Audio By Carbonatix
Neighbors of the old Lowry Air Force Base are teed off over a proposed golf course that would locate several holes on top of an abandoned landfill there. And while the Lowry Redevelopment Authority has signed off on plans to build the course, which is supported by hundreds of senior citizens who live nearby, protests from other neighbors could land the project in the rough.
“The Air Force people in D.C. don’t give a damn about us,” says Debbie James, a Lowry-area resident and longtime LRA foe. “All they care about is getting the hell out of this. I’m not opposed to golf, but they haven’t convinced me that there’s a way to cap that landfill.”
And even with a protective cap, James and other neighbors worry that irrigation necessary for a golf course could dilute cancer-causing pollutants beneath the 74-acre landfill site at Alameda Avenue, sending them into the groundwater and further contaminating the area.
The Air Force, which is charged with cleaning up the 6,000-acre abandoned base so that the LRA can develop it into a residential and commercial enclave, has until April 24 to review several plans to cap the site, according to Howard Roitman of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, which, along with the federal Environmental Protection Agency, is overseeing the cleanup. Although leaving the landfill site as non-irrigated open space is also an option, the LRA contends that the proposed golf course is an integral part of the development–and the cap is necessary if the course is to be environmentally safe.
The biggest obstacle to a cap is the cost, estimated to run anywhere from $4 million to $16 million, which must be covered by the Air Force. But the biggest obstacle to leaving the site uncapped is the residents of Windsor Gardens, a senior citizens’ community across the street from the landfill. They’re not worried about the price; their concern is rodents and snakes, they say.
In February the Air Force received a petition signed by 2,107 Windsor Gardens residents endorsing the golf-course plan: “If this area is left as ‘natural habitat’ with the continued natural growth of rats, mice, rodents, snakes, pollution, dust, etc., it would be an eyesore and negative to the pleasure and enjoyment of our residents and detrimental to the value of our property.”
But opponents of a cap point to the golf course as another example of how the Air Force has attempted to divide neighbors during the Lowry cleanup process. The LRA employed “scare tactics” to get senior citizens to sign the petition, claims James. “The Windsor Gardens petition is an uneducated one,” she says. “Do they think that rats and snakes don’t live on golf courses, too? Besides, they won’t be affected by any pollution from golf-course irrigation. They live upstream.”
Bill Ramsey, a member of the LRA’s Community Advisory Committee who’s a Windsor Gardens resident, denies that the LRA orchestrated the petition drive. “I came up with the idea for gathering signatures in favor of the golf course,” says Ramsey. “And the LRA was deeply appreciative that we could get these signatures supporting golf. We worked hand in hand with the LRA on this.”
Windsor Gardens residents have done more than sign petitions; Ramsey says they’ve pitched in $150,000 to build a wall that will shield their homes from the nearby wildlife. “We’re right across the road,” he explains, “and it was a blow to us that they were thinking about leaving [the landfill] as it is with all the potholes and animals. We put up with squirrels, rats, rabbits and weeds. These people who want to leave the landfill in its ‘pristine state’ are ridiculous. We’ve got enough weeds as it is.”
The 45-hole golf course planned for Lowry is important to the LRA for both aesthetic and financial reasons. “We believe that we have to compete with the Invernesses and other areas that already have varying amenity packages,” says Tom Markham, the LRA’s executive director. “So it’s very important to the success of this community to attract businesses to an urban setting where you don’t have to commute to amenities. And once you start sorting through acreage availability, conditions, etc., it becomes apparent that if we lose these 74 acres, we won’t have enough room for what we’ve planned.”
According to Warren Simmons, executive director of the Colorado Golf Association, the landfill site is crucial for the placement of seven to eight holes. “In terms of our economic model and what we want to do for the community,” he says, “we need those holes to make it work. Optimism hasn’t come into it. We’re just trying to get the Air Force to do it right.” His association has already collected close to $7 million in donations, members’ dues and public grants for the Lowry project, which will include executive offices and a golf hall of fame.
But the association can’t develop the course until the Air Force gives the area its environmental okay. And that can’t come until the landfill is capped.
“There’s still all this bickering over the cost of a cap,” Ramsey says. “The Air Force will pony up the cash, just not for a top-end plan like the EPA came up with. There are proven solutions to this problem which are affordable. The sooner the two sides meet in the middle, the better.”
And on this point, both sides agree. Both James and Ramsey are worried that when the Air Force closes down its on-site Base Conversion Agency in the year 2000 and moves its oversight operation to Texas, Lowry’s environmental cleanup will grind to a halt. “I’ve seen it before,” says Ramsey. “I was in the service for twenty years, and when the military moves out, it’s not good.”
The environmental cleanup has been one of the most controversial issues throughout the Lowry redevelopment process. Both neighbors and state health officials have argued that the Air Force is cutting corners in order to expedite the LRA’s commercial and residential development. TCE, a toxic chemical de-greaser used by the Air Force, represents some of the worst on-site pollution; the landfill is one of several Lowry sites that have a pool of the contaminant beneath it.
“Eventually, we are going to leave Lowry,” says Shirley Curry, a public-affairs specialist with the Air Force. “That’s a given. But even when our office at Lowry closes, we’ll still be there monitoring controls to make sure that they’re working properly and successfully.”
But James claims the Air Force isn’t doing its job even with an on-site office, and she points to high turnover among base conversion personnel as a big part of the problem. Over the past year, three staffers have been reassigned to other projects, including Ken Nevling, the Air Force’s most recent environmental point man at Lowry.
“We really dropped the ball with Nevling,” says James. “He was a fighter right off the bat. But Ken knew it was a losing battle against the LRA and their plans to quickly develop the property. It’s a sad situation we’re in right now, and I have a feeling we’re getting fleeced.”
“The Air Force needs to have someone permanent in there for the process to work right,” says state health official Roitman. “The turnover rate concerns us, and we hope that the Air Force gets someone in there soon. It takes a long time to develop a good working relationship, and it’s very hard when a new guy comes in.”
Even the LRA’s Markham agrees with that. “We’re losing a lot of corporate environmental Air Force knowledge,” says Markham. “People like Ken Nevling are good people, and we hate like heck for the Air Force to lose them to other projects. It’s a big concern to us.”
Long before the Air Force takes off from Lowry, though, it must make its recommendation for capping the landfill. Ramsey wants it to hurry up. “I know how these things work: Out of sight, out of mind,” he says. “I urge the Air Force to solve this problem before 2000. I know everybody wants that.”
Fore!
Visit www.westword.com to read related Westword stories.
