The definition of open space usually includes areas that are landscaped or used for storm water retention, in addition to other areas. Thus, open space does not always mean undisturbed/in its natural state.
Multiple proponents of Daybreak have stated it will contain 77 percent open space. However, at the Oct 1. 2019 Town Council meeting, the developer’s attorney showed a slide that stated 26 acres were being disturbed. That is 43.3 percent of the 60 total acres, meaning only 56.7 percent of the proposed site will remain undisturbed/in its natural state. Notice the difference?
To that point, Ms. Hansen’s letter in the Special Election Information Pamphlet (SEIP) states that Daybreak had its “density rearranged, allowing 80 percent of the property to remain pristine open space.” Using undisturbed as a reasonable synonym for pristine, Ms. Hansen’s 80 percent figure is incorrect and illustrates the danger of confusing the two terms. Only 56.7 percent of the site will “remain pristine open space.”
The proposed Daybreak site has been zoned for lodging for at least 21 years – and no hotel. Additionally, multiple land/lodging experts have stated there is essentially zero chance a hotel will be built on that site: Greg Vargo, CEO of Land Advisors, at the Oct 1, 2019 Council meeting; the letters from Mr. Ginsburg and Mr. Hinz in the SEIP; and even the developer, in their mailing. Thus, using estimated revenue numbers from a hotel and comparing them to Daybreak’s is disingenuous and irrelevant. To quote Councilmember Brown at that same Council meeting, “6.9 percent of zero is zero.”
Speaking strictly from a town revenue perspective, I would rather forgo whatever revenue might actually accrue to the town from Daybreak at its proposed site in favor of paying some combination of increased fees, primary property tax and bonds.