Arguments FOR the measure:
-- Land for parks is one of the best investments the city can make. Parks provide opportunities for community residents to come together for play, fitness, and personal growth. Parks are valuable open areas within the city accessible to all.
-- People want additional parks and playgrounds close to home. The new neighborhood and pocket parks of this proposal are scaled to attract and serve local users and to define neighborhood character and integrity.
-- Boulder needs a large urban park to provide, in one place, a variety of facilities for team recreation--such as lighted ball fields--as well as for individual activities such as running and cross-country skiing. There are very few remaining large parcels appropriate for this purpose and land costs continue to rise. It is crucial to set aside land for recreation needs now.
--Additional urban parks and improved recreational facilities in them (including restoration or replacement of two swimming pools) will meet existing and future needs. The increased availability of neighborhood parks and facilities could reduce pressure on Mountain Parks and Open Space systems, so popular now that sensitive areas are threatened by overuse.
-- Additions to Mountain Parks will preserve critical wildlife migration corridors between the Mountain Parks and other public lands to the west. These parks have many trails and provide opportunities for recreation and environmental education in a natural setting.
Arguments AGAINST the measure:
-- Parks are highly valued in Boulder and serve important needs, but this proposal is simply too extravagant in light of other critical needs.
-- Our taxes are already too high. The cityÕs sales tax rate is now 2.86%, and this proposal would add another 0.25%. Also, sales taxes put a heavy burden on those least able to pay and dependence on them should be discouraged.
-- Spending for the large city park would take as much as $18 million of the principal amount of the bonds. This proposal does not budget anything for recreational facilities within the large park. Paying higher taxes for 20 years could give, instead of a large park, a large parcel of land with minimal improvements.
-- Renewal and refurbishment of facilities should be anticipated and built into the budget on an annual basis. Just three years ago, voters were asked to allow bonds to be issued for up to $5.5 million for Parks and Recreation facilities. How soon will they be asking again?
-- Bond repayment and other planned expenditures depend on sales tax revenues which fluctuate. If revenues are not as high as anticipated, other projects described in this proposal would be cut back to pay off the bond. If sales tax revenues fell dramatically, the city would be obliged to raise property taxes.
-- Under tha Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, area III lands are not to be annexed during the15 year planning period. Yet this measure allows up to a quarter of the large city park to be from area III.