Open Space Debate - June 27, 2007 - Julianne McCabe |
|
The council election reminds that “world view” differences between candidates are pivotal. Single issues tests applied to a flexible thinker whose core beliefs allow an open decision process are useless. Nonetheless, the Open Space debate is complex enough to reveal a mind-set. The Visitor Master Plan changed 35 years of OS management. My straw poll indicates few citizens knew about or agree with this change. Originally we had generic OS, agriculture designations, and designated closures (raptors nesting, etc). With the VMP, Council adopted recreation areas (generally trails contiguous to the city boundary) vs. habitat conservation areas (remote, less/no trails, few visitors). Approximately 43% of OS is now HCA. HCAs supporters have imposed stringent restrictions on almost half OS based upon their belief (not science) that visitors will ruin these areas. Steve Jones, president, Boulder Audubon Society, quoted, this paper, said: “This area [Traverse, Eldorado Mountain] is supposed to be a refuge for wildlife. … There are … few places a mountain lion can go … without seeing people.” How a predator feels is subjective over a normal range, anthropomorphism notwithstanding. Citizens understand science-based closures. But, the recreation vs. HCA distinction is a political boundary. How else can a line from Eldorado Springs Canyon to Boulder Canyon through the ridges of Bear and Green Mountains’ peaks, wherein the west side is a HCA and the east a recreation area, be explained? As an eco-system, both sides of these mountains are equally important. The entire north side of Flagstaff Mountain is now HCA. What is being “preserved” there except the happiness of the owners of the two $1,000,000 + homes that sit in the middle of this new, people-less preserve? There is strange logic that HCA supporters would be guilty of both weak science and politics. But then emotional decisions require less data than science based decisions. Julianne McCabe,
|