Letters to the Editor reflect the views of the author and not the Longmont Leader. Factual claims have not been independently verified by the Longmont Leader.
Longmont Friends of Open Space believe preserving Open Space is critical to Longmont's well-being —ecologically, economically, and culturally. Last fall, 74% of Longmont voters said yes to the perpetual extension of our Open Space tax, conveying a clear mandate to respect and protect these lands. The proposed Distel-Tull land swap does the opposite. It opens the door for industrial uses on land purchased with Open Space dollars, and undermines what we voted for.
The Distel-Tull proposal gives the city broad discretion to develop industrial facilities on Open Space —whether a composting facility, a fire-training center, or something else. The swap shifts acreage between Public Works’ “Tull” property and the almost adjoining “Distel” Open Space. Both are across the river southeast of Sandstone Ranch. City Council has tabled this decision citing negotiations with the mining operator at Distel. This ignores public outcry addressing the root of the problem which is using Open Space for purposes other than Open Space.
In August 2020, City Council adopted changes to the Open Space Disposition Ordinance (14.52.030), allowing consideration of sale or exchange of Open Space if it “results in a net benefit to the Open Space program.” That ordinance requires referral to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) before Council acts. When that happened in June, PRAB advised against the proposal—saying net benefit had not been adequately demonstrated and expressed concerns about precedent. Those arguments were well-founded, though sadly not respected by City Council which is proceeding anyway.
Our group proposes a constructive path forward protecting open space and repairing broken public trust. This includes:
1) Reject Distel-Tull land swap proposal ASAP.
2) Tighten the disposition ordinance. Demonstrating “Net benefit” invites subjective interpretation. The cleaner, safer approach is to delete this term and simply limit disposals to right-of-way or utility easements. This helps guard against using Open Space as a land bank for future perceived “worthy” projects.
3) Put rare, exceptional disposal proposals to a vote by the people. City Charter 13.2 protects park lands and water rights by requiring voter approval before sale or repurpose. Adding “Open Space” to this charter provision would align the treatment of these three foundational assets and strengthen long- term public trust. A charter change codifies protections and requires a public vote. Then, if a future City Council believes an extraordinary case exists, the charter would give voters the power to decide.
If the City Council approves this land swap, they would set a terrible precedent. Once an industrial footprint is allowed, future pressures will follow. Indeed, the notion of using Open Space to “solve” other civic needs—such as housing—has already been floated. That slippery slope erodes the entire program’s purpose and violates the public's trust.
At its core, this entire debate is about trust. Voters funded Open Space so that it stays Open Space. When residents see lands they paid to protect being positioned for a different purpose, confidence erodes. There is no reset when voters are betrayed. This puts passage of Boulder County's extension on this Fall's ballot and any needed future Longmont Open Space ballot measures in jeopardy. Rejecting the proposed land swap, tightening the ordinance, and referring charter safeguards to voters would send an unmistakable message that City Council trusts residents to make good decisions.
I also want to acknowledge the breadth of community engagement on this issue. Hundreds of people across Longmont—neighbors, birders, trail users, families—have shown up to learn, testify, and write City Council. Whether concerns were wildlife habitat, recreation, fiscal stewardship, or public confidence in government, the conclusion is the same: treating Open Space as flexible inventory is unacceptable. Our community deserves durable protections that match the commitment voters already made.
The Distel-Tull land swap and future of Open Space are at a crossroad. Choosing convenience today would set a precedent that invites similar exchanges tomorrow. Choosing prudence means recommitting to the original promise of Open Space—not as a bargaining chip, but as a legacy. Council should reject the swap, direct staff to tighten the disposition ordinance, and refer an Open Space charter protection ballot measure to voters. City Council can start rebuilding trust and insure future generations inherit what we pledged to protect.
Sincerely,
Shari Malloy
Shari Malloy is a retired SVVSD special education teacher and core member of Longmont’s Friends of Open Space
.jpg;w=120;h=80;mode=crop)