Greenwood Village is a special place. In an ever crowded metropolitan area, it is an oasis for parks, open space, and single family residential properties where its residents have chosen to live and raise their families. Even in the commercial areas, the DTC was designed by George Wallace as an office “park” with generally low density buildings and residential apartments with wide expanses of well-tended grass.
That vision is encapsulated in our zoning codes. Zoning can legally change, but I view zoning as a moral commitment to the social contract between City government and the residents of the Village. When we chose to live in Greenwood Village, we did so with an understanding as to what type of City we wished to live in. For many of us, not only do our homes encompass the largest financial investment that we have but it is the place where we live, where we sleep, when we raise our children.
Can zoning legally change to reflect different usages and create a different feel to where we chose to live? Yes, but should it? I believe that morally city officials should change zoning only with the greatest reluctance as to do so breaks the social contract between the government and its people. It breaks the trust between the City officials and its residents. We should have the right to expect that the place where we have made the investment of our money and our lives stays generally the same absent some exigent circumstances.
That is my vision for the Village. This is the vision that the residents had when they chose Greenwood Village over Denver or Cherry Creek. As public officials and representatives, I do not believe that we have the right to impose our values on how we would change our Village based on the latest development fads or promises of riches for City coffers.
Others may differ, but that is how I would represent the people of Greenwood Village and how I would want to be represented.