WSPC01488 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OJJ7J5 FACTORS AFFECTED BY ,c.i..TERATION OF GROWTH POLICIES ':r-.,,, .::o...;;inua-cion or alteration of gr,)w-::-. .:..:tterns _.. C,):"v:':.;Q,) will have far reaching e.ffec-c-:. 0:. .;;:-.;:; c-:-.ate's social ane economic st=ucture, as well 0$ ~t~ e~vi~onment. Each individual, organization, and regio~ ~6 ~==~cted dif- ferently by a change in growth patterns. Nevertheless, it is possible for policies to be developed which could in- fluence population growth in a direction that would be beneficial or at least less destructive to Colorado's ameni ties. Clearly, the present policy, whether purposely or by circumstance, means that Colorado is faced with unmanage- able, explosive growth in the Front Range. To many in Western Colorado, the Front Range appears as a cancer. The Colorado Rural Development Commission report states: As the magnetism of the state's major growth area and market increases, it will create more jobs and attract more and more people. Inevitably, increasing amounts of the state's limited resources will be required to support the tremendous burden of spectacularly increasing numbers of people in the growth areas. Only a strong public policy can change this ex- plosive trend to orderly development. Wa- ter and land policies are the most effec- tive tools available for modifying the current development trends in the state.lI One of the most difficult tasks facing the General Assembly and other public policy makers is an evaluation of the effect of alternate growth or stabilization pro- posals. Schedule A contains a brief listing of govern- mental activities; environmental, land, and property fac- tors; individual cultural concerns; transportation and communication options; and agricultural, commercial, and other economic factors which could be affected by varia- tions in population patterns. y A Position on Policy for Growth and Development, Col- orado Rural-oevelopment Commission, February, 1972. -23-