There's a story in western Colorado involving Colorado National Monument that bears watching. The gist of the story is that some local community organizations are in support of redesignating the monument as a national park, but only if they can veto Park Service decisions on what uses the monument is appropriate for.
Onlookers believe that this ties in to past efforts to have a professional bike race -- the 2013 USA Pro Challenge -- course through the national monument along the 23-mile-long Rim Rock Drive. In the past, officials all the way up to the director of the National Park Service have said that would be an inappropriate use of the national monument.
Now, earlier this spring the West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association passed a resolution in support of renaming the monument a national park. That resolution was similar to one adopted earlier by the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce, as well as one passed by the Grand Junction Economic Partnership. The kicker is that the groups want the legislation to give community stakeholders veto power over any Park Service decisions on uses the agency finds are inappropriate for the monument...such as a professional bike race.
Whether legislation will be introduced into Congress this summer by either U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton or U.S. Sen. Mark Udall to redesignate the monument as a national park remains to be seen.
Park advocacy groups, though, are keeping an eye on this issue and are stressing that the Park Service's hands should not be tied when it comes to what is appropriate for Colorado National Monument.
At the National Parks Conservation Association, officials have said it is good for the Park Service to meet with local stakeholders to discuss the future of Colorado National Monument. But David Nimkin, senior director for NPCA's Southwest regional office, has made it clear that NPCA strongly opposes a professional bike race through the monument.
Simply put, he says, the commercialization of the national monument is out of bounds.
Also watching the issue is the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, which also opposes a professional bike race in the monument. While that group believes it is doubtful that Sen. Udall would offer legislation that would provide local stakeholders veto power over the Park Service, the Coalition nevertheless has notified him of its position on the matter. If the senator or any other congressional representative offers legislation to rename the monument as a national park for the significant natural resources and history of Colorado National Monument, the coalition will offer its official position on the matter at that time.
Comments
Mtliving, you've described exactly the concept of conservative socialism. Simply stated, it's socialize expenses, privatize profits.
Here in Ogden, the bike race a couple of years ago caused tremendous inconvenience. Beyond that, it cost taxpayers a huge amount of money. Attempts to find out exactly how much were only partially successful because of stonewalling by the former mayor's administration. It's safe to say, however, that it ran into hundreds of thousands of dollars. City street crews were used to put out orange barrels to block streets and park and recreation, and sanitation crews were used to place a flock of trash cans -- and then to fill them with litter later. Police were on overtime. Porta-potties were rented -- but apparently only a few were actually ever used. There was even one report of a paramedic unit and ambulance being seriously delayed on an emergency response. Those are only a few of the things that certainly cost taxpayers.
To my knowledge, there was never any reimbursement for city expenses. And, last I heard, no one had been able to get an answer from the city regarding any cost/benefit numbers. In fact, even the Chamber of Commerce finally admitted that probably less than thirty businesses had realized significant benefits. (While many others, such as my dentist, suffered serious losses.) The mayor was not running for re-election, but I'd be willing to bet that if he had been, the race would have contributed some serious challenges for his campaign. There was serious talk among many citizens of doing everything possible to either ban the race or try to disrupt it if it was forced upon the city.
There has been almost absolute silence since that experience. Although the race was held again last year. With much better planning and greater control imposed by the new city administration, the effect was much less and disruption was nowhere near as severe as it was the first time. The difference? The first race ran through and around main streets all over town. The second was restricted to outlying and less traveled streets.
Race organizers didn't like it one bit. But they had no choice because the new mayor stood his ground -- along with the city council. There has been no mention of another race. I don't know if that is the case at Colorado or not (I don't think I had heard of a previous race there until just recently) -- but is it possible that lessons learned after that first experience, led to the present resistance against future races? Also, how much taxpayer money was spent to enable that first race? And how much was repaid? Was that a case of socializing expenses and privatizing profits?
Seems to me that it's smart to learn from mistakes. If that is the case, isn't this a situation in which park officials should be congratulated for cutting government waste? It always mystifies my as to how some people can complain loudly against government spending and in another breath, yowl because it won't happen.
Yes, you have made that abundantly clear. What you have not provided is any rationale why Ride the Rockies is OK but the Pro Challange is not. Identical impacts - except RTR probably brings less folks into the park, no money to the park and far less exposure to the public of the park experience. The only real difference is one is commercial. To me excluding an event exclusively because it is commercial isn't rational. Neither is it rational to complain that a few people will be inconvienced when 10s of thousand will be enabled.
On that, we agree.
So, Lee, what net expenses would the government have with a Pro Challange race? Or is that just another empty accusation - you know, like the one about me wanting entitlements. You never backed up that accusation either.
Sure, if it would make you feel better, I'll amend that to substitue "any special use" for "any commercial use..." :-) My intent is the same, and I'd object to the Ride the Rockies event if it had the same impacts in terms of closing the park to "normal activities" for visitors.
The key in my opinion is whether a special event has a clear tie to the reason the park was established. For example, there will undoubtedly be some disruption of usual visitor activities at Gettysburg this summer during events for the 150th anniversary of the battle. The same could be said for 4th of July activities at Independence NHP. Those activities are directly related to the reason the park was established in the first place. Perhaps you can think of a park established primarily to promote a professional bike race, but none come to my mind.
And, at this point, I have other things to do. Think we've milked this one dry.
How about if you provide us with a cost/benefit statement from the last race instead. We're also still waiting for proof that your "10s of thousands" numbers were not grossly inflated by the race organizers. Or would you approve of the idea that if the race were permitted, it would be allowed only if the organizers agreed to reimburse NPS for all expenses and damage that might be incurred? Want to bet that if that were proposed, the organizers would suddenly lose interest?
No matter what anyone else may try to provide, you will dance around it, twist it, and then ignore it. Not much point in wasting even more time. Might as well go try to reason with a rock in the creek outside my door.
Smile friend. It'll do you good.
Why should I do that. I never made any claim about the cost/benefit analysis. You did. Just like you made the claim I was asking for entitlements. In neither case (and many others prior) have you backed up your claims.
If in fact the unit was projected to have a net outlay of funds, then I would be against it. But I have seen no evidence to suggest that and it wasn't an objection reported in any of the reviews that I have seen.
edit: And I do know the towns that have hosted the event before are begging (and paying) for it to come back. Obviously they view the cost/benefit as quite attractive.
And I do know the towns that have hosted the event before are begging (and paying) for it to come back. Obviously they view the cost/benefit as quite attractive.
Documentation please.