Rocky Mountain National refuge future home development? (Denver, Arvada: lawyers, first time home buyer)

[randomparent]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

There's the rub. No one is willing to certify the area as fit for human habitation because the ground and water pollution is so pervasive. It would be economically unfeasible to clean it up to a level that would permit permanent human habitation (and pushing for cleanup regardless of cost flies in the face of your argument that the land should be sold to pay down the debt) There's a reason that the DoD still maintain control of 7% of the arsenal and will never let it go- way too many bad things are buried in the ground there.

I'm not saying that the entire area is a cesspool of chemical contamination, but there's enough risk of unfound pockets that it makes the idea of human habitation across a widespread area sketchy. Same goes for Rocky Flats. Candela's development in Arvada isn't former Flats land, it's just adjacent to it, but I would think twice about buying a house there as it's a bit close to the exclusion area at the Flats for my taste.

Excellent post, and I completely agree. My family and I enjoy visiting and working at the Arsenal on occasion. We volunteer for Fish & Wildlife projects, but I would not want to see that land disturbed the way residential development would require. As for Candela, no way, no how would I buy a house adjacent to Rocky Flats.

[jamesdenver]

Thank you for your volunteer work

[randomparent]

Originally Posted by jamesdenver

Thank you for your volunteer work

Have you worked up there, too? My family and I really enjoy it.

[Hschlick84]

Originally Posted by SkyDog77

Show me a time in history when all corporations have acted with care and responsibility towards the environment without any government oversight. You can't. Remember the brown cloud in Denver in the 80s? It's gone now because of the federal government regulations.

And that is not an exaggeration, I actually did some math to come up with that number. Your notion of paying down the federal debt by selling off public lands is laughable and frankly a violation of the spirit of our country. That $0.0001 represents half a billion dollars. If you'd like to make it $4 billion we could change that to $0.0008. That said, you have shown conclusively in the past you have no grasp of economics so I don't see why that should change now.

I have to ask though, you keep saying how overrated Colorado and Denver are, then you want us to eliminate open spaces and the things that make this place great to so many just to build housing, what's your deal? If it sucks here why haven't you left yet?

According to Fortune, these are the world's 50 more green corporations. IKEA (No. 19) and Zara (No. 34) rose 14 places from the year 2013.

'The Swedish home furnishings chain announced that it would be teaming up with Nissan (No. 5) and energy provider Ecotricity to install electric car charging stations for customers at all U.K. stores. IKEA is one of the first major retailers to offer electric charging points –a proactive strategy to help meet the growing demand from their customers. Spanish retailer Zara is committed to implementing sustainable practices across it operations, from introducing a waste management policy across its flagships, using organic cotton and ecological fabrics, and educating staff on sustainable practices, such as limiting energy consumption. By 2020, all its existing stores around the world aim to be 100 percent eco-efficient.'

From that alone, it tells you these companies do care for the environment and can sustain itself without the EPA breathing down its neck. You on the other hand, from my perception, prefer big intrusive government telling people, how to live, where to live, what type of housing a person should live in, etc.

The World's 50 Best Global Green Brands for 2014 - Fortune

[SkyDog77]

Originally Posted by Hschlick84

According to Fortune, these are the world's 50 more green corporations. IKEA (No. 19) and Zara (No. 34) rose 14 places from the year 2013.

'The Swedish home furnishings chain announced that it would be teaming up with Nissan (No. 5) and energy provider Ecotricity to install electric car charging stations for customers at all U.K. stores. IKEA is one of the first major retailers to offer electric charging points –a proactive strategy to help meet the growing demand from their customers. Spanish retailer Zara is committed to implementing sustainable practices across it operations, from introducing a waste management policy across its flagships, using organic cotton and ecological fabrics, and educating staff on sustainable practices, such as limiting energy consumption. By 2020, all its existing stores around the world aim to be 100 percent eco-efficient.'

From that alone, it tells you these companies do care for the environment and can sustain itself without the EPA breathing down its neck.

The World's 50 Best Global Green Brands for 2014 - Fortune

Basically what you did just now is tell me that since some people aren't criminals, we don't need a police department.

[Hschlick84]

Originally Posted by SkyDog77

Basically what you did just now is tell me that since some people aren't murderers, we don't need a police department.

Did I say we didn't need a police department? No, you are twisting my words and adding in your own vocabulary to suit your agenda.

[SkyDog77]

Originally Posted by Hschlick84

Did I say we didn't need a police department? No, you are twisting my words and adding in your own vocabulary to suit your agenda.

You said that there are some companies that act responsibly towards the environment so therefore we don't need a government agency enforcing environmental protections. It's the exact same logic as saying that since some people are not criminals, we don't need a police department. You can't believe that, can you?

There is a reason I said "all companies" in my question. I don't care if some, or even most companies act responsibly. It only takes one company to destroy a fragile eco system by dumping toxic waste in it.

[Hschlick84]

Originally Posted by SkyDog77

You said that there are some companies that act responsibly towards the environment so therefore we don't need a government agency enforcing environmental protections. It's the exact same logic as saying that since some people are not criminals, we don't need a police department. You can't believe that, can you?

There is a reason I said "all companies" in my question. I don't care if some, or even most companies act responsibly. It only takes one company to destroy a fragile eco system by dumping toxic waste in it.

You're correct on that and I agree. The result of the businesses wrecking havoc on the ecosystem, we as people boycott the company and let the free market (without government intrusion) do its job by making them suffer. They will eventually go bankrupt or the way of the dodo.

[SkyDog77]

Originally Posted by Hschlick84

You're correct on that and I agree. The result of the businesses wrecking havoc on the ecosystem, we as people boycott the company and let the free market (without government intrusion) do its job by making them suffer. They will eventually go bankrupt or the way of the dodo.

Yes, they go bankrupt. And then there is no money to clean up the mess they made. You're not thinking this through. It's infinitely better to prevent the mess from happening in the first place.

[Hschlick84]

Originally Posted by SkyDog77

Yes, they go bankrupt. And then there is no money to clean up the mess they made. You're not thinking this through. It's infinitely better to prevent the mess from happening in the first place.

Have people volunteer to clean up the mess, I'll do it for a day, it may not be easy work and it will take a while to be completely finish, possibly years.