Time will tell John. Trust is more than just a word for me. The Land Trust is an oxymoron since the what they did to the Rices' over a decade ago. I don't think they should be speculating like they have done in the past.

Besides,2 members are BIG TIME Real Estate developers (Mueller/Hermanson how is that trustworthy?

Well, ski2die........I see some correlation to your thoughts concerning people involved in development and the issue of land trust but, ethics and making a wonderful community to live in, suits their job description also. At least you know where these people stand, how transparent do we need, and I have found most to be accountable......if for no other reason than banks and planning commissions require it. Balance is necessary.......I'm sort of under the notion that with nearly 80% of our county, government owned, controlling private land, falls into the category of manipulating your neighbor. Of coarse if we are talking about purchasing land for what ever reason, than I have no problem with that. All too often it has political side affects......such as controlling access or messing up other land and it's potential use.
If this was Kansas where literally every sq, inch is owned by private owners, land preserved for wildlife and other reasons has some merit. But here, I see most of this as view protection for rich people.

So......consider this, land that can be successfully developed is getting scarce. With wetlands issues to consider and sewer and water to provide, and all the requirements of the LUR, it's really a fairly small amount left. If they want to develop a dump site.......perhaps it shows how desperate they are. So, yes the land that has some potential for development should be considered for that. I think having people on the land trust that know this stuff is important. Having just preservationist and tree huggers, provides no balance at all.

We will have to do a much better job of controlling water pollution.....especially if we invite thousands of tourist here every month. Such things as drugs, birth control pills that are hard to get out of water and have lasting effects on downstream users, people and wildlife, need to be addressed. The hidden cost of tourism is mostly off set by the fact that we don't do it correctly now. I suspect that will change, and it will be expensive. The commitment to tourism was also a commitment to dealing with their mess. Ever thought that the Sage grouse started doing poorly about the time CB had it's boom. Mostly young adults moving in and visiting, that depend heavily on birth control pills. But consider the drug cocktail that CB sends down stream every year.......with swine flue a biggie this year a million dollars worth of antibiotics will wash down stream, not to mention the everyday medicine. Mixed all together....no one knows what it does to wildlife or humans.

Perhaps my point is........who is better suited to assess these issues? Developers and our short staff building departments are it. Regulation isn't making experts out of you and I.....but, developers are getting good at dealing with this and similar problems. What I'm really convinced about, is that our "self proclaimed experts" that promote no growth as a solution, will give society the comfortable feeling that NO is a solution, when it's just one segment of the problem.

So perhaps it comes down to the "big picture".......can we see the big picture without a very diversified group?

As private funds are increasingly harder to come by the board is naturally going to have to find alternative ways to fund itself. What better way to do that than to sell 1 or 2 acres here and there to do so.

By 40 acres carve 2 home sites out of it and sell them for millions. lots adjoining large tracks of open space bring in big buckeroos. Which is all the more money to buy more open space with.

It all makes perfect sense to me.

diversity is good, but it can also hinder a groups functionality which in this case it did.

No question that defining an organizations purpose is often difficult, and getting it's members all on the same page even more difficult. However, green space is possibly a very limited goal for a land trust, the community needs more than open space to survive. Land needs to be set aside for sewer plant expansion, parks and recreation, water treatment, just to name a few. The publics need for land is a big need. I feel the whole thing needs to be tempered with some sort of reality. If you are dealing with land, you are ultimately dealing with developing that land, we don't have much to play games with, unless the Fed wants to start selling us some.

Am I way off base here? Is it too much to ask a land trust to do something for the public good besides tie up land so it can't be used for anything?

I suppose it's a good idea, but then don't you become "for profit", when you speculate, thus jeopardizing your 501C3 status?
CBLT has done some good don't get me wrong, that is apparent with some of the trails and corridors they have established for the public good, but once you start speculating then you are a dirt pimp, period. CBLT found a tax loophole.

Developers (dirt pimps) aren't funded by their local municipalities like the Land Trust either. There is a HUGE difference between a hidden local tax funding land speculation and being a developer with real money and real risk.

One looks like a shady tax shelter and the other is a financial venture into real estate.

What is the difference between the "Land Trust" and the developers of "Wilder on the Taylor"(f/k/a Wapiti Ranch)? 22-1 acre Lots, 1,200 acres en grosse, all private, no public access preserving habitat and open space. It preserves open space at a faster rate than the Land Trusts ever could imagine. Or, Horse River Ranch. HUGE SUBDIVISION offset with gifts of land to the State of Colorado for the area around Kenny Moore Lane which have been returned to public lands. What about the Ochs Ranch a few years ago in a 3 way trade between CBMR, the State, local ranchers?

When it becomes the Land Trusts property it is still PRIVATE PROPERTY, not public or preserved. It is just held until a time when the Land Trust is ready to SUBDIVIDE and build.

If the Land Trust were trustworthy they would be conveying their properties to the county, state, federal government, or to an organization like "Trust for Public Lands" who do convey what they acquire to the Federal Government, which in turn is returned to the public. TPL has established themselves as "trustworthy".

No, the Land Trust is a dirt pimp for profit and they should just say so. If they want to continue they should fly without the 1% for open space. CBLT should stick to happy trails and Conservation Easements and not subdividing property and land speculation disguised as,"Open Space". If you want my tax money and my trust. Once you take my money I have a louder voice.

Thus the oxymoron Land Trust.

unless I am wrong a 501c3 can make up to 30-35% of their gross receipts before losing the designation and then they are still considered not for profit under a 501 c 7 designation. Their donors would loss the ability to write that donation off under 501c7 but it would not effect the CBLT tax exempt or "not for profit" status.

ski2die-
You call Hermanson and Mueller "BIG TIME" land developers and ask how they could be trusted. Jeff took a relatively blighted area of Denver and made it attractive and an attraction. Tim took part of an ugly parking lot/vacant lot and put a building there. I don't see the lack of trustworthiness in either case.
If the Land Trust were never to sell anything then its pace of buying/preserving would slow considerably. It just doesn't have the money to buy and set aside every parcel we'd like it to. I'd rather preserve the fantastic vistas and suffer the occasional (hidden) home than have the Land Trust buy and preserve totally a parcel every ten years or so.

I kind of like the 10 year plan.
Saving everything from the people who want to recreate and live here is self-defeating.

If you applied today's snobbery and self-righteousness to any existing development this community would be 5 blocks and a big fat fence.

Easements are a more effective way to guide development (or lack thereof) than outright removing recreational and economic opportunities in the name of preservation.

I've had about enough of the buy it, shut it down, stare at it, tell everyone what a good thing you did and beg for more gift-money routine. (or better yet guilt un-suspecting tourists into a 1% "optional" tax for the same)

0Rd

John, I will trust the very very recent actions by CBLT which give me hope. But...

If you want to use the mountain development as a good example for Tims efforts as a BIG TIME developer I beg to differ. Here's how. He razed the Manor Lodge, The Gothic, and the Chamber/Bank building to put up an over priced condo complex that barely sold out, he cannot get Snodgrass to go through, taxes are due on Prospect et. al. and here we go into a major foreclosure cycle like we haven't seen since the early 80's. He failed at properly foreseeing the economic conditions that came into play in the Fall of 2007 when his lender balked at economic climate began to fall apart and the early reservations slowly went away.

Maybe I haven't been around ski developments like you and I don't claim to know everything about skiing John, but one thing I do know is every other ski area since the caveman wore mammoth tusks for skis has a BASE LODGE. Thank goodness for the wisdom of Jeff.

ski-
All good points except about base lodges. Off the top of my head, here are the mountains nearby that don't have one: Telluride, Ajax, Highlands, Snowmass, Vail, and Beaver Creek.
As far as Tim's crystal ball, it's about as good as mine...and maybe yours?