Nearly a century ago, civic-minded Denver boosters gathered to talk about what some thought was a crazy plan.
Their idea was to acquire land for a chain of parks outside city limits that would open a gateway to the mountains and make “Colorado more attractive to tourists than Switzerland,” according to a 1931 article.
That was the genesis of the 14,000 acres of mountain open space that the city owns today.
While the public value of the parks largely has shifted from tourism to a welcome respite for locals, the underlying debate about the system remains the same.
Back then, there was – as is the case today – understandable public consternation about spending Denver taxpayer money on assets outside city limits.
At recent public meetings, some members of a panel assessing the city’s infrastructure needs questioned whether the city can afford to spend the money to have a remote open space program, especially given the city’s other needs. Money for park upkeep was not included in a bond package going to voters.
While no one is disputing the beauty of the land or the benefit of having it in public ownership, it’s an appropriate time for a public discussion about park use, how to pay for management of the land, and even who should own each of the parcels.
The city is engaging in a mountain parks master plan, which is a good first step in the process. The $152,350 effort, funded by the city with grant help, will be finished in six or seven months.
Part of its mission is to explore ways of paying for park upkeep. One of the options on the table is recommending a dedicated funding stream, such as a mill levy. Another is to push the establishment of more partnerships with corporations and other local governments.
A survey conducted about five years ago showed that roughly a third of the users of the mountain parks system were Denver residents, another third were Jefferson County residents and the last third came from other areas, said Kim Bailey, Denver’s parks and recreation manager.
That would suggest that continued efforts to get other governmental entities to help manage these parks seems like a reasonable option to explore.
Daniels Park, in Douglas County, has provided a timely example. Denver owns Daniels Park, a 936-acre ranch that was donated to the city in phases between 1920 and 1937. The park, which is home to a herd of bison and picnic areas, is 21 miles south of Denver but in the middle of growing areas of Douglas County.
Douglas County officials have discussed adding up to $9 million in improvements to the park over the next decade, including paving dirt roads, adding restrooms and a nature trail. Denver would chip in $600,000.
That sort of cooperation makes sense for both Douglas County and Denver. We hope to see continued creative and cooperative means of park management in an effort to preserve this land for public enjoyment.
