You are here

Organizations Want Veto Power Over National Park Service At Colorado National Monument

Share

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

Ec, do you really believe any park – or town - could host a major special event projected to bring many times more visitors than normal to the area without incurring extra, event-related costs for both overtime and hours of regular time diverted from normal operations to plan, conduct and cleanup afterwards? Examples are EMS, law enforcement and crews for barricades, signs, etc. The costs for trash pickup and disposal alone could be substantial.

Towns try to justify spending those tax dollars because they believe the event is good for cash flow to businesses and therefore tax receipts, and is good advertising for the area. An NPS area doesn't reap those supposed financial benefits, and as pointed out in earlier comments and the information below, even that cash flow is sometimes questionable.

Here are some excerpts from an August 27, 2012, article in the Denver Post after the 2012 race.

Although crowds "surged" in the final miles of the race in the Front Range, spectator numbers elsewhere along the route were lower than expected. Race officials told organizers in Durango, Crested Butte, Aspen, Beaver Creek and Breckenridge to prepare for crowds between 10,000 to 25,000 people.

That didn't happen. Preliminary estimates by local officials put crowds of 5,000 to 6,000 in Montrose, Crested Butte, Aspen and Breckenridge. "The two centerpieces of the race — Independence Pass and Boulder's Flagstaff Mountain — also drew fewer spectators than expected."

In Durango, the city spent more than $550,000 on the event — including $340,000 in private sponsorships. That sounds like $190,000 of public money.

But, how about that extra sales tax revenue? In Breckenridge, when local organizer Lucy Kay approached the town council to ask for $150,000 in funding for the town's second hosting of the race, she warned council members to not consider the weekend's tax receipts as a return on the investment. (She was touting the longer range benefit of free advertising for the area, etc.)

Woodland Park, the biggest town between Breckenridge and Colorado Springs along the Stage 5 route, was braced for 5,000 and got 3,000, said local chamber of commerce chief Debbie Miller. "It was mostly our local people who came out," Miller said.

Makes me wonder how much extra cash those local people spent in town that day.

This event may be very appealing to cycling fans and profitable for the organizers, but it doesn't sound like such a great deal for the taxpayers.


Documentation please.

Since you havn't documented a thing, I dont feel obligated to do so, but I will do it anyway to show how empty your accusations are.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22011775/colorado-cities-bid-h...


Makes me wonder how much extra cash those local people spent in town that day.

I live in Breckenridge. I speak with the Mayor, Town Council Members, business people on a regular basis. I haven't spoken with a single one them or any resident that doesn't think having the race didn't provide a positive benefit. That is why they are begging - offering money to have it again.


So all three of the people you spoke to are beggars? What do their cardboard signs say?

What about the rest of the townfolk?

At least a couple of Colorado towns have honest and sensible leadership that learned the hard way and refuse to repeat their mistake:

Still, both Durango and Boulder passed on hosting gigs for the Aug. 19-25 race next year.

Durango City Manager Ron LeBlanc said it was "a business decision." Durango budgeted $560,000 for the race - including $300,000 in sponsorship support, but not including wages for 620 police and security personnel. Yet the city saw less than half of the expected crowds for the start of the weeklong, 683-mile race.

"The incremental impact, with similar costs and resources, would likely be minimal," LeBlanc said. "How many additional countries or potential visitors would we reach? We'd need a similar commitment of resources. We still have T-shirts from this year."

But in some places, there are always enough fools who can be fooled easily by people waving dollars in front of them. Ah, well. I guess that's conservative socialism at work.


The Tour of Utah (another UCI-sanctioned professional bike race) just announced last week their venue towns for the 2013 edition in August. There will be a stage finishing in Torrey - and it looks like that the stage will take UT12 all the way from the Panguitch area straight through Bryce Canyon NP, Grand Staircase-Escalante NM and up the Boulder plateau to Torrey. Another stage starts at Brian Head resort and I can imagine (and hope for) a side trip to Cedar Breaks NM on the way to Cedar City.

So in Utah this thing is happening already.

Back in the 80's the good ol' Coors Classic featured already Colorado NM's Rim Rock Drive - impressive images.

While I understand the concerns of everyone opposing the passage of the Tour of Colorado through Colorado NM - I'm not so sure for myself - I think that people do highly overestimate the impact of the event. The NM will not be closed for the day. The race will pass through the park in less then an hour. There will be road closures before and after, but not more than half a day. Which gives all other park visitors enough time to explore the park before/after the race. And in the meantime how about getting on your feet and hitting some trails in the NM? Closed road doesn't mean closed trails...


So all three of the people you spoke to are beggars?

I don't have a clue what that is suppossed to mean.

I guess that's conservative socialism at work.

Showing your ignorance once again Lee. Our Mayor is an avowed socialists, there isn't a conservative bone in his body and most the rest of council is not far behind.

And I will say again. If the cost to the NPS wasn't covered by the race organizers or sponsors, then I would be against it. I haven't seen anyone involved in the process indicate that is the case. That isn't in the list of reasons given for turning it down.

Oh and BTW, I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that I have asked for entitlements. More empy claims and accusations.


I hereby give my full support to the organizations who give full support to the redesignation of CNM to CNP with the one caveat that as a part owner of the public land I am granted full veto power over these organizations who would like to be granted full veto power. I also have an additional 350 events per year planned for CNM/P that may or may not make money but are good, honest, wholesome commercial ventures that promote stuff that I like and will only require some part of the M/P to be closed but only on those 350 days and only for limited times. Events for week 1 will get us kicked off with a skateboarding race, a wild west equestrian ride, a soapbox derby, a model train show, a romance novels clubs street crawl, a Baptist scooter slolom, and an all atheist bicycle ride. This will introduce a lot more people to the M/P which necessarily means we will see even more support for the area because mass visits always guarantee awareness and awakening. With any luck they will also put some serious thought into supporting their new found treasure with full veto support so we can keep things in such perfect harmonious balance. See u at the races/demonstrations/exhibitions soon! Bring your support and veto quills!


Thanks, Scott. Nicely said :-)


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.