Consider not only “For” and “Against” but the source of each letter and the reasons for the votes. Furthermore, compare the specific quantifiable impacts of each argument.
The primary question is not about the value of “Over the River” as art. Rather, it’s the location. So many proponents are not the ones who will be impacted by the extensive negative effects the project promises. Should the distant voices of city residents weigh equally with canyon residents and workers whose livelihood and life quality are diminished, or even endangered, by the construction issues that this art project demands?
In other words, should those who live far from the project’s effects be allowed an equal voice to those who live and work in the middle of those effects?
Secondly, can “Over the River” proponents cite definable, quantifiable benefits through the entire scope of the construction and deconstruction phases as well as the mere 2 weeks of official display? Project opponents have generated an extensive and specific list of negative impacts. Can proponents provide comparable statistics on how much better off canyon residents and workers will be financially 1, 2, or 5 years from now as a direct result of Over the River? How will the environment, the river life, wildlife such as bighorn sheep and raptors, highway safety and human amenities benefit from Christo having been here?
Without such direct comparisons, the debate becomes “Money and The Artsy Types” vs. “The Canyon Chicken Littles.” That’s the wrong question. Human safety issues and the mountain canyon ecology are permanent realities through Bighorn Sheep Canyon. Christo’s project presents a temporary, if extended, impact. The real question, then, is whether the long-term price paid by the canyon itself and its inhabitants is a wise purchase for a two-week product.
-Canon City Resident