HomeMy WebLinkAboutHandout, Comments on Merger of Open Space program with Mountain Parks~'~rGW t~~ T ~
~~ 27~ h
a I 2.8~vo
Douglds Pagels 4384 Eldorado Springs Dr Boulder, CO 80303
" February ZS, 2000
~""~ To Parks & Recreation Advisory Board. City of Boulc~er
Dear Board members
Thdnk you for tdking the time to read a Few comments concerning the proposec~ merger of
the Open Space program with Mountain Parks I dppreaate the fact that this is a rather
di~cult deasion in some regarc#s, and -- as a member ofEhe general public -- I'm grateful for
the opportunity to add my own viewpoint to the issue
I have reviewed the Mandgement Audit prepared by Conservdtion Impdct, dnd I keep coming
backtothe same conclusion The consultants seem to have had a particular destination in
mind Cndmely, the City Manager's Option 1A - from the 3/3/99 "Restructuring City Govt "
memo) and arrived at preasely that conclusion In the process there is some "editorializing"
Ehdt takes pldce - as well as enormous - and very speculdtive - dssumptions regarc~ing what the
public does/or doesn't want to happen with regdre{ Eo the future oFthese programs
An example ofthe "dssumptions" begins with the overric{ing beliefthat the public is either
somewhat or very dissatisfied with the current level of work being done by the two depts
"A stdtus quo alterndtive woulc{ not be tn the best interests ofthe citizens of Boulcjer" {pg 5}
A 9uick redd ofthe last paragraph of page 23 reveals the report's b~as ~n th~s regard It implies
,~-- that local citizens are aggravated about this ~ssue, that the aty government will seem
`W somewhat inept until it is resolvec~, and that notinitiating Option 1A wiil have signifcant
consequences I mean no c~isrespect when I say this, but I think that the consultants and the
people so intimdtely involvecf with Ehis mdy be too close to the Forest to see the trees
My own perspective comes with some c~istance to it, but maybe some insight as well I dm not
a aty resic{ent, but I Cand my sales tdxes) hdve spent every working day in downtown Boulder
for over 30 yedrs For over 22 years, I hdve shdrec{ d property boundary with Open Space I
have worke~ on numerous campaigns for both county and aty open space, and that
experience hds connected me with many viewpoints from the public concerning open space
If I can, let me share with you some ofthe things I've learnec~ about people's perception of
our ndtural lands, their mdnagement, and their Future To begin with, most people -- even
longtime resicf ents, let alone the c~eluge of newcomers --are not aware ofthe di{ferences in
public lands' management and ownership And you can't blame them This report takes d bit
ofd tunnel vision view ofthe world - dnd mdybe it has to - by limiting any d~scussion to
Open Space dnd Mountdin Pdrks But people in this region hdve dn dbunddnce of other parcels
ancl poliaes to c{eal with, Boulder County's approx 55,000 dcres among them, dlong with
open space parcels ofsuburbdn communities (whose residents visit some or dll ofthe other
publicly- owned pdreels), and nearby JeFFerson County Open Space, Arapaho/Roosevelt
Ndtiona~ Forest, Eldorddo Cdnyon Stdte Pdrk, Rocky Mountdin Ndtiondl Pdrk, BLM lands,
~, city pdrks and reservoirs, etc They are all within easy access, all within a 45 minute drive
~
Pdgels/to Pdrks Bz Rec Boarc{ py 2 ~
The point is there's a myriad oFopportunities dnd poltaes for the public to dedl with, and ~
although the c1i(ferences can be exceedingly important to the staffand administration ofthe
various depdrtments, what is most important to the general public with regard to all this
protected land is ~ust that it is there. that it is set aside for this and future generations as speaal
places where the preservation ofa ndtural resource is primary, where mdn is a respectful visitor
but not an inhabitant
And the other importdnt thingl Thdt more will be done to counter the tide oFoverwhelming
cfevelopment The least-heard thin~n public arcles concerns the benefits oFhdving the aty
mdnager wrest control oFthe Open Space acquisitions away from the department thdt hds
been doing it so dbly for so many yedrs One ofthe most-heard dialoaues is Ehat we need
moreacquisition, more open space Idnds to buffer communities, to protect wilc{IiFe, to serve
as scenic corridors, ancl to provide recreation More ofwhat is dlreddy done so cdpably
In my mind, the worst suggestion in the ManagementAuc~it is that oftaking acquisition away
From Open Space and putting it in the revolving door (3 mdnagers in 4 yedrs) office ofthe
City Mandger Likewise for the money Open Space purchases depend on urgency dnd
opportunities, c~on'ttie the dedicatecf funds up in a general fund with layers oFbureaucracy~
Remember, the Colorado Lottery funds suffered from the sdme ~ate - and needed a 2nd
election before the pubtc could be hedre{ over the money-grabbing wishes oFthe legisldture
There ts an ongoing need to prioritize acquisition and to maintain the sfatus quo ofthat
office Pfease recognize that Please move beyond the assumQtions thdt the report mdkes
dbout what the public wants, and remember the overwhelming support oFvoter confidence
expressed in public elections, most recently the Nov ,1999 Boulc~er ~ounty tdx extension
In closing Perhaps there is a workable merger of c~epartments in some phases But it must be
one which 1) uses the Open Space charter as the umbrella covering dll properties, 2) keeps
the dedicdtec( funds and the current staf{of acquisitions doing what they do so well and
3) recogn¢es thdt, in light ofthe overvvhelming development pressures we are confronting,
Boulc{er area resi~ents are all very fortunate members ofan incredible conservation and
growth managemenf muEual func~, and - even without a single change that might be made -
the stockhol~}ers are getting a tremendous return on our investment
Sincere(y,
~ll~~~d""'~
Douglas Pagels
~
~