We, on the south side, now will live with a five-story, block-to-block hotel on Second Avenue, which likely will bring increasing parking problems, noise, violations of privacy and increased traffic to our neighborhood.

Regarding ADUs, the Planning Commission and council now allow ADUs to be built on the south side of College Drive without any lot-size requirement, though on the north side of College and west Durango, a lot-size requirement exists. How is this smart growth when a critical parameter to guide ADU growth and neighborhood density is missing? I think it’s not-so-smart growth.

How do these two actions of the council support the south-side neighborhood when it allows a huge hotel to border our neighborhood and minimal standards for ADUs? It’s not a neighborhood-friendly Planning Commission or council.

What I also learned was that the City Council, the ultimate decision-maker, tends to use public opinion when it suits its agenda collectively and/or individually, and an element of the council has a very clear agenda of supporting growth and business development over neighborhood integrity.

While the council professes to care about public opinion and public input, only a couple council members consistently acknowledged community-member concerns during these meetings. Others pushed their agenda vigorously.

Most important, when approximately 116 people signed a petition opposing the height variance of the hotel, the council voted against those people. When 50 or so people wanted a “no-lot-size” requirement on the south side of College, the council agreed. So, it’s not about numbers, it’s more about what the council members choose to support and how they choose to use public input.

Moral of the story: Watch what people do, not what they say.

Michael Todt

Durango