Commissioner Danish responds to criticism
False and outrageous charges by Land Use Coalition
By Paul Danish
Guest Opinion
In her Aug. 14 guest opinion, Ms. Ann Mygatt of the Land Use Coalition wonders out loud why the Boulder County Commissioners "did not publicize their public hearings... on their intention to place a new bond issue on the November ballot?"
Huh?
Prior to the July 29 meeting at which the bond question — actually an open space tax extension and bond question — was considered, Boulder County bought display agenda ads in both the Daily Camera and the Daily Times-Call announcing the hearing. Such ads are routinely purchased before every public hearing. The ads in question read "Public Hearing, re: Proposal for a Ballot Issue Election in November to Extend the Open Space Sales Tax and Authorize Additional Open Space Bonds."
What could be clearer?
Well, actually, how about a Page 1 story in the July 28 edition of the Camera (circulation roughly 35,000) that appeared under the headlines "Open space tax aims for ballot" and "Boulder County could ask voters for 10 year extension, $35 million bond."
That story was one of several that appeared in Boulder County newspapers in the weeks before the meeting concerning the Commissioners' intention to put an open space tax extension on the November ballot.
I find it very difficult to believe that a highly diligent citizen activist like Ms. Mygatt would be unaware of these stories and ads. And that in turn suggests to me that her complaint regarding lack of notice is a bit disingenuous. At any rate, notice was plainly sufficient for the many members of the public who came to the meeting and testified in favor of the ballot measure going forward. Indeed, at least one member of the Land Use Coalition didn't have any problem finding the meeting and testifying.
In the same article, Ms. Mygatt also asserts that the Commissioners authorized the county attorney's office "to abolish landowners rights of access through brutal and expensive litigation." The charge is both false and outrageous.
While it is unclear what case or cases prompted Ms. Mygatt to make this charge -- she simply makes it without elaborating -- I suspect it is a dispute between property owners involving access to land on Big Horn Mountain. The matter, which is currently before the District Court, is a case in which one private landowner contends that other private landowners (who want to develop their property) do not have legal access across his land. Boulder County is involved because the issue in the case is whether or not the track in question is a public road or a private one.
In this particular case, our position is that the road is private. We have on a number of other occasions been in court on similar matters arguing that a road is public. The position we take in a particular case hinges on our reading of the law and the record of present and historical use. Far from being an attempt "to abolish landowner rights,"in many cases our intervention serves to protect them.
Both Ms. Mygatt and Ms. Patty Baker (letter to the editor Aug. 18) misrepresent Boulder County's intentions regarding the proposal to keep BLM land in Boulder County free from development. They charge that the County would eliminate existing access easements over any BLM lands it might acquire. That also is not true.
First, Boulder County is legally obligated to recognize existing access easements on any lands it might acquire from the BLM, and the Land Use Coalition members know that. Second, all three County Commissioners have said repeatedly and publicly that Boulder County will honor all access easements that have been granted by the BLM. To suggest we would do otherwise is dishonest.
Both Ms. Mygatt and Ms. Baker also object to Boulder County offering to pay fair market value for BLM land, because, they say, Boulder County could obtain the land for free simply by asking for it. If that seems too good to be true, it's because it is.
What Ms. Mygatt and Ms. Baker are referring to when they speak of obtaining the land for free -- $3.50 an acre, actually -- is the ability of local government to obtain surplus federal land under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. If Boulder County could easily obtain the BLM land under this act, we would. But we can't.
In order to qualify under the terms of the Act, Boulder County would have to agree to build "recreational facilities" on the land. At the very least, this would mean building trails. What could be wrong with that? Nothing on a site like the hundreds of acres of former BLM land in Eldorado Canyon that Boulder County acquired in 1986, or on a site like the BLM holdings near Lyons, or on any one of several other BLM properties. However, the BLM also owns dozens of small parcels (some smaller than an acre) surrounded by private ownership. Trails on such parcels would be expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and rarely used -- and therefore, it makes little sense to try to acquire the parcels under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Indeed, it is not clear such properties would even qualify under the Act. In other words, there is no free lunch.
However, there is a potential pie in the face. The BLM has made it abundantly clear that it considers its Boulder County holdings "surplus," and intends to dispose of its surplus lands -- if not to public entities, then to private developers. The dozens of small lots that it makes no sense to acquire for recreational purposes may well turn into home sites if we don't acquire them for open space purposes. That is why we have offered to acquire all of the BLM's holdings in Boulder County at fair market value.
Our principal interest in acquiring these lands is to preserve them, not to own them. That is why we also propose to do two other things.
First, in the case of fragmented properties we acquire that abut or are surrounded by private properties, we would offer to sell the private property owners our parcels for buffers while retaining a conservation easement.
Second, we would propose to acquire the BLM lands from the federal government not for cash, but through land swaps. It would work as follows. Just as the BLM currently holds small parcels that are surrounded by private lands, there are private in-holdings in Roosevelt National Forest. We would propose to purchase these in-holdings, if and when the owners are prepared to sell them, and trade them to the Federal Government for the BLM land. The Federal Government would then incorporate them into the national forest. In other words, there would be a double benefit -- no development on the BLM land and no development of the national forest in-holdings. That strikes me as a pretty good deal.
The Land Use Coalition and its spokespeople insist they are for open space. But they don't support a proposal to have a mountain local improvement district to buy some additional open space. They don't support the proposal to keep the BLM land free from development. As a group, they have taken no position on the proposal to extend the county open space sales tax for ten years; instead, their members have started sniping at it.
If we take the counsel of those who say they are for open space, but somehow regularly manage to find reasons to object to every action the community proposes to take to preserve it, we will end up standing idly by while Boulder County is paved over. I'm not prepared to do that.
(Paul Danish is a Boulder County commissioner.)
September 12, 1999
Copyright © 1999 The Daily Camera.
Reprinted with permission.
For more information contact the Land Use Coalition at info@landusecoalition.org or call 303-666-7903.
Last updated November 23, 2004.
URL: http://landusecoalition.org/dc_danish_guest_ed.htm
Page created by Patrick
and Patty Baker
http://home.earthlink.net/~patrickmbaker
Hosted by The Sugarloaf Internet Cooperative.