Guns on Trails

Jul 252012
 

In discussion of the village’s trails during the City Council’s study session on July 16, concerns were voiced about the allowance of weapons on the trails. While possession of firearms or other weapons is prohibited in parks, federal regulations require that they be permissible on trails. At the study session, there were questions as to why the federal government was able to force this policy upon the village and if here were any way to disobey. I, personally, believe that all weapons ought to be banned from city trails; however, I recognize that the national government has, under the constitution, the power to say otherwise and that Greenwood Village must comply with these laws.

There are several reasons why the federal government has this power. Firstly, the second amendment states that all citizens have the right to bear arms. While the government has the power to regulate guns, it cannot ban them in all cases, and this stipulation provides the basis for being able to have firearms on the trails. One might ask why weapons can be banned in parks but not on trails, and the reason is that trails are used for transportation, which brings us to the second reason the federal government can dictate that firearms be allowed on Greenwood Village trails.

The reason is that the federal government has the power, given by the constitution, to regulate interstate commerce. Even though local trails are not usually thought of as being related to commerce among states, several Supreme Court decisions have expanded its federal government has control over a broad range of issues under the guise of the commerce clause. The Gibbons v. Ogden decision stated that the movement of people could be a form of commerce. This meant that any and all roads, paths, and trails by which humans travelled or were transported among states could be regulated by Congress. After that, the Supreme Court decided over the course of several decisions that, even if interstate commerce was likely, Congress could regulate areas where there was a simple potential for commerce. Combining the two decisions, it means that the federal government has the power to regulate any area that could ever possibly be used as a mode of transport to get people from one state to another. Though it is unlikely that the village’s trails would be used to walk from Colorado to New Mexico, it is a possibility, so Congress can pass policy that affects it. For these reasons, the federal government has the power to demand that Greenwood Village allow weapons and firearms to be carried on its trails.

  •  Posted by on July 25, 2012 at 6:00 pm
  •   Comments Off on Guns on Trails

Park regulations and the Capital Improvement Program

Jul 232012
 

There were two major issues during the city council meeting on the 16th and those issues were park regulations and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The staff recommended that natural open areas be defined as O-1 and parks be defined as O-2 (O-1 standing for natural open space areas and O-2 standing for active and passive parks). Both parks and natural space areas had closing times to prevent congregation after dusk. However, there was no closing time for trails. The city allowed trails to stay open after dusk to facilitate other means of transportation other than automobiles. This trail policy caused confusion as many trail networks passed through parks and natural space open areas. The council allowed citizens to travel through the parks and open space after hours as long as they did not linger and stayed on the trail. The police department also recognized the difficulty of enforcing these regulations and decided to only send officers to a park or patch of open space if there was an issued complaint. The issue of trails being open after dusk made the situation even more complex when the council looked at a section of the High Line Canal Trail. This trail was only open during dawn to dusk; this concerned some councilmembers as it was not consistent with the rest of the city’s trail times. These councilmembers wanted to negotiate with the company that owned this section to eliminate the closing time, but other councilmembers brought up problems with this idea. They argued that there was a very small chance that the company would agree with the city council and the company was large and powerful. Even more than this fact is that having this section of the High Line Canal Trail open will not be consistent with the rest of the trail that is outside of Greenwood Village’s jurisdiction, which would still have a closing time. The council decided to not negotiate with the company as there would be inconsistency whether there was a closing time or not.

The CIP for 2013-2018 was also overviewed by the city council with the improvement of one of the city’s maintenance facility, which had cramped working quarters, not enough storage, site circulation for vehicles and other flaws which hindered its efficiency. Many other issues were discussed for funding such as traffic, lighting, road, and park improvements.

Through the discussion of the CIP and park regulations, the city council continued to emphasize its concern of efficiency and consistency.

 

  •  Posted by on July 23, 2012 at 5:28 pm
  •   Comments Off on Park regulations and the Capital Improvement Program

Park Place Site Development-Increased Parking

Jul 092012
 

The applicant, Hamilton-Titan Partners, requested for their plan to increase the parking space of Park Place to be reviewed by the city council. The site in question is 2.9 acres and is located in the northern quadrant of the DTC Boulevard/ Yosemite Street intersection (The site is known as Parcel A and the applicant’s request only applies to this site and not Parcel B). The applicant reasoned that this plan would allow the business complex to flourish as the plan would create a more attractive place for pedestrians and business would increase as a result.

In order to help clear space for the plan, many trees had to be cut down, with the applicant having no plan of mitigating the loss. While the city council was concerned of this, they did not request any mitigation plan as only a row of trees on the property were to be cut down, still leaving plenty of landscaping untouched. The applicant also emphasized pedestrian access and safety as being a top priority and planned to install extra lighting to help achieve this. The applicant promised that all lighting would be turned off at 10 PM daily in order to reduce disturbance for the surrounding area. While the increased traffic from the plan and its effects on the community concerned the city council, there was still a unanimous vote for the increased parking plan.

I agree with the unanimous decision as the allowance of extra parking will benefit the community more than it will hurt the community. While there was a net loss of landscaping with no mitigation for the loss, the economic advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Extra business will be brought to Greenwood Village along with the applicant’s estimate of 120 jobs. From these economic advantages I also agree with the council’s unanimous decision.

  •  Posted by on July 9, 2012 at 8:50 pm
  •   Comments Off on Park Place Site Development-Increased Parking

How close is too close?

Jul 092012
 

City government is inherently intimate. Our local representatives are not thousands of miles away in the Capital; they are our friends, neighbors, and peers. While this closeness is an asset, making city council more understanding of the people and their needs, it also gives rise to a fundamental issue–whenrepresentatives are expected to be actively involved citizens of the community, conflicts of interest are bound to be common. Indeed, this issue has been raised in each city council meeting that I have attended, most recently the one which took place on July 2nd. At the heart of this discussion lies one core question: what constitutes a conflict of interest in city government?

It is inevitable that city council members will be involved in a variety of local issues, so is it truly reasonable to expect them to recuse themselves from every item in which they have any interest? It is, in my opinion, absurd to call a conflict of interest as any connection to the item at hand. At this lowest level of government, this definition will force city council members to recuse themselves at every meeting. The only way to avoid such a problem is to impose strict limits on that which constitutes a conflict of interest. After all, having a connection to an issue does not always mean that a person is unable to judge upon it fairly. This ability is only compromised when the person stands  to gain or to lose something by the decision, yet even this is not completely true. The members of the city council are upstanding, honorable individuals who, I believe, would not succumb to their personal interests unless they were going to suffer or profit greatly. They ought to be trusted with the responsibility of deciding for themselves whether or not a personal interest will disable them from doing their job. Because city government is so close to the community, conflicts of interest arise with a rather inconvenient frequency. In order to allow city council member to do the job they were elected to do and not constantly be required to recuse themselves, these conflicts must only be taken into account when the person affected by it deems it to be of importance, or when others clearly believe that it impairs their judgement due to extreme personal involvement. Otherwise, a mere connection or other conflict of interest need not cause worry.

 

  •  Posted by on July 9, 2012 at 4:12 pm
  •   Comments Off on How close is too close?