EDITORíS DESK: Something is in a name
It's probably just a little thing. It was even suggested by one or two city officials that maybe I didn't need to write about it at all. Still, the city's delay in officially naming
and dedicating Gold Camp Park seems newsworthy somehow. Especially for the residents of Crown Hill Mesa, who had spent the first several years in their new
subdivision off Lower Gold Camp Road with a 5-acre weed kingdom instead of a park. Even a year ago, the city was continuing to claim it couldn't afford the
development cost; exasperated Crown Hill residents had to get together and make their case at a public meeting to finally push the issue forward. Last spring the park
plans were presented at a neighborhood meeting, attended by scores of Crown Hill residents (which stunned city staffers grown accustomed to such confabs where
no one shows up but themselves), where a City Parks representative explained how the park would have Westside historic themes, in keeping with its location near
what had once been the biggest gold mill in the region. At meeting's end, the city's park plans were applauded - probably another first.
Then here we are today. No one is coming out and saying so for the record, but the reality is that Crown Hill's park has gotten mired in political quicksand. Colorado Springs officials, leery of being tagged "insensitive" by social groups with agendas of their own, have decided to take extra-special care in naming things - even a park like Gold Camp that had already been named in a sensible and meaningful way. Sure, the park can be used, and some might argue its monicker is unimportant - why not name it after some politically correct honcho so city officials can give themselves halos? Why not? Maybe because the end name would likely be unrelated to the Westside, its history and how the park came to be. How insensitive is that?