|
skibabeage
Deleted
Apr 2, 2005, 2:00 PM
Post #1 of 10
(4180 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
jcinco
Apr 6, 2005, 6:47 PM
Post #2 of 10
(4180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 395
|
Any word on what happened last night?
|
|
|
|
|
mbg
Apr 6, 2005, 7:14 PM
Post #3 of 10
(4180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2003
Posts: 372
|
No final decision was made and the City Council is still accepting comments via email.
Speak up people!!
council@ci.boulder.co.us
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Apr 11, 2005, 4:45 PM
Post #4 of 10
(4180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
Any more insight on how the proceedings went in the meeting? Was the interaction amicable? Adversarial? Does it appear that they are leaning toward one decision or the other? When is the next hearing? What is the next step?
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
takeme
Apr 11, 2005, 5:11 PM
Post #5 of 10
(4180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2003
Posts: 367
|
In reply to: Any more insight on how the proceedings went in the meeting? Was the interaction amicable? Adversarial? Does it appear that they are leaning toward one decision or the other? When is the next hearing? What is the next step? Ed
I went to the meeting (which started at 6) and left at 9:30. It lasted until 11, and I think it consisted entirely of public comment. The speakers I saw were pretty much evenly divided, maybe slightly more were in favor of the VMP as it stands. Not really much in the way of "interaction", just private citizens using their 3 minutes to exhort the council.
As mentioned the vote was postponed; I don't even think the City Council got around to debating it among themselves. The next council meeting is tommorrow and I would imagine they'll do it then, though I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Apr 11, 2005, 6:44 PM
Post #6 of 10
(4180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
It just amazes me that anyone would be supporting the new super-restricted access plan, let alone a majority. I could expect a few environmental nazi's would propose a draconian recreational use plan, but the idea that there's enough support for the plan to make it a reality just blows me away.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
mbg
Apr 11, 2005, 7:14 PM
Post #7 of 10
(4180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2003
Posts: 372
|
In reply to: It just amazes me that anyone would be supporting the new super-restricted access plan, let alone a majority. I could expect a few environmental nazi's would propose a draconian recreational use plan, but the idea that there's enough support for the plan to make it a reality just blows me away. Ed
There's actually a guy around here that spends his free time GPSing dog shit in hopes of getting Fido banned or leashed in the Flatirons. Boulder open space is a pretty unique resource that is the result of people having the foresight to set land aside back when the extractive industries were king in Colorado so it’s not surprising that people take it so seriously. The situation could be much worse, though, the Jefferson Co. (south of Boulder Co.) land managers have pretty much banned all climbing on "their" open space.
|
|
|
|
|
takeme
Apr 13, 2005, 6:07 PM
Post #8 of 10
(4180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2003
Posts: 367
|
FYI, the city council passed the proposed VMP last night, but with a number of significant amendments. Probably most significant for climbers is the removal of Eldorado Mountain from habitat conservation area (HCA) status, lending credence to the Open Space board's previously tepid assurances of continued access to Mickey Mouse Wall.
Personally, the VMP has bothered me more all along from a hiker's persepctive than that of a climber. I do more hiking that climbing on Open Space lands (Eldo is state Parks), and I like to roam off-trail. A number of my favorite areas to hike in are now closed to me, mostly on the tops and west sides of South Boulder Peak and Green Mountain. These areas see little off-trail traffic, certainly nothing that would have a significant impact on sensitive environments. Being mildly adventurous as a hiker, and enjoying the only true solitude to be found in the Boulder area are now illegal. One council member introduced an admentment that would change the HCA on-trail language from "required" to "strongly suggested", but it was shot down.
|
|
|
|
|
angelaa
Apr 13, 2005, 6:21 PM
Post #9 of 10
(4180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2003
Posts: 598
|
Does anyone have the final draft of the proposal that was approved?
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Apr 14, 2005, 1:51 PM
Post #10 of 10
(4180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
It amazes me that they can keep you from wandering freely on "public" lands in a recreational area like this. I take it their is a fair presence of tree huggers in Boulder? If someone proposed something like this where I live, they'd be laughed (or escorted) out of town.
|
|
|
|
|
|
