Fort Stanton officials differ about cool
reception to development proposal
Christopher Cunningham
Record Staff Writer

The leaders of the Fort Stanton Development Commission have expressed satisfaction and relief after a week of public meetings about development of the fort.

Fort Stanton, built in 1855 as a base for Army troops battling local Apaches and outlaws, has served many purposes over the years, including use as a sanatorium for Merchant Mariners, and is currently a state correctional facility specializing in drug rehabilitation.

The commission has set a goal of raising $32 million for repair of the aging fort through a public-private partnership, and it employed a consulting firm, Collaborative Inc., to come up with ideas toward that end. The firm’s report to the commission included an option to build a commercial-residential development near the fort with up to 600 residential units.

The report sparked outcry by the public and the Lincoln County Commission.

Lynda Sanchez, vice chairwoman of the Fort Stanton Development Commission, said it was clear to her after the meetings, held Sept. 27 to Oct. 1, that the public was opposed to the idea of building a large development near the fort to raise the money needed to restore it.

“The public’s concern actually came forth and nipped the proposal in the bud,” she said Monday, referring to the recommendation by Collaborative, Inc.

“At the moment, it looks like (the proposal) is not on the table anymore, and we are going to look at other alternatives, which in my opinion, we should have been given in the first place,” she said, adding that she was pleased with the public’s response.

Commission Chairman Michael Runnels said Tuesday the idea of the 600-unit subdivision had been misunderstood and was never a plan to begin with. The week of meetings allowed him to correct that misunderstanding, he added.

“That was not a master plan for the physical development of the fort. It wasn’t intended to be, and it was grossly misrepresented and vastly misunderstood, and I think that was a combination of the commission not communicating clearly about where it was and the fact that other folks got information out there that was misleading early on, and we had to deal with that,” he said.

Runnels said the subdivision idea was recommended by Collaborative Inc. as a “worst case scenario” option, which could have been implemented if sufficient public and private funding could not be found.

Runnels said the message he got from the public was that it wanted the commission to communicate better and to listen to public suggestions.

At the commission’s Saturday meeting, he said, the public’s suggestions were reviewed and a list was drawn up. Items on the list include:

• Maximizing grants and donations, including those available at the national level;

• Protecting historical, cultural, archaeological, geological and environmental assets;

• Ensuring that development has minimal impact on the fort’s historic core;

• Ensuring that whatever is done meets preservation goals and standards;

• Doing more research about water supply;

• Making sure a “critical mass” of visitors and citizens is involved; and

• Soliciting continuing public input during each step of any plan.

Runnels said the week of meetings showed him that many people cared about Fort Stanton and were willing to “work together to reach common ground on what the future of Fort Stanton is going to be and how we get there.”

“I generally think we had an incredibly positive response from people about this whole thing,” he said.

With the subdivision controversy resolved, the public appeared ready to come up with new ideas on saving the fort, Sanchez said.

“We have a lot of positive energy now, focused on trying to preserve the fort in a manner that is appropriate for its integrity,” she said.

She added that Cornerstones Community Partnerships and the Sierra Blanca Youth Corps were showing interest in restoring the historic stables at the fort.

“People are excited now,” she said.