Opinion: Open Space and parks – threatened from the inside


Behind the scenes in the Boulder city government, arguments are being made that open space land, and by implication parks land, can be transferred to another city department without going through the city charter-required processes. Right now, only a few non-controversial bike paths are being considered. But if the council allows the charter to be ignored, much of our public land would be threatened.
Open space lands are protected by Charter Section 177, passed by Boulder voters in 1986. It requires both the city council and the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) approval for any “disposal” of open space; it also requires a 60-day waiting period so that citizens who don’t agree have ample time to refer these decisions to the ballot. The charter states, “This section is to be construed liberally in favor of providing opportunities for the citizens of the city to refer measures proposing the disposal of any open space land.” The parks board also has veto power over the disposal of parks land, as described in Section 162 passed by the voters in 1961.
Open space land is defined in Section 170, and parks land in Section 154. Fundamentally, if land was purchased or dedicated for that purpose, or has been under the management of that department, then it is open space or parks land. The land must stay under the management of that department. So neither open space nor parks land can be transferred to another department and still be considered open space or parks. For open space, a transfer can only happen if it is disposed of under the rules of Section 177. For parks, a transfer requires parks board approval under Section 162; even leases require parks board approval under Section 164.
Open space land can only be used for habitat preservation, passive recreation, agriculture, urban buffers, etc. These uses are specifically delineated in Section 176, also passed by Boulder voters in 1986. And similarly, parks land’s uses are also limited to mainly recreation.
In a Colorado Daily Q&A for the 1986 election, Boulder’s current mayor Matt Appelbaum (then PLAN-Boulder co-chair) pointed out that open space is not a “land bank” for other departments, that transfers to another department are subject to the Section 177 process, and that the OSBT really does have veto power over the council in these matters. The Daily Camera also specifically pointed out the OSBT’s veto power in their editorial for that election.
I’ve heard that an argument is being made within the city that an appointed board cannot veto the council. This position is not supported by anything I could find in the state constitution, and is contradicted by 50 years of practice, as well as the veto power that the Planning Board has under the Comprehensive Plan. The other argument is that an internal transfer to another department is somehow not a “disposal”. But the charter is 100 percent clear that open space lands must be managed by the open space department, and parks lands by the parks department.
If transfers of open space or parks lands to other departments are allowed without going through the charter required processes, what we think of as preserved green spaces could end up as parking lots or housing projects. For example, we could wake up one morning and discover that the Chautauqua meadow was transferred to Transportation and turned into a parking lot. This may sound farfetched, but part of that beautiful meadow was almost turned into a parking lot in 1986. Imagine what the open space near the South Mesa and Dowdy Draw trailheads could become if transferred to another use. A transfer worth watching is a parcel that is apparently either parks or open space on the north side of the east end of Palo Parkway; it is already under consideration to become a housing project. This is a bad site for affordable housing; the most direct access is over a county road, and it is a long way from transit, shopping, and services.
It’s time for the council to end this nonsense. The council should confirm that the charter means what it says: Any transfer of open space or parks land to another department or any action that ends up with open space or parks land not being used in the ways delineated in the charter requires approval by both the council and the relevant board, and for open space a 60-day waiting period after those approvals. End of discussion.


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