Opinion: Chautauqua: it’s time for transparency


A few years ago the Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) board proposed putting a hotel on Open Space near Chautauqua. This absurd concept only emerged into the light of day because one board member had the courage to actually speak about it, breaking the “code of secrecy” that seems to surround much of what goes on with the CCA.
Now we have another development proposal, not nearly as outrageous, but potentially equally ill-conceived. It’s to build a “modest 7,000 square foot” building, containing offices, maintenance facilities, and a meeting space, where the current Chautauqua Picnic Shelter is located, just to the south of the auditorium where we go to hear the Colorado Music Festival. Apparently, one reason to build this is to generate more revenue so that the CCA board can fund their “Chautauqua 2020 Plan.” (The CCA’s Web site contains a general “2020 vision statement,” but lacks details, supporting documentation, and financials. The proposed building was reportedly represented at a recent PLAN-Boulder meeting as 7,400 square feet, not 7,000, versus the current Chautauqua Dining Hall and Community House, each about 8,300 square feet, per the Web site.)
Not only is Chautauqua a National Historic Landmark, but the City owns the land, and it is used by a huge number of Boulder citizens. So one would presume that the citizens of Boulder should have a significant voice in formulating whatever is proposed, especially when more development is the “solution.” But the current process is completely backwards — somehow ideas are generated, then they go to the full Board where they are crystallized, and then they emerge as done deals and scare the pants off of the neighbors.
It isn’t just the neighbors who see issues with this building, though the impact on already scarce parking is an obvious one. The National Park Service, which oversees National Historic landmarks, sent a letter to the CCA disapproving of both moving the picnic shelter and the new construction.
The aborted hotel is not the only idea to have threatened the Chautauqua area. When I started on City Council in 1986, the first project I worked on was to prevent the parking circle that is in the big lawn just on the south side of Baseline from being turned into a full concrete curb and gutter city-like street. This was followed by the debacle of the Ranger Cottage, whose original design was totally inappropriate. Far worse was a proposal to build parking lots in the large meadow to the west of the dirt road that goes up to the Bluebell Shelter. Fortunately the city council nixed that notion. And the Cottage’s design was redone to make it fit. Apparently, these projects originated internally from City staff, not through a public process and not from the CCA board.
I won’t try to analyze Chautauqua’s financials (though conference centers generally lose money), nor will I try to critique whatever problems that the CCA board has legitimately (or not) identified. In fact, one of their goals — undergrounding the power lines — seems totally laudable, and should be done throughout Boulder, as has been done in Fort Collins, for aesthetics, safety, and reliability. And, to their credit, the CCA has done very good work rehabilitating and preserving the Chautauqua buildings. But what this process and the hotel proposal before it have demonstrated to me is that the current structure of the CCA and its board doesn’t work for Boulder.
As the owner of the land and a number of the public buildings and representing the vast majority of the users, the City of Boulder has a responsibility to manage this historic area in a way that is transparent, responsible, and serves the interest of Boulderites. Therefore, I suggest that the City Council put on hold all development proposals (the city has this power) until the whole organizational structure that manages Chautauqua is revised so that transparency is ensured and that its goals are the citizens’ goals, not just the organization’s goals. If that means not renewing the lease (the CCA pays less than $5,000/year) and dissolving the current CCA board, or restructuring it to make it more open and representative, fine with me — the current process is almost guaranteed to continue to yield controversy. What we need is a transparent way for the whole community to engage in planning a future for Chautauqua of which we all can be proud.


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more