Opinion: The Pro Cycling Challenge — more challenges ahead


New issues have emerged in recent weeks that need to be resolved if the Boulder stage of the Pro Cycling Challenge is to be a success. (What follows is based on my understanding to date — good information has been hard to come by.)
The first challenges to address are charter issues related to open space; all of Flagstaff is open space, including the whole top and spur road from the gate up, except for the actual county road, the Flagstaff House, and some private land at the lower edges. Charter Section 176 prohibits anything other than “passive recreation” on open space (colocode.com/boulder2/index.htm) This requirement would prevent finishing the race right on the top of Flagstaff.

Section 177 requires that any “exclusive license or permit” on open space be agreed to by at least three members of the Open Space Board of Trustees. Since the current draft plans for the race limit access to Flagstaff and charge a hefty price to VIPs who will be allowed at the finish, apparently 177 requires that final plans must be approved by the OSBT. This will also allow more citizen input than “administrative approval,” which has been asserted to be all that is necessary.
Had the OSBT been consulted when the Flagstaff finish was first proposed many months ago, many of these now-emerging issues would have been brought up and resolved in a more timely, public and up-front manner.
Also, Boulder Revised Code 8-8-10 prohibits competitive events on open space. Numerous requests for these have previously been turned down, and none have been formally allowed to my knowledge. This is not some stand-alone decision that can be changed by the council at whim, as it emerged from the multi-year Visitor Master Plan process as an expression of the charter.
The idea of simply not enforcing the city’s laws has come up relative to this event. I find this completely unacceptable. It’s one thing for a law enforcement officer to let someone off or a prosecutor to choose not to proceed, based on some particular facts, bad evidence, or legal questions. But such an approach would open the door to all sorts of abuse, like rodeos on open space, 100-foot tall buildings, and sprawl out to Louisville. Ignoring our own charter and code would create liability for the city from those against whom city laws have been fairly enforced, to say nothing of the citizens who will see this as a complete breach of faith.
In addition to the legal issues, there are costs and permits to be considered. Other open space events have been charged for their permits, and limited regarding group size, glass bottles, alcohol, music, etc. To exempt the race would not only lack consistency in enforcement, but would cost the city over $23,000 in fees, not insubstantial given that the total cost is nearly $90,000. I don’t expect the additional sales tax to provide any significant compensation; in my opinion, the estimated $81 of expenditures per visitor is way overstated.
Thunderstorms are almost as likely in August as in June or July; about one third of days have thunderstorms on average. (
http://esrl.noaa.gov/psd/boulder/thunder.html) Thunderstorms, and attendant lightning strikes, frequently come in mid-afternoon, right when the race is expected to finish. But the road will be closed and no cars are allowed, so there will be no easy escape. Spectators may be hit with 20-30 degree drop in temperature, heavy rain, nearby lightning strikes, and maybe even resulting fires. With only a few trails open, evacuation of thousands of people on the upper mountain could take hours. And slips on wet rocks or the wet clay could lead to nightmare rescues/evacuations.

If the weather intervenes, trying to divert the race at the last minute to end in town would require relocating all sorts of personnel and services, and any last-minute decision about the weather will be argued over, leading to huge uncertainty. To me, it makes far more sense to simply put the finish where it can be an assured success, and done without violating Boulder’s own laws and charter. It’s time for the council to take command, and reorient this event so that it will succeed.


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