The slide below is what city staff is recommending that the city do relative to the “Lost Dog Trail” and other land where we voted with the following language to create an ordinance:
Shall an ordinance be approved to preserve in its natural state, for all time, the 1,107 acres
owned by the City of El Paso and referred to as “Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number
Twelve,” which includes the “Lost Dog Trail,” and to prohibit, for all time, any private development and
any major public roadways on said 1,107 acres?
This seems reasonable to me. I think it says that the city would not have to buy the land and that after the restrictive covenants are created the land will be preserved.
I assume that changing the covenants would require city council action and supposedly the public would have an opportunity to weigh in at that time.
What do y’all think?
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
I wish I could buy a fancy house in an exclusive neighborhood and then tell the city not to build anymore behind my house, thus increasing its value in perpetuity.
Guess I just don’t know the right folks…
LikeLike
The houses near the trail aren’t fancy. They’re not even built well.
LikeLike
It’s not reasonable. The City recently moved $5 Million dollars of our money from the City to El Paso Water. Yes El Paso Water is the City. This is to in part compensate EPW for the $24 million they expected to get by selling the land to a master developer who would build using Smart Code which means a very dense development like Montecillo. Supporters of the proposition want a conservation easement which would assure long term preservation. City Manager is against this because it would restrict current and future City Councils in the use of the land. So what is proposed will undermine the 89% of voters who approved preservation of the Lost Dog area which is 1,107 acres of natural open space that already belongs to the people of El Paso.
LikeLike
Unfortunately the proposition author did not specify that the land be preserved with a conservation easement leaving this open for
CC to decide.
LikeLike
Unless the city is allowed to build walking trails, complete with a surface and a slope that would allow pushing baby carriages or canes and walkers (not to mention wheelchairs), something seniors could also use and families with children, the city will be giving away money to accommodate the few bikers and hikers that use it. Please don’t tell me that more than a few use it. Compare it to the total of the residents who can’t use it. It is currently for a few.
LikeLike
When I was growing up, we didn’t feel compelled to concrete over every open space to make it easy for couch potatoes to pretend they were athletic. Learn to enjoy nature without tax and spend. There are plenty of places with concrete for folks who need training wheels, but we are destroying the natural beauty of this place (and bankrupting ourselves), with the mindset that the city must do anything but preserve it.
LikeLike
Sure. Let’s use that land for another Great Wolf deal, where developers and private entities get a lot of valuable land for pennies on the dollar. That will really help all of us.
LikeLike
The continuing disdain of the city “leaders” for open space has various consequences, not least in tourism…our nearest “competitor” city has ten times as much open space as El Paso does (and that’s just city-owned open space), complete with an open space visitor center that caters to both residents and tourists who enjoy exploring the mountain and the river. Covering the Franklin Mountains with houses will not improve local quality of life and it will just encourage visitors to drive on through.
LikeLike