Boulder Area Trails Coalition

City Council Candidate Survey

As an organization devoted to the promotion of non-motorized, multi-use, environmentally responsible trail systems, BATCO has a strong interest in protecting Boulder's quality-of-life by promoting quality, but still environmentally sensitive, recreational experiences on city Mountain Park and Open Space land. We believe that one of the most important responsibilities of the Incoming City Council will be its oversight of these lands. Accordingly, we have asked candidates to submit statements outlining their views on the management of these resources.

Specifically, we have told the candidates that we are interested in their answers to the following questions:

  1. How would you balance environmental and recreational uses of city Mountain Parks and Open Space? To what does the does the city have an obligation to provide quality user experiences and to what extent should environmental preservation goals take precedence?
  2. How would you balance the desire of the city as a whole to have access to recreational opportunities on Open Space and Mountain Park land with the desire of neighbors to keep the adverse impacts caused by users out of their backyards?
  3. To what extent do you think that the city should integrate its Open Space and Mountain Parks trails into a regional system of interconnected trails such as that envisioned by the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan?
  4. To what extent do you think that increased crowding should be alleviated by constructing new trails and providing better public access to areas which are now lightly used? Do you think that crowding should be reduced by limiting access without providing alternative opportunities?
  5. What is your position on the use of open space by hikers (with and without dogs), mountain bikers, rock climbers, horseback riders, and other user groups? What regulations and restrictions do you think are appropriate?
  6. Should there be any restrictions (including user fees) on open space users who do not pay taxes to support the open space system? In cases where there is not enough parking to go around should taxpayers receive priority?
  7. On what basis should the city decide what new open space lands to purchase? To what extent should priority go to recreational opportunities, wildlife preserves, control of urban sprawl, preservation of the mountain backdrop, and buffers to protect neighbors from adjacent development?
  8. What percentages of the total Open Space/Mountain Park budget be allocated to the acquisition of additional land? To the management of existing resources?
 

Candidate Responses

Candidate responses to these questions are presented below.

NOTE: If you want to save connect time your can simply save this file and view it off line with your web browser.

 

Gordon Riggle

Personal Commitment: As a marathon and mountain trail race runner, I cover about 1,000 miles a year on Open Space and Mountain Park trails. Good access, new trail development, and high quality maintenance are very important to both the public and me personally. I have also been a member of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy since 1987. With good planning and careful allocation of use, both environmental concerns (including wildlife habitat) and recreational needs can be accommodated within Boulder's Mountain Parks and Open Space. Reasonable public access to Open Space and Mountain Parks must not be compromised. It is highly desirable that we increasingly integrate Boulder's trails into a comprehensive regional system. A regional system will encourage other communities to develop additional trails, expand recreational opportunities, and help to relieve crowding on Boulder's existing trails Additional trails and improved access are both good ways to alleviate overcrowding. Further, we should encourage surrounding communities to accelerate development of their own trails and continue to pursue an integrated trail system for the Boulder Valley region. Within our 26,000 acres of open space, there are areas which can accommodate each of these activities. Some regulations and restrictions may be appropriate, including geographic and seasonal limitations on access or certain activities. Restrictions and fees might be difficult and costly to administer. Again, the best way to address overcrowding is to build additional trails, improve access, and encourage other communities to join us in developing an integrated regional trail system. There is an existing Open Space Master Plan in place. New open space purchases should support the plan and serve to complete the green belt around the city begun in 1967. With the purchase of land comes a responsibility to maintain it for the good of the community. The funding allocation between acquisition and maintenance should be continually adjusted to meet changing needs. About 42% of the Open Space budget currently goes to operations/maintenance activities. Over time that share will necessarily increase as acquisition spending decreases and maintenance needs grow.

Return to List of Respondents

Peter Gowen

I have been a hydrologist for the BLM. In that capacity I was intimately involved in the environmental protection of public lands under multiple use management. There are commonly used land use management techniques employed whereby each resource is inventoried, evaluated as to critical needs and threats, and management plans developed to balance the competing needs. Development of resource management plans, if done properly, will address the user conflicts in a public process which will balance the competing goals. The city needs to adopt resource management plans which balance these goals depending on the needs of the resources. The public process of plan adoption is where the competing resource values should be addressed, as well as citizen concerns. Open space/park lands are public lands and not the private domain of nearby neighbors. The city needs to acquire appropriate legal access to its lands, and recognize legitimate property rights of adjacent property owners property. However, private property owners should not be allowed to deprive city residents from the use of city lands. Council needs to involve the City Attorney's office in resolving these property rights issues. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) has been adopted by both the City and the County. City trails should certainly be managed consistently with BVCP. There is no question that the public gets more value for its dollars when governments coordinate their efforts. Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination should be promoted to the maximum extent possible. There is no question that use of the city's (and all other) public lands will increase in the future. Natural resources have limited carrying capacities, which need to be recognized to prevent unnecessary and irreversible resource damage. Where additional recreational development can occur on city open space/park land, without unreasonable resource loss or damage, it should be considered in the context of comprehensive resource planning. In some cases, intentional non-development of access may be appropriate. However, such decisions need to be made in the context of multiple-resource management planning. Not all open space is created equal. Some is not even purchased in fee. Sometimes only a portion of the property rights are purchased, with the remainder held by the seller to open space. Use of open space needs to be based on interdisciplinary resource planning which includes consideration of natural resource, legal, institutional, technical, social, economic, environmental, and political constraints. There is a place somewhere on open space for most any use identified in the city charter. However, there is not a place everywhere for every use. That is the role of resource management planning. Any regulations and restrictions should follow from the resource planning effort. At the present time, I do not believe that user fees on open space are appropriate. It could end up costing more to collect the fees than could be collected from the fees, and the only result would be an unhappy public wondering why it has to pay additional fees for using open space which it has already bought through tax revenues. User restrictions are similarly impractical at this time.

The concept of city resident priority for use of open space parking has some appeal, but enforcement of such a priority probably would not be worth the effort. Users of open space may need to consider alterative transportation to get to it without driving, if parking becomes a problem. Construction of additional parking may justified in some cases, but such decisions must be made as part of interdisciplinary resource management plans discussed above.

Open space has a master plan, and additional acquisition needs to follow the priorities set out in the master plan. Occasionally, opportunities come up for acquiring property, and sometimes it is appropriate to proceed with a purchase out of sequence from the master plan if a particularly good bargain can be had. If there are problems with the master plan for open space, then the plan should be amended. There are 8 specific purposes identified for open space under Section 176 of the charter amendment adopted in 1986. None of these purposes should get priority over others in general, but on a particular property, several may dominate over others. As stated above, use of open space needs to be based on thoughtfully considered resource management plans which are adopted through a vigorous public participation process. The percentage of acquisition costs to operation and maintenance costs is going to vary with time. In the early days of the program, there was not much to manage, so most of the budget went to acquisition. As more open space is acquired, less should be spent for future acquisition, and more for operation and maintenance.

Present city policy states a budget goal of 35% operation and maintenance to 65% acquisition and debt payment. I have no problem with this allocation for the present. Furthermore, I supported the Open Space Department staff recommendation to reallocate $500,000 of O&M budget to the 1998 capital budget in an attempt to maintain the 35/65 ratio for 1998 in view of the unanticipated drop in sales tax revenues. In future years, the proper allocation may have to be revisited depending on whether the .33% sales tax (ballot issue 201) scheduled to expire in 2004 is extended this year, or in subsequent years. Any change in the allocation between the 35/65 split between operating and capital costs of the open space department should be subject to hearings before the Open Space Board and city council.

Return to List of Respondents

B.J. Miller

A balance is critical. If we overuse our environmental resources we will use them up. However, many of us got into the "preservation" business because of wonderful recreation experiences we have had in nature. To deprive our citizens of that spiritually sustaining experience is not OK. I believe our approach to the dog issue, as long and drawn out as it has been, is one way to make sure that we get plenty of input from our various recreational users as well as from those who are preservation "watch dogs," and in the end come out with a balanced program that works adequately for citizens who have a variety of points of view, needs and desires. We worked out a superb compromise on the Bob-O-Link trail which balanced preservation and a quality user experience. However, we mucked it up when we took out the grass over my head for a concrete bicycle trail in addition to the compromise trail which grew out of citizen involvement. All of our citizens pay for Open Space, and they should all have access. As a user I have not been pleased with some decreasing access, but realize that in some cases legal issues have to be resolved. I believe that lots of access, not just trail head access, is appropriate whenever possible. I would also like to see us employ our little buses on the weekends to get people to trail heads so that driving is not always necessary for hikers. I support the trail system proposed in the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan, though I realize that it is sometimes appropriate to make minor adjustments and modifications during implementation. Better and more public access should be provided, and within reason, new trail creation should occur. For me, reason involves not getting trails to close together and keeping agricultural and wildlife preservation opportunities as appropriate. I note that the Heil and Hall ranches, though in the county, are nearby and will provide new opportunities. My answer to the second question is a qualified no with the qualifications having been provided in my second sentence in this response. We need to keep that delicate balance between making our open space available and not overusing and destroying it. I believe we are doing a relatively reasonable job of that with our various policies identifying appropriate spots for different kinds of uses. I have already noted our dog policies as appropriate regulations. Mountain bikers are restricted to certain trails, and I believe that is appropriate. There are bolting policies related to rock climbers. The various regulations and restrictions will need to be reviewed from time to time for relevancy to whatever the current situation is, but given the numbers we are dealing with, regulations and restrictions will be necessary to preserve opportunities for future generations. Parking fees for out of county users at spots like Dowdy Draw and the Mesa Trail sourthern parking lot should be considered, as starters. As noted above I would like us to work on a bus system to get people to trail heads on weekends. Citizens with eco-passes could use the system "for free," and "outsiders" would pay. All of the above need to be purchased, but we have to remember that we a doing "clean-up" now, and we have a good balance of all of the above already. There is not a lot of mountain backdrop left in the Boulder Valley to purchase, nor is there a lot of wildlife land available. And in fact buffer creation and urban sprawl control, though it can be improved to the east, is not real easy to do at this point in time, given eastern county development. Perhaps the greatest priority should be to pick up the pieces that can keep the trail system whole, recognizing that in so doing we will also be addressing the other priorities. The question of priorities will not be very relevant if the .33 sales tax extension does not pass, since we have limited funds left for purchase. I have acquired over my time on council a distaste for simplistic formulas for the solving of problems. I believe that we need to be good stewards of our land; I also believe that we need to purchase what is available or threatened at the time the need arises, and that is something over which the city does not have control. Therefore we need to keep reserves available for purchase, and at times we may need to skimp a bit on management to stretch our resources, but we must always strive for balance, and as time goes by and less land is available and more purchased, of course the amount spent on stewardship will inevitable increase.

Return to List of Respondents

Thomas Doerr

  Wildlife habitat is crucial both ethically and for our environmental health. If habitat were destroyed it would also not be as enjoyable to visit these areas, but if people can't use the wilderness near where they live, they will drive to do the same things in another open space. Thus, we need to find ways of accommodating both appropriate human uses and wildlife. The city should provide citizens access to parks in ways that do not have an adverse impact on neighbors. I strongly feel that Boulder should inter-connect all of our parks. Constructing new trails that do not have an adverse affect on our ecosystem is a good idea. Not providing local recreational opportunities will cause overuse and cause people to drive elsewhere, creating traffic and pollution. Use of our parks should only be regulated to prevent ecological harm and human conflict. Restrictions and user fees on people who do not help pay for our parks is the right answer. Please read my Saturday, 18 October Daily Camera article concerning this. (text to follow) First priority for new open space purchases should be to control urban sprawl because if we do not acquire more open space now it will probably be much more expensive, if not paved over, later. Once acquired, the land can then be used for recreation and wildlife preservation. Management of existing lands is important, especially with such intense use of it. However, again, if we do not acquire more open space now it will probably be much more expensive, if not paved over, later.

- - - - - - - - -

I am a knowledgeable environmentalist with a proven track record. I am a member of the Committee on the Environment of the American Institute of Architects. I helped edit and publish the Rocky Mountain edition of The Sustainable Design Resource Guide. I am co-chair of a local hiking club and am secretary of the board of the Martin Acres Alternative Transportation Association.

For more information concerning my candidacy please visit www.9netave.com/~sun/doerr or call 554-5541.

Published in the Saturday, 18 October Daily Camera:

PUNCTURING THE MYTH OF THE BOULDER ELITE

by Thomas Doerr

Boulderites have been called rich elitists so often that we accept it and feel guilty about any policy we make that affects the suburbs, even when that policy is right. It is time to end the myth that the people living in Boulder's suburbs and working in Boulder are less affluent than Boulder workers. Analysis that I initiated with the City of Boulder, based on the 1995 Boulder Valley Employee Survey, shows that those of us who live and work in Boulder make less, substantially less, than those who come to work in Boulder.

This research shows that, of the people who work in Boulder but live elsewhere, 28% of their households unfortunately make less than $30,000 per year. However, an even sadder fact is that 45% of households who work and live in Boulder make this little. This is not some twist of the analysis; in no income category do Boulder citizens make more than the suburbanites do. For example, twice as many Boulder citizens, versus suburbanites, make less than $7 per hour. Perhaps we have more trustfunders and students, but this analysis only factors in those who work. Suprisingly, the analysis also shows that even our well-paid professionals aren't as well paid as the suburban professionals. Although the 45,000 suburbanites that come to work in Boulder every day make more than Boulder citizens that work here, we subsidize their lifestyle. We subsidize their lifestyle by paying taxes for the streets, fire protection, and open space that they use. We subsidize them by tolerating the air pollution and urban sprawl they cause. These suburbanites drive through our streets creating traffic and yet we feel guilty about lessening the huge amount of our tax dollars that we spend to subsidize their parking.

Certainly some suburbanites are truly poor and would have difficulty being able to afford to live in Boulder. However, of the people who work here, our own citizens are even poorer. This is a fact. The difference is that we have shown that we value Boulder enough to be a part of such a wonderful community instead of valuing a bigger house, more cars, and better skis. We have made the commitment and sacrifice to support Boulder and they haven't. My family and I make sacrifices to live in a city with such a high quality of life. We, and I believe most Boulderites, don't want to make these sacrifices so that a suburbanite can afford a three-car garage. Many of us know people, who make more money than we do, who left Boulder so they could buy a bigger house. Now they drive into Boulder to use our streets, parks, and libraries. Boulder citizens, including our less affluent, are subsidizing their rich. This must stop.

It is time we require that our more affluent suburbanites share in the cost of the services and resources they use. We need to stop feeling guilty about and making excuses for our "impoverished" neighbors who drive their Range Rovers in from their prairie mansions and ask them pay for the impact they have on our city. We should have them take responsibility for their impacts on our community by having them help pay for open space, parking, and all the other amenities we Boulderites tax ourselves for.

As your councilmember I will propose a small employment fee that applies to these 45,000 wealthier suburbanites to allow them to help pay for the programs and amenities they enjoy. A fee of only five dollars per month would generate millions to eliminate our city deficit and fund the right things such as bus passes and open space. If we provided bus passes to all Boulder workers who wanted one, the poorest would benefit the most. This fee would also reduce the tax burden on Boulderites. Many cities, including Denver, have employment fees. When I work in Denver I feel it is right for me to have to support the city whose amenities I am using. Any principled person would agree. Especially with Boulder's budget deficit, we should lessen our citizen's subsidies to the wealthier suburbanites.

As a member of your city council, I will work to ensure that you are not breathing bad air and paying taxes so that some wealthier suburbanite can build on more bear habitat. If you don't want to pay taxes to support affluent suburbanites, vote for Thomas Doerr. We don't want Boulder to become another LA and we certainly wouldn't want to subsidize this blight. With our city about to reach build-out, at least one of the nine councilmembers should have knowledge and experience to make sure this build-out makes Boulder even better. At least one of the six that you vote for should be an architect and environmentalist: Thomas Doerr.

Return to List of Respondents

 

Kevin Rooney

The City has an obligation to provide whatever services the citizens of Boulder are willing to pay their taxes for and that clearly includes quality recreational experiences. Adult exercise and recreation are the wave of the future. Active outdoor recreation is a significant part of Colorado and Boulder culture and a significant opportunity for educating recreation users about the environment. Which society is more likely to care about preserving the environment: one where outdoor recreation is common or one where TV viewing is the main leisure time activity? Environmental preservation is also important, both for itself and as an element of quality user experiences, but preservation needs should be a reason to say "please go here rather than there" not to say "go away". Successfully meshing the needs of bird watchers and other active nature lovers with recreation needs can make almost everyone happy. Users should be encouraged to respect the quiet and privacy of those living near Open Space and Mountain Parks, but Open Space and Mountain Parks belong to all of us and we have the right to share in using them. As much as possible. No. Limiting access without alternative opportunities just concentrates crowding on even fewer trails. We should also seriously consider purchasing land specifically for new trails when that could relieve crowding and also look at spending a little money to gently upgrade/maintain trails rather than close them (for example use of woodchips, rocks, logs to deal with mud). The City should celebrate the diversity of Open Space users. Rules should be respectful and educational, not punitive. The City should help different types of users cooperate, not play one group against another. My own personal experience has been that Open Space users appreciate each other's activities. In some cases, we need to evolve common sense ground rules for sharing space (for example between snowshoers and cross country skiers). Government assumptions about how we will behave are often self-fulfilling prophecies, so let's treat all groups as adults. I do not think we need to do this yet, but if population growth in the Front Range continues we probably will someday. I will be guided by the desires of Boulder Open Space users. There are so many factors and they interact with each other so much that I can not state a simple answer. Recreation, nature preservation, and growth control are all powerful motivating factors for public support of the Open Space program and all must be respected. The City should also be receptive to recreational programs that are not quite Open Space and not quite parks if we can find a fair way to fund them (example, longer distance trails running out into the unpopulated Plains). The land is not going to get any cheaper and no one is making any more of it, so we need to purchase as much as possible as quickly as possible. We must keep up the minimum necessary management (including knapweed control). Open Space management should be streamlined and made more efficient and user oriented. (This is true of just about all City of Boulder operations.)

Return to List of Respondents

Lee Hill

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questionnaire. I invite any further inquiries, and encourage your members to contact me directly. Your members are also respectfully invited to review my web site at socsci.colorado.edu/~galaich/lee_hill.html . First of all, I'm pleased to observe that there is an increasingly shrinking dichotomy between "environmental" and "recreational" uses of environment. As education about these matters increases, quality user experiences of city Mountain Parks and Open Space are increasingly congruous with environmental uses. Boulder can promote this increasing intersection of use values by better informing the public about beneficial ways to be in open space. Marketing and providing suggestions for alternatives to destructive recreational use is essential. Environmental goals should take precedence if there is a critical issue akin to endangered species survival; but, otherwise, the public should be encouraged to cherish and make good use of the open space. I believe the "balancing" apparatus is already available through our civil courts. What specific "adverse impacts" are being alluded to? It makes a difference. Generally, use of public space should favor public interests. I would first prefer to hear opinions from groups, such as yours, who make frequent use of these trails before taking a position on this issue. I do not support limiting access without alternative opportunities being provided. More options will tend to facilitate less crowding. More trails and better public access seems like an excellent idea. I promote non-destructive, non-competitive use that preserves the public area for others to enjoy and does not prevent or deter others from using the area. A narrower hypothetical, or a more specific question would enable me to provide a more meaningful, informative response. "Tax paying" can be an extremely difficult status to ascertain. Some other criteria, such as residency, may be more definite for purposes of setting a separate "user fee". I question whether restrictions or fees are necessary. Certainly, persons who travel to Boulder to enjoy Boulder's open space make local purchases that encourage a healthy city sales tax base. Boulder must not become a "gated community". There is no formula. . . open space purchases should be evaluated on an opportunity by opportunity, case specific basis, taking into account all the listed criteria. Adequate management of existing resources must take priority, otherwise the acquisition of new open space, that could not be maintained adequately, would be irresponsible.

Return to List of Respondents

John Sherwood

There are so many factors involved in this question that nearly any response is bound to seem over-simplified. There is clearly no perfect and certainly no permanent balance' to be formulated. One cut can be made: those sites which have no easy or direct rec use and thus are uncontested when 'reserved' for purely environmental purposes. Those which conceivably could serve both rec and environmental purposes will remain in the area of negotiation permanently. What the City can and must do is serve, not as the ultimate authority on use, but as the ultimate arbiter. The land belongs to 'the people' but in fact it is always specific groups of people who tend to exercise their proprietorship. The City must serve as the honest broker over the decades as changing conditions bring out different interests. In the long run, however, it is the City that must preserve the integrity of all open space regardless of the altering circumstances of its use. One warning note, which applies throughout: Boulder City must work constantly with other cities in the County to assure Boulder's Open Space does not become overwhelmed by users coming into our area. This will, I predict, be the chief source of threat to Open Space integrity in the coming years and we must begin to plan for it to avert disaster. Here is a perfect instance where the City must act as the honest broker. This variant of NIMBISM is but one of many. If as a community we cannot learn to respect the margins where common and private interests have the potential to challenge one another, there is little the City can do. What the City can and has been doing so far as I can tell, is anticipate and mediate, and the further in advance of polarization the better. The more extensive the 'web' the better, for the obvious reason that it spreads the damage, for face it, more people means potentially more abuse any way you cut it. One of the keys to lessening the impact from the County is to urge strongly that the other venues in the County expand their Open Space and trails programs. Cooperation is no longer a thing to be desired, but an absolute necessity. Each extension carried out to alleviate crowding will cause a surge of contention. Unfortunately there does not seem to be a shortage of contentious, righteous folk in the City and County. Too much extension irritates the wildlife people; extension too near built up areas gets to those who are in situ; you know the drill. More is not always better, but for the foreseeable future, carefully planned 'more' is something of an imperative. One thing we might do a good deal more of is 'sabbaticals' for certain areas. Well announced, regeneration purposes spelled out. An informed people is a more reasonable people. Having grown up in the unfettered, unfenced un-anythinged Colorado and having seen all this good stuff more or less left alone by other than a few rather sophisticated users who knew 'the rules' instinctively, and then having spent years in the Alps enjoying rigorous use under equally rigorous rules because the huge mix of users, I know rules can be drawn up which make life better for all. Rules always irritate many at first, but in the end all but the hardest core come to see that the rules do not take the enjoyment away and that no rules steal the experience from all. What has been the experience in the Flagstaff area? There have been fees there for the past several years. I have never seen any summaries of this experience. It should tell us something. With the amount of wealth that has come into the County in recent years fees will hurt no outsiders and will help pay for some of the repair costs. Still, fees will not keep people away. Tides of people are, if you'll pardon, the wave of the future. Didn't the National Parks more or less double the fees this year without making a dent in either their budget shortfall or the number of visitors? My position on this is rather simple for one simple reason: the first priority from this moment on must be to purchase the last parcels of Open Space while they are still affordable. We have until the end of time then to consider, reconsider and reconsider again all the alternatives to the use of this space. First, get the land. There will, as noted in my answer to # 1, never be a final set of 'proper' functions. Only a continuing set of ways in arriving as reasonable consensuses. Again: first, get hold of the land. I've pretty well answered this question in 7 above. One thing more, however, since all the land that we will be able to buy will not come on the market some Saturday morning, and whoosh, it's over, clearly there will be a constant need for close judgement about how much to spend on maintenance and which areas to give priority. This exercise of judgment is a public private concern. I cannot emphasize enough how critical organized private involvement will be over the coming decades. We all speak of self government, but increasingly we are learning that this involves more than elections. It involves private groups off loading as much from the 'political' sphere as possible so that the 'political political' can concentrate on doing what it alone can do..

Return to List of Respondents

Gwen Dooley

It is critical that neither the environmental quality nor the recreational accessibility of Boulder's Mountain Parks and Open Space system be lost. It is our obligation as stewards to find appropriate locations for the recreational access that we are generating and still preserve the habitat and species that need protection. Passive recreational uses have always been part of the Open Space program because they were seen to be in balance with the natural or environmental goals. As with aesthetic experiences, I believe 'quality user experiences' are contingent upon what the person brings to it. I do not feel an urgent need to provide anyone with any experience: that is up to the individual. I do feel that in order to give future generations an opportunity to truly enjoy nature, we need to plan ahead very, very carefully. It is important to involve neighbors in the community-wide dialogue that needs to occur when planning for management of Mountain Parks and Open Space. The situation of the relationship between Boulders open lands and its neighborhoods is much like that of the sea and the seashore with coastal communities: it is an asset to all and belongs to all while only a few are able to live directly next door. Those who are fortunate enough to live next to open space must realize at the outset that these public lands are not their backyards, but rather that their yards and property back up to open space that will be used by the public. Part of the price and value of their property is that it backs up to Parks or Open Space where development will never occur. Nevertheless, the users must be respectful of private property and use pubic access. Integration of trail systems of the Boulder Valley with regional systems must also be addressed with great care. While there is an appeal to be able to go out of the valley onto other systems, managing the impacts of increased entrance of visitors into the valley from those systems must be part of the evaluation. While looking at the context of the greater metropolitan area, Boulder has much more preserved land and more trails than most other front range communities. That's why our Mountain Parks and Open Space lands are on the Denver tour bus schedules. Inviting even more use of the Boulder system from outside would not be advantageous to local residents. Crowding is most likely caused by several factors, including closeness to developed areas, convenient access for visitors and Boulder citizens and changing demographic and lifeststyle choices resulting in increased participation in outdoor activity. For example, peple with K-9 companions tend to use the trails more often. Providing more access and more trials would most likely increase use in these areas but there is no guarantee that use in other areas would decrease. Chances are, "if we build it people will come." Increasing and criss-crossing trails would, I believe also lead to such a dillution of wildlife habitat and dividing up of open space lands that the overall effect would be very very destructive of the ecosystem and one's experience of nature. Use of particular access points and social trails may need to be limited in order to focus the access onto maintained trails and well located access points. An issue which has not had much discussion is the dollar cost to construct and maintain trails. As new trails are built the expectation and need for maintainence is increased. This includes not only the trail surface itself, but interretive signs staff pressence for patrol and education, additional weed control along trail, corridors fencing to direct use and protect habitat, etc. All of these things cost money. While some may be provided by volunteers from time to time, public resources are the prime focus for attaining these goals. Alternative outdoor opportunities are available through our Parks and Recreastion Department and all of the Colorado National Parks, ski. and recreational areas. Various user groups should continue to have access to the land where much use is both desirable and appropriate. Conflicts seem to occur most where trails are crowded and/or people are not following good etiquette for the desired use. Volunteers can help to address some of these conflicts. FIDOS, for example, is a group that has contributed significantly in many areas. Its participation in policy development, development of and implementation of educational materials and 'poop pick-up patrol' is a good example of the needed cooperation between various user groups and staff. Rock climbers have spent days cleaning up chalk and helped to develop rules to regulate bolting. Certain regulations such as 'bikes on designated trails' have proved effective to alleviate conflicts between certain groups. Beware of unintended consequences. Parking fees would just shift parking problems into adjacent neighborhoods or even to other trail heads. When looking at fees, we need to identify the problem, the goals, and the purposes before coming up with solutions. In addition, fees must produce more revenues than it costs to collect them. Are the fees to be used for maintenance or to discourage types of uses or people from using certain areas? The second part of this question is confusing as I don't know which taxpayers we are talking about. Property owners in Boulder? Sales-tax payers, which includes visitors? These are not issues to be resolved here. Dollars from the Open Space sales tax extension are needed to complete the greenbelt around Boulder. Many of the remaining properties are relatively small but expensive and are needed to fill in between or around existing Open Space land. In many cases needed trail connections will be a predominant criterion. To my knowledge, no Open Space Lands have been purchased to 'protect neighbors from adjacent development', nor should they be. Often open space is purchased primarily because it was opportune for the parties, and it fits in with the general mapping out of open space. Regardless, the priorities should be those in the City Charter. My understanding is that current expenditures are around 35:65 for maintenance and acquisition. As the .33 cent sales tax expires, this will reverse. If the tax is extended through 2016 as proposed, it is projected that the land will be bought and implementation of plans -- including trails construction -- will occur before the tax expires. After the expiration, the .40 will remain and be used primarily on maintenance of the land in perpetuity.

Return to List of Respondents

 

Dan Corson

Your question correctly assumes that balance is the important issue, but incorrectly assumes that a candidate can answer the question without knowing the specifics of the area in issue. The city has both a very fine Open Space Board of Trustees and Parks and Recreation Board, which should work jointly with the input of organizations such as your to develop the proper plan for each area. Because open space is purchased with city tax revenues, the interests of the community as a whole should be the primary consideration. Living in a compact community such as Boulder requires tolerance, whether it is in some of denser neighborhoods close to downtown or near city open space. As a former Planning Board member and chair, who gave input into the recent five year update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, I support the integrated trail system. Limiting access to out of town users is becoming more of a possibility, although I have concerns regarding the costs of enforcement and ability to enforce. These issues are, again, one of balance with the development of alternative programs for Council consideration best left to the city boards which deal with these issues. I do not have enough personal knowledge to comment on the specifics of these issues. Although I believe that all city owned land, including open space, should accomplish several goals, if possible the development of specific regulations for consideration should be left to the city boards which deal with these on a regular basis. We need to increasingly consider practical ways to give first preference to our own citizens. l would not like to see regulation become too onerous. The encouragement of other cities and counties in the region through regional policy discussions to develop their own open space trails is an important component of this issue. With 700,000 to one million new citizens expected in the Denver metropolitan area within the next 20 years, we need to take a broader approach to the issue. Additional open space purchases should become increasingly strategic in location to accomplish as many purposes as possible. The development of open space corridors between and among Boulder County cities should be of primary importance. This would be most effective pursuant to an increasingly coordinated effort. Boulder should be an exemplary manager of its properties, open space and otherwise. As our open space purchases increase, a larger percentage will of lands will have to be allocated toward maintenance and management.

Return to List of Respondents

 

Don Mock

Critical wildlife habitat should be carefully protected to avoid human disturbance and fragmentation of ecosystems. Former agricultural lands can probably support fairly intensive recreational uses, even off trail. Much of our open space probably falls between these two extremes. In those cases, sensitive routing of trails and possible restrictions on uses (e.g. dogs only on leash) would still allow the public to get out and appreciate their investment in our natural heritage. Public use of natural areas is an important component in keeping public support for our open space program. If the impact is literally in their backyard (i.e., trespassing on private property) then we should reduce or eliminate the impact through appropriate fencing. If people living adjacent to open space want the taxpayers to maintain it as their own exclusive nature preserve, then I can't support that. I think it is a good idea. I am fond of going on long hikes (I did the entire Colorado Trail in 1994) and would like to see a foothills trail from Golden to Lyons and a plains-to-divide trail in the area. You can only add more lands and more trails up to a certain point. Eventually, the rest of Boulder County and the surrounding Metro Denver area is going to be built out. In time, we will probably be forced to ration out the resource just like Yosemite, to prevent it from being loved to death. Each user group should have its needs met to the extent that it does not degrade the quality of the resource over time. The City already uses this technique (user fees) on Flagstaff Mountain, by charging non-Boulder County residents to park at any of the trail heads. Eventually, we may need to try this at some of the Open Space trail heads as well. It will cause problems, however, if the trail head is anywhere near a residential area, since non-residents will simply park in the neighborhood to avoid the fee. I would tend to favor acquiring lands that are closer in over those farther away, sensitive wildlife habitats over purely agricultural lands, lands that would allow completion of missing trail links over those that don't, and lands that preserve the mountain backdrop over lands in the plains. A buffer to protect one in-town development from the next is not really the purpose of the City Open Space program. That would be more like an Urban Open Lands program, which Boulder voters declined to fund on last year's ballot. City parks can sometimes serve that same purpose. We must continue to acquire new Open Space lands as quickly as possible. Every year of delay only makes the remaining parcels more expensive and reduces the available choices as more land is actually developed. Once our acquisition program is complete, there will be plenty of time to concentrate on appropriate management techniques. Weed control is once area, however, where additional management effort is currently required to protect native species and natural habitats. Land acquisition is less of a pressing issue for the Mountain Parks, but the city should continue its efforts to acquire the remaining private parcels on the backside of Green Mountain and Bear Peak.

Return to List of Respondents

Tom Eldridge

I would listen to the appropriate city boards and their recommendation. I don't believe that a general policy can be set but that each specific area must be evaluated on its merits taking into consideration first the environment and then the right of the citizens to use what they have paid for. Any program developed must be considerate of adjoining neighbors but the neighbors must be aware that their property only extends so far. I believe that this should be explored and considered. This sounds like a good idea, but I would like further input. No. Some areas may not be suitable for use by all these groups together so some limits and restrictions may be appropriate after public input. Maybe in some cases, but generally I am opposed to fees of this nature. No. I believe the following priorities should be used. (1) Control of urban sprawl. (2) Preservation of the mountain backdrop. (3) Recreational opportunities. (4) Wildlife preserves. (5) Buffers to protect neighbors from adjacent development.

Return to List of Respondents

 

Jonathan Hager

Balance is the key. We must manage our Mountain Parks and Open Space in a manner that promotes expanded use by citizens without creating an adverse effect on the natural character of the land. The decision as to the amount of use should be made by experts who are trained in land preservation. Open Space belongs to every citizen. Neighbors of Open Space and Mountain Parks should not be allowed to dictate the community's use of that land. Legitimate concerns of surrounding neighbors should be addressed and resoIved, if possibIe, but not at the excpense of the rest of the citizens. I think it makes sense to plan the community's development and expansion on a regional level, and this includes using a regional approach to Open Space as well. To the extent that constructing new trails and providimg better access is effetive at alleviating over-crowding, I support it. At least give it a try. Limiting access should be a last resort. Again, balance is the key. If those groups can use Open Space without adversely affecting the land, then their use should be permitted. If they do impact the land, then limits should first be imposed to address the impact. Finallly, as a last resort, access should be denied if continued use is destructive to the environmient. I do not support a fee to use the land, although I do think a parking fee for non-residents is appropriate. The city should continue to purhase open space with a long-term plan in mind. Each potential new acquisition should be evaluated based on its individual characteristics and how it will fit into the long-term plan. I do not want to let a priority system cause us to miss a potential acquisition of land. I don't know the answer to this question without further information. I do support spending money on maintenance of Open Spaee and I would like to include community members and Open Space experts in the decision of the exact percentage being spent on maintenance.

Return to List of Respondents

 

 

Will Toor

I believe that habitat protection should be the highest priority on open space. Boulder is home to a significant number of rare and endangered species, and it is incumbent on us to protect this home.

At the same time, continued public support for open space acquisition probably requires allowing more recreational access than good biology would dictate. One idea is to perform a sound scientific analysis of the state of open space ecosystems, laying out the threats to species such as the Peebles jumping mouse, Ute Ladys Tresses, Peregrine falcons, etc. and make the tradeoffs very clear to the public. I think that if the issues are clearly explained, the can deceide the appropriate balance.

It depends on the details of the situation. However, in general the interests of the city would come first. I dont know enough about this to comment. In general, I would not support dealing with crowding by spreading uses out into new areas. I would support the idea of identifying areas that are less important as habitat, and concentrating uses in these areas. The regulations should be designed to minimize environmental impacts, and avoid conflicts between user groups, while still offering opportunities for high quality experiences. Yes. as other communities grow, there will be increased pressure on Boulder open space from residents of towns that have not acquired open space. At some point we may need to look at limiting access, possibly by charging a fee, or limiting trailhead parking to Boulder residents. All of these factors are important. Given the development pressures in the area, I would tend to prioritize preventing sprawl and protecting habitat. I cant give a specific percentage. I do believe that acquisition of open space should be very high priority. If we do a less than ideal job of managing open space, many of the problems this causes will be reversible. On the other hand, land that we do not acquire and that gets developed is lost forever.

 

Return to List of Respondents

 

Rich Lopez

I see a hierarchy of places where recreational uses can be provided. The more active uses should take place in Parks, including Mountain Parks, while passive uses can occur in Open Space lands. The city has an obligation to preserve and maintain both Mountain Parks and Open Spaces for the public. A "quality user experience" should not degrade the environment. Generally speaking, Open Spaces and Mountain Parks are not in the backyards of many people. Parking lots and trail heads have been located to minimize any impact on neighbors. Balancing and decision making is a delicate process that works best when the impact of the decision are fully understood and weighed. The Greenways program attempts to link parks and open space through a network of trails and paths. These linkages are important to allow residents in all parts of Boulder to have access to Open Space and Mountain Parks without driving a car. One of Boulder’s greatest features is the proximity to open space and parks. The carrying capacity of trails and open space is an important consideration. Constructing new trails in lightly used areas will help encourage users to avoid crowded areas. Limiting access to trails is difficult and costly. There will be natural self-limiting of crowded areas as persons who are looking for a quiet hike will tend to find a less popular trail. Clearly, the close-in trails experience greater use than more remote trails. Once again, the popularity of open space by users requires that more careful management take place. Preservation of the resource is critical and any activity that degrades the resource should be regulated. Given adequate resources the city could create fenced dog parks. If citizens demonstrate that this is a needed recreation facility, then such a facility should be proposed to the Parks and Recreation Department and if it fits within the budget, should go forward. The type of restrictions described are in place in Flagstaff Mountain Park. Sales taxes are generated by non-Boulder residents so any restriction should recognize the equity of taxing people. The Open Space Plan and Open Space Board have been charged with performing these tasks. The Criteria for purchases are complex and attempt to accomplish many, if not all, the priorities described. We are moving from the acquisition to the management of Open Space. The amount of land left to be acquired is relatively small. Boulder is faced with the responsibility of stewardship of these precious lands. The budget for management is increasing as it should.

Return to List of Respondents

Ed Mills

I’ve chosen to give you an overall policy statement which will frame my approach to the issues facing Boulder City Mountain Parks and Open Space rather than address individual items. This broader policy approach would be more in line with how, as a council member, I would be helping to resolve issues while at the same time laying out clearly my principles concerning the issue.

As a board member of FIDOS (Friends Interested in Dogs and Open Space) I’ve been involved for the last three years in formulating the policy for use on open space lands. The City Manager’s Dog Roundtable brought together groups with conflicting views about the use of open space. After two years of meetings, the resulting proposal was submitted to city council, unanimously accepted as the city’s dog management policy for Mountain Parks and Open Space, and applauded as an example of what can be accomplished when we work together to resolve our differences.

The Boulder community has a shared identity and common responsibility concerning open space lands. At the same time, we must respect and honor and even encourage our differences in opinion and lifestyles.

Boulder Mountain Parks and Open Space are community resources which all community members should benefit from and for which all community members are responsible to protect and use appropriately.

"That recreational activities disturb wildlife is well appreciated but poorly understood. Most popular forms of recreation in wildlands have yet to receive detailed study." (Knight and Cole 1995, p.61).

There are, in many cases, no clear precedent or resolutions to management conflicts. These conflicts ideally should be approached in a spirit of openness, experimentation, mutual regard, and balancing the goals to preserve and maintain environmental resources while accommodating uses.

Return to List of Respondents

Mailing Address: BATCO, 17051 14th Street, Suite 201, Boulder, CO. 80302,
Telephone Contact: Suzanne Webel (303) 499-0786.
E-Mail Contact: Guy Burgess