Daily Camera Editorial

Open-space trustees violating the public's trust

December 5, 2004

Citizens can hold elected officials accountable at the ballot box, but have minimal leverage over appointees and bureaucrats.

That's why we're concerned about the recent developments with the long-gestating Visitor Management Plan for city of Boulder open space. After fairer heads acknowledged that the first plan - initiated in 1999 - had been hijacked by factions pushing unjustifiable, unnecessary restrictions on access by taxpayers who pay for the land, the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department launched a new process in 2003, promising fairness.

And for months, a delicate balance between ecosystem protection and the privileges of users was admirably preserved. OSMP staff worked closely with the community to write a draft plan that enacted important new protections for the most sensitive of the more than 43,000 acres of open space, while simultaneously maintaining responsible access for passive users of all kinds.

From there, things got even better. OSMP staff created the Community Group Forum from representatives of key user and preservation groups, such as the Boulder Area Trails Coalition and the Boulder County Nature Association. The CGF worked hard, and importantly, by consensus, to fine tune the plan, loosening some restrictions to access that did little to protect lands.

In only two areas, placement of certain lands in the most protected category and dog management, was the CGF unable to reach consensus. (Since then, however, the dog-advocacy group FIDOS has worked with OSMP to come up with acceptable new restrictions.)

So far, so great.

But this fall, a handful of appointed ideologues on the Board of Open Space Trustees started pulling threads this carefully woven compromise, demanding changes to effectively, and without cause, reduce access. In response, the OSMP staff crashed to its knees.

For example, the board insisted language designating the "precautionary principle" as the default management strategy - i.e. when in doubt, restrict use. Good idea, so long as you have data. But OSMP acknowledges it doesn't (and won't; it doesn't have the money) which means the "precautionary" approach could be used as a brickbat to continually restrict access every time someone merely asserts, but doesn't prove, harm. Besides, this appears to violate the City Charter, which specifically designates all accepted uses, from preservation to passive recreation, as equal. And to date, we've seen no data demonstrating serious, systemic damage to open space lands.

We have many concerns with the board's recommended changes. But what's most troubling is its violation of the public's trust in seeking to unilaterally overturn a fair compromise. Board members claim they arrived at their decisions based on citizen letters and e-mails. But an analysis of public comment on the plan obtained by the Daily Camera shows three times as much concern and desire for continued access as for more restrictions.

And remember, in consensus decision making, at any time, any member of the forum, including those from preservation-minded groups whose judgment we respect, could have vetoed any provision - but they didn't. So where do a few open-space trustees get the idea that they know better?

Of course, this plan must go before at least one accountable body, the City Council. As the council gears up to peruse the plan at a Dec. 14 study session (a final vote isn't expected until February), we hope members will recall that they - not citizen appointees or self-interested staff - are in charge, and that the council is accountable to all citizens, not just a minority that wishes to impose an unsupportable agenda on everyone else.