Open space dreams to protect wild
Coalition's goal would help protect land in 24 regions
By Jerd Smith, Rocky Mountain News
Published April 24, 2008 at 1:36 a.m.
Photo by Darin McGregor © The Rocky
Bicyclists cross a bridge over the South Platte River just east of Chatfield State Park in Littleton on Wednesday.
Thousands of acres of private lands that are home to critical wildlife habitat, river corridors and scenic landscapes would be saved from development under an $800 million plan unveiled Wednesday.
The undertaking is the work of a new coalition called Keep It Colorado. Its high-profile members include the Conservation Fund, Colorado Open Lands, Nature Conservancy, Trust For Public Lands and Colorado Conservation Trust.
The group will focus attention and preservation efforts on 700,000 acres of land in 24 different regions of the state, from the San Juan Valley to the Eastern Plains.
Keep It Colorado officials are counting on landowners to donate easements on critical properties worth $400 million, and they hope to raise roughly $400 million from private and public sources, possibly from severance tax funds.
But severance tax funds are far from guaranteed.
Rep. Bernie Buescher, chairman of the Joint Budget Committee, said if changes are made to oil and gas severance tax rules, then voters will be the ones to decide if new monies are channeled into land conservation.
"And the fact is that there is going to be a lot of competition for that money," Buescher said.
The plan is not without its critics.
"We have no shortage of open spaces in Colorado," said Jon Caldera, president of the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank.
Caldera doesn't think Colorado should be spending tax money to protect land.
"What gets me is that right now everyone is licking their lips over oil and gas money and more taxes," said Caldera. "The only thing we need much more of is energy. The last thing I want to tax is what we need the most."
But Gov. Bill Ritter, who introduced Keep It Colorado to dozens of conservation groups at a breakfast at the Denver Botanic Gardens on Wednesday, lauded the plan. "This will invigorate our collective efforts to preserve what's best about our state," he said.
Colorado has become a national leader in land conservation, saving more than 1.1 million acres using easements, legal tools that allow property owners to claim lucrative income tax credits in exchange for prohibiting development on their lands.
But Colorado's program, enacted in 2000, has been plagued with abuse, with hundreds of easements under investigation for using faulty appraisals and for protecting lands of questionable public value.
Ritter acknowledged those problems, but said he wanted the conservation tax credit program preserved.
"We've found there are people who have abused the tax credit program. And worse, there are people who say it should end. But we are not going to let it go away," he said.
Great Outdoors Colorado, an independent agency funded with lottery dollars, has protected hundreds of thousands of acres statewide, as have local open space programs.
But Colorado's lands are under increasing pressure due to residential and commercial development and new oil and gas production.
"If we are ever going to keep it Colorado, now is the time to do it," said Michael Dowling, chairman of the Boulder-based Colorado Conservation Trust.
Where 'Keep It Colorado' hopes to find $800 million
The coalition has identified 700,000 acres of critical view sheds, river corridors and wildlife habitat that it says should be protected from development. The lands targeted for protection are private. Here's how the coalition envisions funding the ambitious plan:
Total cost $800 million
Private land donations $400 million
Private cash donations $100 million
Public funds from Great Outdoors Colorado grants and local open space funds $100 million
Unmet need, possibly from severance tax funds $200 million
Money committed to date:
$2 million: Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
$15 million: Colorado Division of Wildlife
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
April 24, 2008
7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
roadstar writes:
Protecting open space is very important. Gene, maybe you could propose an alternative idea to protect it that would work? If so, present it to the government.
April 24, 2008
8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
tsprunk writes:
The use of the word "lucrative" in this article is misleading. Sure the tax incentives for conservation easement donations are nice - but they pale in comparison to what a landowner would typically expect to receive from land speculators and developers. The agents of sprawl, unfettered strip malls, neon, and track housing have very deep pockets. I am sure they would not look at these tax benefits as lucrative - it is a tiny sum when compared with developmental values.
Gov. Ritter and the major conservation groups should be commended for dreaming big. This state is special because of the mountains, plateaus, canyons and prairies - ya don't hear people often say "Yeah is Colorado is so awesome because of the great strip malls, fast food restaurants, and endless housing developments."
April 24, 2008
8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bob299 writes:
Awww, c'mon sprawl is good. Haven't you heard of the Southlands Center or now the Orchard Center! Everyone wants to have a two hour commute.
April 24, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Squatch,
What does any of your post have to do with an article on open space?
Nonetheless, I'll bite! I agree totally that B.S. is B.S. regardless of who shovels it. Everybody has an agenda and many employ propaganda to further that agenda. Liberals, conservatives, religious groups, environmentalists, oil companies, cigarette companies, our current president and many others have used hyperbole and fear to promote their goals. If your point Squatch, is as you say: " People concerned about our planet's future should be wary of statements from activists...so we stay focused on real environmental concerns and don't waste time on fearsome predictions that will never happen." I support that.
The problem I have with your posts is that you have an agenda too and exaggerate for effect, distort for advantage and often insult to distract from the legitimate debate. You are also consistent in your use of quotations out of context that are hard to confirm and links to blatantly biased sources employing propaganda themselves. Therefore I am suspicious even of the occassionnal reasonable statements you make.
Maybe it would help if you would make reasonable statements more often? I guess we'll have to wait and see!
April 24, 2008
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
snowsurfer writes:
They also said we would be driving flying cars, but protection of undeveloped land is very important.
April 24, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
MattGuyver_007 writes:
For the most part, open space is not managed properly and Colorado is WAY out of line with how land use is designated. Most of the land we (taxpayers) paid for is inaccessible, even on foot. Viewing thousands of acres from afar only goes so far in my book.
RMN's ran a great series on this matter late last year and exposed the many shortfalls and deceptive nature of such programs in Colorado.
April 24, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
snowsurfer writes:
Protected land doesn't need to be accessible to humans. It is there for wildlife and natural processes to take their course. This is our most valuable resource.
April 24, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
snowsurfer writes:
If you want developement and a state full of private land, move to Texas!
April 24, 2008
3 p.m.
Suggest removal
RainbowWarrior writes:
Who cares what was predicted 40 years ago in the 1970's before Super Computers?
Why do you have such a big chip on your shoulder? What has the green movement done to you?
Why do you write this antagonistic garbage? Who pays you?
Sustainability and green could only be perceived to be a bubble by someone that is so out of touch with reality or in such a stupper of dinial that they must live in a bubble that takes an amazing amount of wasted energy to keep inflated...
The time and energy you expend to be anit-green, anti pro-environment and the selfish ambitions you have to maintain the status quo with the future that belongs to us all is M-I-N-D B-L-O-W-I-N-G on a planetary scale.
April 24, 2008
8:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
BillK writes:
If only the phrase "counting on landowners to donate easements on critical properties worth $400 million" were true.
More like "prevent owners from developing or otherwise improving the land the STATE deems to be open space without properly compensating the land owner."
If you're in love with open space, fine, pool your money and donate to a fund to buy it.
Taxing energy concerns to pay for it is simply the wrong way to go about it.
But that's OK, go ahead and raise taxes on energy concerns and then wonder why you're paying so much more for gas, power, and food.
Businesses don't pay for higher taxes, customers do.
April 25, 2008
8:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
Easements should include public access to public lands that are contiguous to the property. In too many cases narrow strips of private property deny public access to public lands creating large almost private preserves.