Shame on Boulder! Soon to charge "non residents" for parking starting June 27th

Thank you for confirming the virus directly causing irrationality & chronic dementia has indeed spread outside the actual city of Boulder.

Chris Plesko wrote:Change hike to climb slim, the just isn't rock in every county. Good parks drive sales tax dollars among other things. Look at jeffco and mtbs. When I go ride with my friends we eat dinner in golden cause on the whole, boulder mtb sucks compared to jeffco.

Exactly!!!

I live in Boulder County and volunteer for OSMP anyway because I believe in the need for a thriving open space program, especially one that works better with climbers. Wade, if you are volunteering for the county, ask about getting a pass. OSMP is offering them to out-of-county volunteers.

For anyone thinking of boycotting the OSMP trailheads, given the crazy scene most mornings all year round, your car's absence will go unnoticed. Given the incredible resources that OSMP land offers, $25 is a really good deal.

Aren't some areas like Gregory Canyon and Areas of flagstaff already run with a pay-to-park scheme for non-residents?
Regardless, they can tell where you are from by the plates, which are coded. I forget what all is Boulder.
People living there already pay way more $$ than $25 per year to access trails.
People not living here will either go somewhere else, get creative on parking (this will invoke a police crack down on parking with high dollar tickets response), or buy the pass.
Te government could fix the problem other ways, but the fact is they want your money and in this case they don't piss off the voters who could exact revenge. They'll brag about getting it from Peter to pay Paul's costs. And Boulder bubble-heads will applaud.

Shumin Wu wrote: I heard Lyons and Longmont want to split from Boulder County and form their own.

This is more than a rumor- there is a study and legal work underway to put it in front of voters.
Broomfield already did it.

Ian Stewart wrote:Are people seriously bitching over $5? Do you think it's free to maintain all of this land/trails/parking lots/etc? If you don't pay their taxes, why do you think you should use their resources for free? I've never been, but I won't mind paying the $5 to park when I do go. Especially considering I'll already be paying $10 in gas just to drive in from out of Boulder County.

As for the $5.00, that may not be a big deal to you but it may price many out of the parks (I think that is the intent) and that is unfortunate.

As for the "you don't pay their taxes, why do you think you should use their resources" statement then that would go for me driving on their roads or drinking from their drinking fountains while I visit. I don't pay the local taxes so I guess I shouldn't use any of their resources???
By that logic would someone from Boulder be allowed to drive through Golden? Just trying to understand your argument.

Ryan-Nelson wrote:Boulder's gay

No Ryan, your gay.

The argument that Boulder drivers should pay to drive through Golden is a potentially legitimate point which has been addressed through common sense and state-wide revenue sharing, not to mention Federal money. If all the municipalities and counties on the Front Range want to work out helping to pay for open space in Boulder, Larimer and Jeffco, I say go for it. But with the current anti-tax, anti-public ownership political climate I doubt it will go far.

Peter Beal wrote:I live in Boulder County and volunteer for OSMP anyway because I believe in the need for a thriving open space program, especially one that works better with climbers. Wade, if you are volunteering for the county, ask about getting a pass. OSMP is offering them to out-of-county volunteers. For anyone thinking of boycotting the OSMP trailheads, given the crazy scene most mornings all year round, your car's absence will go unnoticed. Given the incredible resources that OSMP land offers, $25 is a really good deal.

I am glad that the OSMP is offering a volunteer pass and that is probably the route I will take, but I don't believe that non volunteers/non Boulder County residents should have to pay to visit the parks either. Everyone who pays city, state, and federal taxes does so for the general population regardless of residency status and I think it should stay that way. If Boulder wants to charge for parking they need to charge everyone IMO.

Wade Frank wrote: As for the $5.00, that may not be a big deal to you but it may price many out of the parks (I think that is the intent) and that is unfortunate.

I doubt their intent it to "price many out of their parks". As others have said, many other places already charge to use county parks...the goal is to fund the maintenance and management of the parks so that more people can use them, not to keep people out of the parks. One thing it may do is encourage carpooling, which is great. And quite frankly, I'm under the belief that if you can afford to own and drive a car from out of the county to use the land, you can afford the $5 to park. Trust me, I'm as cheap as the next guy, but when I care and value something I won't hesitate to pay for it, especially when it's reasonably priced.

Wade Frank wrote:As for the "you don't pay their taxes, why do you think you should use their resources" statement then that would go for me driving on their roads or drinking from their drinking fountains while I visit. I don't pay the local taxes so I guess I shouldn't use any of their resources??? By that logic would someone from Boulder be allowed to drive through Golden? Just trying to understand your argument.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Roads are means of travel, whereas the parks are your destinations. You don't drive into Boulder to use their roads, you drive in to use their parks. As a non-resident, I'm paying $0 in taxes to Boulder county. Residents are paying far, far more than that every year (and far more than $25, too). My should I get to use the land for free while many others have to pay for it?

Also, keep in mind that there are many places in America that DO have tolls on roads. Most major bridges in the SF bay area cost $5 just to cross. And on the topic of SFBay, the closest decent climbing/hiking spot to where I used to live there was Castle Rock, which charged $6 for parking (regardless of residency). Now, the park is threatened by closure because the state claims it can't afford all of its parks. So, it could be worse...

Of course no-one likes to have to pay for something that was previously "free" (i.e. paid for by someone else), but if OSMP has to cover some of its operating expenses through visitor fees that would at least give the OSMP bureaucracy an economic incentive to be more responsive to visitor needs. Right now they have a strong incentive to limit visitor access as much as possible. You can see that in actions such as permit-only "habitat conservation areas", raptor closures on dubious ecological grounds, restrictions on cyclists and dog-walkers, restrictions on groups and "competitive events", limited parking, lack of new trail construction, trail maintenance backlogs, etc. They might approach some of these issues differently if they have to consider the effect on fee revenue.

Every Boulder County resident should be charged $25 every time s/he travels into one of the surrounding counties; this fee would go into eventually building the wall...

a friendship wall

and a moat that has sharks with laser beams

Here's one more datapoint (keep in mind I'm far from an expert on this, so I'm just going by what I'm reading).

According to this, bouldercounty.org/find/libr…, over $12 million is budgeted for parks and open space by Boulder County for 2011. I'm not sure if any of that comes from state contributions, but I'm guessing a large chunk of it would come from the $142 million that Boulder County residents are paying for property tax in the same year. If you divide that $12 million by the ~300,000 residents in Boulder County, it seems each person is paying about $40 in taxes towards this fund this year.

Ian Stewart wrote: I doubt their intent it to "price many out of their parks". As others have said, many other places already charge to use county parks...the goal is to fund the maintenance and management of the parks so that more people can use them, not to keep people out of the parks.

Trustee John Putnam said he is also interested to see if a fee program will help to reduce parking congestion at the trailheads, especially Doudy Draw and South Mesa, which are typically filled and overflowing early in the morning on sunny weekends.

This is a quote I took from this article

www.dailycamera.com/ci_18272782

Ian Stewart wrote: One thing it may do is encourage carpooling, which is great.

Agreed

Ian Stewart wrote:As a non-resident, I'm paying $0 in taxes to Boulder county. Residents are paying far, far more than that every year (and far more than $25, too). My should I get to use the land for free while many others have to pay for it?

As a resident of the county you live in you pay taxes there for public property that is free to non residents, I live in Denver county and I pay plenty of taxes for public property that is free for non residents. If there is an example of Denver doing the same as Boulder in this case I would be just as pissed at the Denver officials!

Ian Stewart wrote:Also, keep in mind that there are many places in America that DO have tolls on roads. Most major bridges in the SF bay area cost $5 just to cross.

As for tolls, I don't know how it is in SF but lets take E470 here in Colorado for example. E470 is a privately owned and maintained highway, where everyone is charged the same fee to use the road. Someone from SF will pay the same fee as my cousin who lives two miles off the highway.

Someone pointed out to me today that the number of parking spots that will be likely occupied by non Boulder residents is not that great a number. After you pay for parking enforcement, what's left over? I doubt this will provide significant revenue.

The only other motive is to keep non Boulder residents out. Nice Boulder.

Wade Frank wrote:As a resident of the county you live in you pay taxes there for public property that is free to non residents, I live in Denver county and I pay plenty of taxes for public property that is free for non residents. If there is an example of Denver doing the same as Boulder in this case I would be just as pissed at the Denver officials!

I'm starting to see your point, but I'm still not sure I agree. I'm no expert on taxes and city budgeting, so I can't really argue this very strongly, but different counties deal with taxes and budgeting differently so it's not always that simple. I doubt that people in Boulder County would oppose the new non-resident charges, but they probably would oppose a fee for everybody, and they would probably oppose a tax hike.

Where do you draw the line between it being ok for resident and non-resident fees to be the same? How about educational institutions where resident tuitions are far less than non-resident tuitions? Would you travel to Canada and expect free health care because Canadian residents have health care, too? Obviously these are extreme examples, but my point is that there are probably situations where you would agree that these differences between resident and non-resident are ok.

Also, maybe the use case of Boulder parks is slightly different from those in Denver? It's likely that many people travel to Boulder to hike/climb/whatever, but spend very little money while there...packing in food, etc. Perhaps when people visit public land in Denver, it's more likely that they spend more money in the city, which helps offset the tax difference?

Anyways, I think I've blabbed a bit too much...I can see where you're coming from, and maybe you're right, but in this case I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. =)

Ian Stewart wrote: I'm starting to see your point, but I'm still not sure I agree. I'm no expert on taxes and city budgeting, so I can't really argue this very strongly, but different counties deal with taxes and budgeting differently so it's not always that simple. I doubt that people in Boulder County would oppose the new non-resident charges, but they probably would oppose a fee for everybody, and they would probably oppose a tax hike. Where do you draw the line between it being ok for resident and non-resident fees to be the same? How about educational institutions where resident tuitions are far less than non-resident tuitions? Would you travel to Canada and expect free health care because Canadian residents have health care, too? Obviously these are extreme examples, but my point is that there are probably situations where you would agree that these differences between resident and non-resident are ok. Also, maybe the use case of Boulder parks is slightly different from those in Denver? It's likely that many people travel to Boulder to hike/climb/whatever, but spend very little money while there...packing in food, etc. Perhaps when people visit public land in Denver, it's more likely that they spend more money in the city, which helps offset the tax difference? Anyways, I think I've blabbed a bit too much...I can see where you're coming from, and maybe you're right, but in this case I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. =)

Right on! I'm glad the debate has remained civil!!!

I'm a Boulder resident, and I have to admit I'm not really sure what to think about these fees. As someone who can still remember what it's like to be truly poor, charging a parking fee for open space doesn't seem quite right. Yet the parking problems are real, and something needs to be done.

It's important to remember several things.

First, whether it has a basis in reality or not, many Boulder County residents feel that a large proportion of the parking at these trailheads is being taken by out-of-county users.

Second, this is only an experiment. The fees may be dropped altogether, or they may be expanded to other areas.

Third, the trails in question can all be accessed via other trailheads. Dowdy Draw and Flatirons Vista can be accessed via Marshall Mesa or Eldorado Mountain. The South Mesa trail can be accessed via the South Boulder Creek trailhead, among others.

Finally, this isn't at all about revenue, and it's not completely about parking. To a large extent, the real issue is impact. These trails are very popular, and they can handle only so many users at a given time. One anticipated effect of the parking fees is to encourage open space users to visit other areas in the Boulder County open space system, thereby reducing the impact on Flatirons Vista, Dowdy Draw, and South Mesa.

It could be worse, like the Forrest Service trying to collect $10 to drive on a state highway to a Denver Mountain Park like they try to do on Mount Evans.