So here's the grades on the candidates answers to the Daily Camera question "Is the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department striking the proper balance between preservation and recreation?" This is a softball question - it's not like any candidate is going to say recreation only or preservation only.
With that said, for many what they do, and more importantly don't say, gives a good idea of where they fall on this. (Or at least I think I can accurately extrapolate from their posts.)
My bias in my grading below? I think we need to learn toward using the open space as much as possible. Look but don't touch makes no sense right next door to a city as active and outdoors oriented as Boulder. I also think mountain bikers need to be restricted to sole use tracks because the vast majority (not all) are arrogant boorish louts who when they take a blind corner at 45MPH the only person you want them running over is another bicyclist who wiped out around the corner.
Ken Wilson B+ : A clear thoughtful answer about the trade-offs involved and that different areas require different rules. And he sounds like he is trying to figure out a reasonable balance throughout. I do wish Ken could answer a question without the "I'm a scientist and I'm reading papers on this issue" but I understand that it sells. No mention of debt reduction or maintenance issues.
Rob Smoke C+ : Very funny. Spot on and very funny (and it would work) answer to measuring voice control of dogs. And a straightforward concise answer. However, Rob clearly leans heavily in the look but don't touch direction.
Eric Rutherford F : no answer.
Tom Riley A- : Says the present balance is good and then discusses debt reduction and maintenance costs with some very good points. Good points on rotating use and dog control. And a short answer (for Tom).
Larry Quilling C- : Very generic answer that says nothing.
Susan Peterson D+ : Very generic answer that say almost nothing. You can draw the inference that she strongly favors preservation over recreation.
Eugene Pearson B- : Very short answer mainly about increasing maintenance to cover existing and future use. In that he clearly supports recreational use of our lands.
Susan Osborne F : no answer.
Alan O'Hashi C : Discussion of the trade-offs and a good idea in having reservations but clearly comes down on the side of preservation over recreation. And no discussion of debt and only peripherally maintenance.
Lisa Morzel A- : Good solid answers on balancing trade-offs and improving the system. And it's very clear that she is a heavy recreational user of open space and is on that side of the divide. No mention of debt. She does touch on maintenance discussing how to improve the system.
Adam Massey F : no answer.
Kathy Kramer B+ : Kathy generally has a good thoughtful answer and she does again here. A very good high-level view of the conflict between recreation and preservation. And clearly is a recreation user. No discussion of debt or maintenance. I love her idea of increasing the fine for those that leave their dog poo behind.
Nabil Karkamaz C- : Very short generic answer and it's not clear if "more work need it[sic] on the recreation part" means he would like to see more or less recreational use.
Philip Hernandez C : Very short generic answer. Say the existing balance is good.
Andrew Harrison B : Very good high level look at the system past, present, and future. Is a recreational user of open space and discusses how to best make recreational use while preserving the natural state of the area. Talks about maintenance too. Then he goes to propose yet another tax increase for open space - they don't have enough money already???
Crystal Gray B+ : Good solid answer that touches on all the major points. But very dry - a lot of listing what we have and what has occured and less of what she wants to see occur in the future. Good ideas on the trail suggestions.
Angelique Espinoza A+ : Impressive answer. In three paragraphs she walks us through the variety of uses of the land, the different issues that require different approaches, and ends up talking about finances, maintenance, and the impact on the Boulder economy. And clearly wants people to be able to visit the space, not just look at it.
Macon Cowles C+ : A knowledgeable thoughtful post - but in favor of, when in doubt, preservation over use. And in Boulder that tends to be, not a slight change, but rather a giant DO NOT ENTER on lots of the land.
Shawn Coleman B- : Clearly favors recreation use (for tax raising reasons but favor is favor). But then talks exclusively about support for continuing the tax. The tax matters but so does how we balance and why.
Seth Brigham F--- : Long and rambling - I stopped reading at the bottom of the first page.
Philip Bradley B-- : Generic comment about how things have changed (they have) and we need to re-look at what we allow where. He is clearly in favor of maximizing recreational use.
Matthew Applebaum B- : Touches on the trade-offs and the need to take a long term view. touches on finance and discusses maintenance. But clearly puts preservation well ahead of recreation. Yes preservation is essential but in Boulder that is taken to mean keep it pristine with no human impact whatsoever (except to favor prairie dogs over all other species).
A note to the candidates: I always get emails on these grades saying "why?". Please, feel free to comment below if you think the grade is unfair.
