Fox Hill (Filings II & III)

Dear Prospect Homeowners,

Through this letter, I want to show my support for the ideas mentioned in the recent letter from Kiki Wallace and Mark Sofield, dated April 30, 2001. The suggestions allegedly made by certain individuals regarding how to bring about a cohesive neighborhood with strict social continuity are foul and disgusting to me. I moved here because I was assured of a community with diversity that included not only the extraordinary architecture, but the moral, religious and sexual preferences that make up a vibrant, desirable neighborhood. The kind of neighborhood my son and I want to live in. Hitler had a cohesive neighborhood and such thoughts scare me to death. Secret forums scare me even more. Where are the white sheets?

Agreeably no one wants to see junk cars sitting on the streets, but rather than a dictatorship like policy, simple neighborly suggestion may suffice. For example, I am not in favor of the ''Stepford Wives'' like white picket fences surrounding many of the front yards, but I do not loose sleep over it. It is the homeowner's choice.

I am in fact one who was attracted to buy here because of the non-traditional look and feel of the houses and the community. As a matter of fact I am already feeling smothered by the landscaping regulations. You'd think ''misplaced'' flowers will kill someone.

In my view this community is a perfect opportunity to come together and recognize this cultures diverse ways of living and to celebrate that. The homes are robust and filled with life and in spite of a few minor setbacks, I believe Kiki and Mark have done an excellent job thus far. Why would anyone want to change that!

Respectfully,
Garrison Roots, Professor
University of Colorado

By Garrison Roots

Don't be fooled

Garrison,

I appreciate your position. I also detest the idea that people would be discriminated against on the basis of their race, age, sexual preference, etc.... However, you have to understand that Kiki's letter was an attempt to simply define everyone who disagrees with his position on architecture as being anti-diversity on all issues and topics. By branding people who have a disagreement with the architectural direction of the neighborhood as being a racist or a gay basher -- as Kiki implied in his letter -- he is simply attempting to silence people who have a different idea than his own. This is a tactic that worked very well for Slobodan Milosevic and, apparently, Kiki thinks it is also a model that will work for him. I find this distasteful and I hope you do to.

Keith Jaggers

Another 2 cents from Tom

I certainly understand Keith's desire not to have words put into his mouth. If I were in the same position, I would probably do as Keith is doing. This does not, however, mean that these views do not exist in our little hamlet, or that Kiki hasn't received requests to mitigate the influx of some section of the population that is deemed undesirable by the requesters. This is, I think we all agree, a truly reprehensible attitude. Since I don't believe any of us have the ability to change such ingrained attitudes, the best we can do is let our neighbors know that we hold scorn for these ideas, and let those folks who may have felt ostracized know that we wish them to feel welcome here. This is exactly what Professor Roots has done in his letter, confusions about who said what aside. I'll leave the subject of intolerance at that.

Professor Root's appeal for diversity in Prospect deals both with the diversity of our architecture as well as our community. As we think about amending Prospect's architectural guidelines, I think it's important that we give the issue of diversity its share of the spotlight. I would argue that a wider range of architectural styles attracts a broader section of the population, and increases the diversity of our neighborhood in a very real way. I realize there are objections about ''diversity for diversity's sake'' in Prospect's architecture, but I think we should remember that diversity and ''genuine community'' are worthy and intentional goals of New Urbanism. I imagine, then, that this question becomes one of how we balance those various goals, and how that balance impacts the architectural expression in Prospect. I would advocate that we weight our decision firmly on the side of diversity and artistic expression. I realize that many residents do not share this view, and particularly, that many residents who bought houses in Prospect during early development feel strongly that Prospect is now not the development that they originally thought it would be. I would point out, however, that those of us who moved in later also have a conception of what Prospect is ''supposed'' to be, and many of us feel that this conception includes a wide diversity of architecture. Given that, I think that a return to a stricter architectural code could easily be as upsetting to the newer residents as the current state is to the older residents. I think that the small group attempting to sway the architectural direction of Prospect may not appreciate that fact. I'll add my voice to Professor Roots' by saying that I'm particularly disturbed that any public discussion on our communal fate was circumvented by a private meeting, to which those with opposing views were not invited. While the folks who convened this meeting probably did not intend to cause strife, it would have been better left to the public forum.

I'm also a bit puzzled by the comparison between Kiki and Slobodan Milosevic. My reading of recent Balkan history informs me that Milosevic fanned the (already brightly burning) flames of Serb nationalism in order to attain political power in Yugoslavia. I would submit that this bears little relation to Kiki's actions or his letter. I would characterize such a comparison as 'hyperbolic' if I were in a generous mood, and 'tortured' if I were in a polemical one. The infamous war criminals of the twentieth century seem to be getting a lot of play on board, so in order to lighten the tone, I'll point everyone to ?“Godwin?’s Law?”: http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

Respectfully,
Tom Evenson

a third cent from keith

Tom,

You are right, I need to make a public apology. I've tried hard to keep the public discourse civil in the past but I seem to have crossed over the line. Kiki's letter -- which appeares to have been written in anger -- may have identified some very real problems in Prospect but his decision to lump this discussion with the discussion of architectural issues was misplaced. The impression he left was that everyone who has an issue with the extent of architectural diversity in Propsect also holds these abhorent views. I was deeply hurt by this and I, regretably, responded in an inappropriate manner.

As for my reference to Milosevic... next time I see you in your backyard I'll invite you over for a beer or two and we can discuss our favorite 20th century tyrants.

Keith Jaggers