing—reduce wildlife-vehicle
collisions by over 90% and restore connectivity. These solutions belong in already
fragmented areas, and should include intact habitat.
Affordable housing and thriving wildlife are not mutually exclusive. But the Harvest
proposal delivers neither.