Letters to the Editor of the Daily Camera

Index:

Whither Open Space trails? -- Oct 28 unpublished letter

Real problem is developers -- Nov 17 letter

webmaster's response to: Real problem is developers

Some support proposed trail -- Nov 18 letter

webmaster's response to: Some support proposed trail

Protest doesn't mean anti-trail -- Nov 28 letter

Webmaster's note: The following letters may contain inaccuracies and do not necessarily represent the position of the NRLVTC. They are included in their unedited form for purposes of public documentation.

for publication in Daily Camera, Open Forum newsr@bouldernews.infi.net

(submitted October 28, 1997, but never published)

Whither Open Space Trails?

The Camera's Get Out column (Oct. 7 & 18) features trails like Eagle Trail that form a growing network around Boulder. Eagle Trail, meandering through the midst of a scenic, peaceful open space tract just north of town, gives the Boulder City Open Space program a good name and inclines voters to approve the up-coming bond issue.

Like most open space users, we look forward to expanding open space recreational opportunities. Unfortunately, recent events raise the possibility that Open Space officials are relocating trails to the residential peripheries of public lands-- -- without taking seriously legitimate concerns of adjacent home owners or the best interests of people seeking the great outdoors.

A case in point is the attempt this month to convert a former utility access corridor ringing the North Rim subdivision into a major link in the trail system north of Eagle Trail. This corridor immediately abuts forty homes and is too confined to permit safe trail usage. Squeezed between suburban backyards, an open ditch and a barbed wire farmer's fence, the corridor could not be a safe or aesthetic trail for equestrians, bikers, runners, hikers and dog owners.

We love the open space. But, we think trails should be out in the open space, away from homes wherever possible. A vigorous outcry from the community laid out a clear alternative of safer, more scenic trails, Open Space officials have shown little responsiveness. Neighbors' testimony, including maps of the proposed trails and alternatives, can be browsed and discussed on the Internet at http://www.tridog.com/nrlvtc .Boulder City and County residents should watch the resolution of this conflict between Open Space planners and the community as a test case of whether open space will be managed in a responsible and responsive manner.

Gerry Stahl, President

North Rim Adjacent Property Owners

3900 Pebble Beach, Niwot

published in Daily Camera, Open Forum, November 17, 1997

Real problem is developers

I was amused to read about the open space project put on hold after the outcry by North Rim residents against the proposed development. How sad for these affluent home owners to have residents of the county, who purchased the open space which in fact defines the North Rim development as up-scale, peering into their up-scale homes while they hike, bike and horseback ride on public property. I was further amused by their transparent arguments voiced as concerns, for the "horses who might be spooked by barking dogs." I would at least respect these residents for their honesty if they simply said they didn't feel like having the unwashed masses trooping past their homes.

This is the second instance where homeowners are congesting public adnunistrative systems by lobbying their complaints with public officials instead of gunning for the people they should be upset with: the developer. The first instance was Dakota Ridge, where residents felt they should have some control over the noise generated by the commercial use of the storage lockers behind their development. In both instances, these residents behave as though their rights take precedence. Did the Dakota Ridge residents believe the people using that commercial property would simply go away or use the property diiferenty because a developer built homes right next door? Did the North Rim residents think they were the only ones entitled to use the nearby open space because they spent a great deal of money to live next to that open space?

The real problem is the developers. So what if the developers said the 15-foot strip was for utilities -- they were wrong. The fact that the developer was incorrect in no way gives these homeowners a legitimate grievance, it only categorizes them as unfortunate, relatively speaking. I feel little or no attention should be given to their concerns and a great deal of attention should be given to developers and their objectives in developing specific parcels of land. Wake up residents and be responsible for your choices! Open space is not simply for those lucky enough or wealthy enough to live next to it, it is for the citizens who fund it.

K.M. Lehr

Jamestown

Response to "Real problem is developer"

We ignore Lehr's intolerant rhetoric from above, safe in Jamestown. We objected to the trails as both home owners and as trail users. We do not think that open space trails should be forced into residential corridors, next to anyone's home -- they should be in the open space whenever possible in the interest of both residents and trail users. We do have safety concerns for trail users as the traffic increases when connecting trails are improved.

The analogy to Dakota Ridge seems misplaced. Those residents apparently knew they were buying homes near the commercial property -- none of us knew that our utility access path was owned by Open Space or that Open Space had intentions to develop it into an important multi-use link in the trail system. Apparently even our developer believed it was just to be an occassional equestrian easement.

Regardless of our personal concerns for privacy in homes designed with the understanding that there could be no development behind them, we feel that the trail desired by Open Space officials is dangerous, illegal and inappropriate (see our letter to the editor). This latter is the basis for our protest.

-- NRLVTC

published in Daily Camera, Open Forum, November 18, 1997

Some support proposed trail

This letter is in response to your article about the proposed trail adjacent to the North Rim/Lake Valley subdivision. First of all I want people to be aware that this new North Rim/Lake Valley Trails Committee does not include all of us living in Lake Valley. This group seems to suddenly be the voice of Lake Valley. I am a Lake Valley resident and am not part of this group. This group has not been appointed by the Homeowners Association to represent us as a whole. They are a minority within the neighborhood.

I for one have long awaited the completion of this trail. It has been in the works for at least the past two years. I feel the City did all it could to keep residents involved in this process by holding public meetings. It is a shame that at the final hour the project has been stopped due to a minority of people who chose not to be involved in the process from the beginning. These trails have been here longer then most of the homes or people who live here now.

Gerry Stahl has presented an alternative route for the trail to take that may not be so close to the homes along the ditch line. It would be a great compromise with the City and the residents if it could be built as this small group has proposed. However if for some reason it can not, I feel the City should go ahead with their plans and complete the trail.

Alicia Smoot

Longmont

Response to "Some support proposed trail."

Unfortunately, Ms. Smoot wrote this letter before talking to us. Subsequently, she discovered that NRLVTC is endorced by the Lake Valley Home Owners Association (see Letter from LVHOA Board). It is true that NRLVTC began as an organization of the North Rim adjacent property owners who bordered the new trail through our neighborhood. We soon decided to reach out to all of North Rim and Lake Valley because everyone there is affected by the trail system in the area. Our goal now is to represent the interests of the whole community in advocating for well-conceived trails and public accesses. We understand that most people in North Rim and Lake Valley support our alternatives for the trails. Gradually they are discovering that it is really the Open Space bureaucracies of the City and County that are anti-trail (see letter entitled "Protest doesn't mean Anti-Trail", below). We are having a neighborhood-wide meeting on December 2 to seek broad input from the neighborhood. We will hand-deliver information about our organization to every house in North Rim and Lake Valley to avoid misunderstandings like Ms. Smoot's.

-- NRLVTC

published in Daily Camera, Open Forum, November 28, 1997

Protest doesn't mean Anti-Trail

The North Rim/Lake Valley Trails Committee (NRLVTC) was formed to support well-conceived trails in the open space and appropriate accesses to them for the public. We are concerned about the trails just north of Boulder and surrounding our community on all sides.

Last summer, the southern half of the East Beech Trail was closed without notice, forcing traffic on that trail to leave open space and go down a narrow corridor directly abutting 44 residences. When we objected, we were labeled "anti-trail" by people who had not investigated the facts. (For documentation of the NRLVTC position, maps and reactions, see http://www.tridog.com/nrlvtc/.)

We do not believe it is "anti-trail" to protest the closing of good trails in the open space and their replacement by dangerous, illegal and inappropriate multi-use trails in residential areas. Dangerous, because the narrow corridor squeezed between barbed wire, open ditches, cement culverts and steep slopes leaves no place for horses to let bikes pass. Illegal, because the path goes on land owned by residents, the water district, a golf course and the neighborhood. Inappropriate, because the trail is not in the open space.

Who is anti-trail here? The front page Camera article of November 19 notes that the Open Space Department has only created one new trail in the past decade, while buying over 10,000 acres. The article documents that City and County open space have significantly fewer miles of trail per acre of land than less populated areas. Is this how Open Space serves the public that voted for the bond issue and pays the sales tax? Or is this the real anti-trail policy?

Ours is the first of seven Management Areas to come before public review. The response to our protest will provide a clear signal whether Open Space really is responsive to pro-trail community concerns.

Gerry Stahl

President of NRLVTC

Return to top of page.

Return to North Rim/Lake Valley Trails Committee home page.

This page last updated: 03/05/99.