Council, residents must reject classism | Staff Editorials

Less than a week into Cheyenne’s 151st year, the City Council has another chance Monday night to shape its future.

What do we want to be? An open, welcoming community that embraces all people, regardless of socioeconomic status, and invites them to live wherever they choose? Or a city that forces people below a certain income level to live primarily in a certain part of town?

The right choice should be obvious: Avoid any hint of discrimination and grant final approval to the rezoning application for a proposed low- and middle-income apartment complex in north Cheyenne.

In doing so, our elected leaders would reject the specious arguments of a group of residents who live near a planned 72-unit complex east of Converse Avenue and south of Storey Boulevard. These homeowners maintain that allowing the apartments in this location would decrease their property values and somehow keep their neighborhood from “flourishing.”

We understand the basic urge to protect what’s rightfully yours – whether it’s your property, your family or your livelihood. But the “not in my backyard” attitude being expressed here is pure classism at its ugliest.

Those who have opposed this development say there are already too many apartments in the neighborhood. They say letting another 72 units into an area “bracing” for the 336-unit Frontier Ridge Apartments planned for the area behind Walmart is too much to bear. They say they have evidence that too much population density leads to more crime.

We’re sorry to break the news to these folks, but all types of crime happen in all types of neighborhoods. Theft, vandalism, domestic violence, assault, even murder – you name it, and it has happened in both mobile home parks and upscale Cheyenne neighborhoods.

The neighbors also cite questionable statistics that indicate this complex will cause intense overcrowding at nearby Anderson Elementary. Laramie County School District 1 officials estimate the development would add 12-35 new elementary students. They say that could put Anderson near its capacity of 351 students after boundary revisions, but that wouldn’t be abnormal for the area. It also is far lower than the 519 students being cited by those living near the school.

And Summit Housing Group, based in Missoula, Montana, has a solid track record – both here and in other areas – of building quality developments. Senior project manager Sam Long said he expects many of his renters to be middle-income earners like airmen from F.E. Warren Air Force Base and beginning firefighters.

But let’s stop and assume for a minute that these residents are correct: This new development will suddenly make their neighborhood both overcrowded and crime-infested. Instead of near their $400,000-plus homes, where do they think low- and middle-income Cheyenne residents should live?

Is the empty field east of Powderhouse Road far enough away for their comfort? Or do they need to be south of the railroad tracks, as at least one resident suggested after a recent meeting?

If we’re headed that direction, why not create separate bathrooms and drinking fountains for “those people” while we’re at it, or insist they only shop at certain stores?

This decision really does have long-term implications for the Capital City. In a time when lack of affordable housing is stifling economic development and job creation here, are we really going to limit where certain types of housing can be built?

So far, council members have not bowed down to the pressure and have moved this proposal forward in the process. But they shouldn’t be too quick to pat themselves on the back. Listening to their words at recent meetings, it sounds like they’re being forced to vote “yes.”

Councilman Mark Rinne, who has been the target of much of the residents’ criticism, was quoted as saying at the July 24 council meeting: “I’ve tried to find reasons why we should deny this, and every expert I think has that information … has not told me that it shouldn’t be done.”

We believe Mr. Rinne sincerely believes this project is a good one. If so, he shouldn’t be afraid to say it.

At the same July meeting, Council President Dicky Shanor said he would prefer Summit apply for a different kind of zoning that would require more scrutiny from city staff. But since the project meets the eight requirements for the rezoning, the city is legally bound to approve the request. Is Mr. Shanor implying he will vote “yes” primarily to avoid getting the city sued?

Again, all of this points to Cheyenne being at a critical crossroads. And if ever there was a time for the other side to be heard, it’s now. We’d love to see the council chamber packed Monday night with low- and middle-income workers who just want an opportunity to live in a caring community, rather than being forced to live in Colorado and commute or being offered few to no real location options.

And instead of worrying about potential lawsuits, council members need to stand firm against classism and approve this project – not because they have to, but because it’s the right thing to do for Cheyenne’s future.