Daily Camera Editorial on
Community Group Meetings

June 27, 2004

There are some 93,000 people living in Boulder. And every year, an estimated 3 to 4 million people visit the city's 44,000 acres of open space. So even if we assume that only a third of visitors are Boulder residents, locals average more than 10 open-space visits per year, per resident. And that's conservative.

So it's a little hard to understand why so few have gotten involved in how Boulder's open space will be managed for the forseeable future. At a Wednesday open house, the public was invited to comment on a draft Visitor Master Plan and revisions developed by a forum of interest groups over the last two months; 100 people showed up. That may seem like a lot for a meeting like this, but it's still only 1 out of every 930 open-space-loving Boulder residents.

Fortunately, the "V Plan" has been in good hands so far. Since the draft was issued in late April, a Community Group Forum consisting of representatives of 13 groups — five with a "preservationist" bent and eight "user" groups, plus Dave Kuntz of the OSMP department and a facilitator — have met five times, for more than 24 hours, to work out differences.

And despite members' widely varying starting points, the group has been able to reach consensus on a remarkable range of issues. Some examples:

Where the draft plan recommended a "Priority of Preservation" when conflicts arise between purposes outlined in the City Charter, the forum wisely suggests that the department should "strive for an appropriate balance among Open Space charter purposes."

The draft plan suggested that off-trail use on sensitive Habitat Conservation Area lands and Agricultural Areas be allowed only by permit. Given that many such areas may never have trails, that represented a de facto closing. So the forum recommended that on-trail use be "strongly encouraged," except "in areas with documented fragile resources." That's more flexible and sensible.

And rather than "minimize new trails" in HCA and agricultural areas, the forum recommends that the plan "improve and construct sustainable trail linkages" and use education about the need to protect lands and enforcement to encourage on-trail use. Again, flexibility is the key.

These and many other sound recommendations were agreed to — unanimously — by representatives from groups as varied as the Boulder Off-road Alliance and the Boulder County Nature Association.

Kuntz of OSMP says that "part of our bottom line was, 'Can you live with these agreements?' All of us might not enthusiastically embrace them all, but we can live with them." And that, of course, is the way contentious issues should be settled, through compromise and consensus.

In two areas, the forum did not reach consensus, mostly due to time limitations: designation of some lands as HCA, the most restricted category, and — surprise — dog management. But if the process so far is any indication, we expect sensible compromise eventually to prevail here, too.

We do question the "closed-door" sessions by the forum, which seem a clear violation of open-meetings law. We agree that trying to hash out the plan in a fully public process, as suggested by some, would have resulted in chaos. But the forum — which we believe well represented the vast majority of the community — could have, and should have, limited public input while still allowing the public to observe.

But the forum's work is finished, and now it's the public's turn: We have until July 8 to comment on the draft. (Go to www.visitorplan.com to view the plan; click on "Open House" for the forum's recommendations.) A revised plan is due in August, followed by a public comment period, hearings before the open-space and planning boards, and an anticipated final review by the City Council on Oct. 26.

Let's thank those who have carefully shepherded the Visitor Plan so far. And now it's time for anyone else who cares about open space to speak up.