Montrose - Daily Press

MONTROSE �” Another victim of the city’s slashed budget, a century-old archaeology site remains fenced at Cerise Park, awaiting its fate.

To the average observer, the Kallstrom Jacal Farmstead site looks like a crumbling structure surrounded by junk and old farm equipment. But it could be one of the oldest surviving pieces of architecture on the Western Slope.

Because it is within a city, the farmstead is protected by state law.

File photo / Daily Press The Kallstrom Jacal Farmstead's one-room cabin in Cerise Park Advertisement

City government has decided the site should be cleaned out and the artifacts removed.

Local archaeologist Steven Baker disagrees. He has directed professional work and planning for the site since 1992, and he says the city’s plan is not cost-effective.

“There is no threat to the site but the city itself,” Baker said.

Even though Montrose had about $60,000 available from the state in 2008 to preserve the historic remains on-site, the city decided to “move off the path it had been on for 15 years,” he said.

The site’s file with the Colorado Historical Society includes five years of communications with the city.

State Archaeologist Susan Collins expressed concern about the city’s decision to “clean up” the site, as she doesn’t want information about the original homestead to be lost.

“We asked the city to do certain things, and those things are outlined in the MOA (Memorandum of Agreement),” she said.

Under the MOA, Montrose must accurately map the homestead, document the structures through photographs and graphs, and prepare a narrative description. These documents would be filed at a local library and at the state historical society, Collins said.

An archaeologist must be on site to make sure this is done properly and to report back to the state, she said. The city also must preserve the cultural landscape, such as trees and fenceposts, and use them as part of the site with interpretative signs.

Items older than 100 years must be retained and placed in a suitable local museum approved by the state society. “We’ve asked that a piece of the house wall be saved,” Collins said, “because that is one of the aspects of the architectural significance of the homestead.”

For the full story, see today's print edition. The online story may not reflect all relevant information that was reported. We encourage readers to obtain the full story by reading the print edition or our e-edition, To subscribe, call (970) 252-7081 or click on the subscription link on the main page.

Comments

a_montrose_native wrote on Feb 24, 2010 6:21 PM:

" if "they" want to preserve the site, than someone will organize a committee to seek donations for it. simple. "




Report Abuse

Mark wrote on Feb 16, 2010 10:52 AM:

" I haven't been to this site since the city ruined that natural "mystery" of the area. They did so by clear-cutting the vegetation, and putting in that drive/parking area.

I often spent weekend mornings down in that area, and accessed it near the 90 bridge before the new access was constructed. It was a wild and exciting place to roam. Even the moose that visited our area enjoyed it once. If I wanted a modern "city" in which to reside, I would have moved to the front range 15 years ago. Leave it alone! "




Report Abuse

j2 wrote on Feb 11, 2010 10:22 PM:

" I have been at this site, and it is just one of many old delapidated buildings in the area. THIS is not a historical site ! "




Report Abuse

CLD wrote on Feb 11, 2010 10:03 PM:

" Why spend any money on it at all? Why mess with it or is this another thing we have to have endless meetings about? I spring for the match to clean in up or have Matt Miles do it by hand for screwing up South Montrose "




Report Abuse

Les Miller wrote on Feb 10, 2010 7:44 PM:

" Just because something is old does not mean it is historic. This site is a pile of rubble that the owner should have cleared off long ago. Get rid of it.

I love history, but this is getting ridiculous. "




Report Abuse

Montrose Citizen wrote on Feb 10, 2010 7:31 PM:

" Does this fall in the "SID" Part of Montrose? Or is it just the 67.00 road and Niagara projects.? Hey here is a thought maybe Matt Miles could pay for it instead of asking the city for money to keep his building afloat? Clean it up.... "




Report Abuse

just me wrote on Feb 9, 2010 10:40 PM:

" Old timer
It's hard for me to believe you live in one older then this building since it was one of the first ones built in Montrose and yes I know this for a fact because my grandparents home stead here. If you don't like it don't look at it. It's better for the fox to have a place to live then disrepectful people. "




Report Abuse

old timer wrote on Feb 9, 2010 3:01 PM:

" WHat makes this "historic"? I lived in a house that was older than this for 4 years when we first moved here. It's an old, falling down, poorly build shack. bring in a front loader and clear it out. "




Report Abuse

Just me wrote on Feb 8, 2010 9:29 PM:

" Mark

I couldn't have said it better.

Thank You "




Report Abuse

Mark wrote on Feb 8, 2010 10:47 AM:

" In the past, I also have enjoyed many mornings watching the fox that make that location their home. I don't see any reason to further disrupt the Cerise Park area. This was once an enjoyable "natural/native" area that has become an unsightly "modernized" landscape. What a shame it would be to further degrade the area. "




Report Abuse

just me wrote on Feb 8, 2010 10:23 AM:

" Observer
First of all people should pick up after themselves. believe me the city worker would like to have nothing better to do then pick up after disrespectful people. Maybe if it bothers you so much get a bag and do some cleaning up I'm sure we would all like that. As for the building I believe it should be left in place. I hate the park they built an way talk about a waste of taxes payers money "




Report Abuse

concerned res wrote on Feb 6, 2010 6:20 PM:

" I sure hope that they don't spend a dime on this non-historic building. I love history and believe in preserving historical items but this aint one of em'. "




Report Abuse

Observer wrote on Feb 6, 2010 10:22 AM:

" I have no problem with just letting nature take its course. There are many trails and disc golf in the immediate area and so it would be nice if all the broken bottles,sharp scrap metal, and other trash that is outside the fenced area were removed for safety's sake. City workers with nothing to do? "




Report Abuse

JIll wrote on Feb 6, 2010 9:47 AM:

" A shameful waste of taxpayer money. "




Report Abuse

City Resident wrote on Feb 5, 2010 7:48 PM:

" Maybe the state should pay the full cost of preservation since its the 'states' law. Also, has anyone come up with the actual cost? Maybe it can be put out to bid and we can see if the $60,000 will cover it? "




Report Abuse

Tom wrote on Feb 5, 2010 7:17 PM:

" I have remember this site when I was a child, before it was fenced off . Access was limited to the area and the land around was in its original state. Even as an adult now I find it fascinating and think it should be left alone and let nature take its course, or restore it to its original structure, even better of an idea, and would also serve as an attraction to the area.
Don't just clear it out, its boring enough back there "




Report Abuse

Short Round wrote on Feb 5, 2010 11:46 AM:

" At what point does the site, and all that is on it, become "historic" over just being junk? It's not like were talking about a site with dinosaur remains or some major historical event happened there. It was a dwelling from some family that used to live here that did some stuff at that site many years ago. I agree with preserving our past, but at some point people must distinguish between "historic" and irrelevant.

By the way Steven Baker, show me something that the city does that IS cost effective. "




Report Abuse

DCK wrote on Feb 5, 2010 9:32 AM:

" It would be a shame to see the site and its resident foxes go. If not for its human history value, the site should be saved for the foxes and onlookers alike. "




Report Abuse