Hello,
This is my contribution for Citizen's Discussion at Tuesday's City Council meeting.
Good Morning,
Our City and Manitou Springs are now quietly working on a plan to put the Incline on some sort of reservation system. Based on the little bit of information that I have been able to get this is a farce. The only difference that we will see is that they will bring in some cash.
At the Manitou Springs City Council meeting a week ago one Councilor mentioned that Colorado Springs wanted to allow 1000 people a day, and that Manitou Springs staff were leaning towards that number as well. That would mean the target would be 365,000 a year, hardly any reduction at all.
In a radio interview last week councilor Bremner said that they were not going to charge for the Incline, but for parking instead. Raise the rates at the Barr Trail lot to $20, and charge $5 for what is now free parking near the free shuttle pickup area.
I need to know the specifics being considered. The public has a need to know, and a right to contribute to the decision process. Is the City going to decide in secret without any public input?
Will there be an attendant at the trail head at all times checking reservations? If the reservations are only for parking, will that only limit the number of cars, and not permit each individual hiker? How many people might actually hike the Incline? How many might end up in one car?
Karen Palus and Kurt Schroeder made a presentation to the Manitou Springs City Council in June. I watched this on Zoom. Director Palus stated that a NEPA process would be necessary before the Incline itself could be put on a reservation system.
Is that true? I find that to be impossible to believe. In the Management plan a reservation system is discussed some, but the only concerns mentioned are the fact that the Incline was too unsafe to charge a fee, and that insurance issues would arise. Does the City not already carry insurance for the Incline?
Director Palus also claimed that the IGA required Manitou Springs to pay for the shuttle. That statement is false. Were she and Mr Schroeder incompetent, or willfully lying? How much do we pay them? Is the claim that a NEPA process is needed to put the Incline on a reservation system another mistake or false claim? The public has a right to know.
All of the discussions I have heard only raise concerns about parking and traffic in Manitou Springs. What about the promises of relief for Barr Trail hikers ten years ago? If I park my car in the Barr Trail lot to hike the Barr Trail will I have to help pay for the free Incline Shuttle? There are other ways to deter over parking in that lot by Incline users.The numbers of Incline hikers need to be greatly reduced until the alternate route down is open.
Councilor Bremner rightly talked about tiny Ruxton Ave being over trafficked. The truth is that the Barr Trail and Cog Railway are grandfathered in, and there is no room for any Incline cars or hikers. In fact, Manitou wants the Cog Railway to begin using a shuttle to bring up some or all of there customers when they reopen. If any cars or hikers for the Incline are allowed up there it will amount to over load, and degrade the quality of life for the residents.
The Task Force seems to have had an agenda that is not good for Ruxton Ave. Planning to allow 1000 more people a day up there is destructive to the quality of life. We don't need the Incline at all.
The Barr Trail is National Recreation Trail, and it deserves great respect. The Incline has no right to harm its quality. Proud stewards of America's Mountain are being reckless. While the City does own much of the section of the Barr Trail that the Incline uses to come down, it is still regulated by the Special Use Permit, and all Forest Service regulations and ethics apply.
I believe that there is a counter a mile or more up the Barr Trail now. How many people hike Barr Trail each day in the summer, or in the winter? We need a public debate on this. Should the Incline be allowed to double the number of people using the Barr trail? Should the Incline be allowed to send 3 or 5 times more people down the Barr trail than the Barr Trail already has? We were promised an alternate route down ten years ago, the Task Force did not say anything about this being a long term challenge.
The Incline has caused extreme problems with traffic, noise, parking, and over use of the Barr Trail the entire time. It almost seems as if the Incline enjoys trampling on the rights of others. The Task Force made great efforts to create a plan that would manage all of this well. These efforts have failed. The Incline originally was a lawless trespass–fest. It has not proven that it can be a part of the area and not cause great problems.
The Task Force was not sure if the Incline could be legally opened, and its problems resolved to everyone's satisfaction. They made heroic efforts to make that happen, but it has failed. The Incline is causing far more problems than it is worth.
We legalized the Incline because it was so popular. I see no reason to stop there. Camping has become very popular in our area now. Many people love the lifestyle of living off the grid and camping where ever they can find a spot regardless of whether it is legal or not. Just like hiking the Incline in 2010.
I move that we create an ordinance to legalize all camping because it is so popular. Assemble a task force to find ways to deal with the issues associated with camping. We can get a campers friends group and have volunteers haul off the trash. The campers can pay a small fee, $.50 or such.
The fundamental legitimacy of the Incline has been called into question. Both Cities and the USFS are refusing to answer my questions. If my concerns are not legitimate why not discredit them publicly, I do not fear my own flaws or mistakes.
If even one of my concerns is legitimate the Incline is completely illegal, and always has been. It would be a crime to ever reopen the Incline. The confusion over who has what management rights or responsibility forced me to do a review of the documents, and I have brought my concerns to the attention of both Cities and the Forest Service. Knowledge is responsibility, and you may no longer pretend not to know.
I asked questions about the long term stability of the Incline in January of 2018. I got a response from Kurt Schroeder of our Parks Dept.
I was concerned that once the rails were removed from the ties, the Incline was compromised. Mr Schroeder told me that “the rails did not ensure the stability of the incline”.
I strongly disagree with his claim.
The incline was one piece until the rails were removed. No pieces could move independently. As soon as the rails came off the Incline became 2744 pieces, each with the ability to move independently of the others.
The claim that the stability of the Incline was not compromised by the ties being removed is absurd.
Further I asked "Did the Manitou Incline Task Force consult with a professional engineering firm about the long term stability of the Incline?”
Mr Schroeder replied saying “the Task Force did not, that was not their role.”
I question this claim. If the Task Force did not research whether the Incline would be sustainable over the long term the public comment process is invalid. At that time the Incline was a disaster, many ties had already come out. The claim that you legalized the Incline without exploring why so many ties had come loose is not believable.
I will ask again: Did the Manitou Incline Task Force consult with a professional engineering firm about the long term stability of the Incline?
If they did, and the results were kept secret that would constitute a crime of public deception, and invalidate the public process. That would also raise the question of whether our City withheld pertinent information in their grant applications.
Both Cities and the Forest Service had representatives on the Task Force. Any mistakes must now be disclosed publicly, or the Incline must close permanently.
I am still waiting for an answer concerning the requirement to substantially complete #10 on page V-11 of the Site Development and Management Plan. Tie stabilization.
In the IGA section C titled “Official Opening Criteria”. “the parties agree that the Incline will not officially open for public recreational use until the thirteen actions items defined in the Management Plan, section V page 11 are substantially completed”.
This requirement was not fulfilled. I would expect that it would have been possible to get approval from the public to deviate from this requirement, but no mention of this was ever made publicly. If I am wrong show us the documentation that grants a variance. Instead the Incline was opened in an unsafe condition, and this was achieved by lying and cheating.
The stated requirements for legally opening the Incline were not fulfilled on the date that the Special Use Permit was issued, therefore this permit is invalid, and the Incline must not be reopened.
I ask that both Cities and the USFS address these concerns publicly.
The Management Plan identifies the connecting trail from the top of the Incline down to the Barr Trail as a social trail, and indicates that a NEPA process is needed to legitimatize it. It even mentions a myth called an “expedited NEPA process”.
Later, in the graph titled “actions recommended before the legal opening of the Incline” it lists “reroute of social trail from top of Incline to Barr Trail”, and states “following completion of special use permit”.
How could this item be under actions recommended, rather than actions required? That social trail could not be legally used until the NEPA process was completed. If this has been done, please show us the paperwork.
If the Incline is employing a social trail would this not be a grave violation of the Permit? The Incline must use the road that goes from the top of the Incline to the Barr trail. This will make the trip down one mile longer. If unruly Incline users begin to make new social trails down, as there were several before the Incline was legally opened, the Incline would have to be closed permanently.
The good news is that the City has a proposal for a new route down from the top of the Incline, and they claim that this proposed trail can pass the NEPA process. So the longer trip down would only be necessary for perhaps 3 years.
The City is in fact now constructing phase one of this trail on the land we illegally acquired in the land swap.
The City claimed that owning this land would make it easier to get an alternate route down from the Incline. Please tell me why that is. Did the City ask the Cog Railway for an easement, and they said no? Please explain all of this to us now.
I sent an email to the city a week ago. It states “The claim that my questions about the land swap have been answered is just foolishness”.
It asks these questions:
How much will it cost to fix the drainage problems? This includes a study to design the improvements, and the actual drainage work.
How much will it cost to repair the erosion damage?
I am still waiting for an answer.
Thank you, Carl Strow