Strawberry Fields (and Hills) Forever?

Heidi and I had the privilege today of touring the parcel of land in western Colorado Springs, Colorado known legally as Strawberry Hills, and affectionately as "Strawberry Fields." This is the 189 acres destined to be transferred to the Broadmoor Hotel if a proposed land swap occurs between the City of Colorado Springs and that private corporation.

© Heidi Eaton

The tour was led by Rick Skorman, better known perhaps as the owner and founder of Poor Richard's, a series of adjacent downtown storefronts with a bookstore, coffee house, restaurant, and toy store.

© Heidi Eaton

Last week I wrote my opinion about the land exchange, and if anything my sentiments are stronger after traversing the meadow myself. I can only imagine what it would look like in spring and summer when wildflowers are in bloom, and the landscape greener. Here is a video of another tour, including some stunning overhead footage shot by a drone, and a bit of history.

There is precious little time for the public to make their case against this land swap. There have been many public "meetings," but citizens have had little time allotted to express their opinions at these gatherings. At least one more meeting will be held at Goldcamp Elementary School on Wednesday, March 30, at 6:00 PM.

© Heidi Eaton

Meanwhile, the best thing you can do is write, call, or e-mail the Mayor and City Council directly. Here is information for doing so:

• Andy Pico, District 6, (719) 385-5491, ApicoATspringsgov.com
• Bill Murray, At-Large, (719) 385-5485, bmurrayATspringsgov.com
• Don Knight, District 1, (719) 385-5487, DknightATspringsgov.com
• Helen Collins, District 4, (719) 385-5492, hcollinsATspringsgov.com
• Jill Gaebler, President Pro Tem, (719) 385-5483, JgaeblerATspringsgov.com
• Keith King, District 3, (719) 385-5470, KckingATspringsgov.com
• Larry Bagley, District 2, (719) 385-5493, lbagleyATspringsgov.com
• Merv Bennett, President, (719) 385-5469, MBennettATspringsgov.com
• Tom Strand, At-Large, (719) 385-5486, tstrandATspringsgov.com
• Mayor John Suthers, (719) 385-5900, jsuthersATspringsgov.com
• Entire City Council(?), (719) 385-5986, allCouncilATspringsgov.com

Remember to replace "AT" with the "@" symbol when e-mailing. It is especially critical that Mayor and Council hear from those residents who do not live near Strawberry Hills. There is a strong perception that no one else cares about this parcel of public land and we need to correct that assumption. Lastly, it might help to lobby the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, which will ultimately vote on the proposal: (719) 385-5940, jkriskoATspringsgov.com.

© Heidi Eaton

Oh, I almost forgot. Your most up-to-date source of information about this ongoing saga is Save Cheyenne on Facebook.

This "deal," a product of premature action, in the absence of biological inventories, without channeling through the Planning Commission, and largely without public input or avenues for recourse, would set a terrible precedent if allowed to pass. Today it is Strawberry Hills. What will it be tomorrow?

The "History" in "Natural History"

Much is made of the need to conserve wildlife and preserve wildlands for the sake of future generations. I would argue that there is just as strong a need to be good stewards of the planet for the sake of past generations. We talk of “natural history” with an emphasis on “natural.” We practically ignore the “history” involved.

Here in the United States, we have a legion of icons who built the foundation for our modern environmental movement. Do we owe them nothing for their unique visions, legislative action, scientific research, and passionate protests? What about artists like Ansel Adams who brought images of wilderness to the masses who had never seen Yosemite? Aldo Leopold gave us a “land ethic.” Rachel Carson cautioned against the indiscriminate use of DDT. We would not be where we are today were it not for the likes of these heroes and heroines.

We can erect monuments to such people, honor their work in film documentaries and written biographies, but what better way to leave a legacy than to insure their efforts were not in vain? Yes, more wilderness has been preserved, more parks created, and more species discovered, but then there are challenges like the reintroduction of predators into parts of their historic geographical ranges.

The debate over wolf introductions is incredibly volatile, but I have heard no one speak of how doing so would bring history back to life. The national park system, at the very least, should be dedicated to preserving a historical spectrum of habitats and ecosystems. There is Colonial Williamsburg, there are civil war re-enactments, and countless other examples of “living history” in the human context of the term. What about the history of wildness?

Recreating in a museum diorama that which used to be is not enough. Resurrecting the mammoth, or even the Passenger Pigeon, may be a bit too much, as we also need reminders of our extreme human mistakes. Still, I feel impoverished that I have been deprived of even the opportunity to see a Carolina Parakeet, a Great Auk, or a Sea Mink. The California Condor once flew over the Columbia River, according to Lewis and Clark. We should consider restoring its presence there.

Once my own mentors pass away, you better believe I will remain dedicated to making sure their voices carry on, that their fights go on. I owe it to them. Another natural landscape destroyed by needless development, a dam, or pollution? Not on my watch. Allow another species to go extinct due to human greed or neglect? No way. I’ve got your back, John Muir, Theodore Roosevelt, Bob Marshall, Dian Fossey. Your missions didn’t die with you.

Places Rated: Best and Worst Cities for Nature and Outdoor Recreation

I’ve been fortunate to have lived in a handful of cities in the United States that are truly “nature-friendly,” putting a priority on urban greenspace and wildlands. I have also lived in and visited cities that were not so eco-savvy. I would like to start a public ranking of cities based on criteria I shall explain here.

Meanwhile, I must issue a disclaimer that this is not currently a part of the official Places Rated books and website. In my humble opinion, it should be, and that is one of my goals.

What parameters am I using to come up with my rankings? One is number of parks per capita. This is already known thanks to the Trust for Public Lands, and as of 2011 Madison, Wisconsin is number one, followed by Cincinnati, Ohio. St. Petersburg, Anchorage, and Buffalo round out the top five.

Beyond simply parks, I take into account total greenspace, climate (Does the weather encourage people to go outdoors?), biodiversity, accessibility beyond personal transportation (Does public transit serve parks? Are there trails for bikes and pedestrians between parks?), urban planning, and diversity of funding for purchasing, developing, and maintaining parklands.

I can only speak to the places I have lived, so I hereby invite others to chime in with an assessment of their own hometown, based on their personal experience.

My personal rankings for Best Cities for Nature are (drumroll, please):

1. Cincinnati, Ohio
2. Colorado Springs, Colorado
3. Portland, Oregon

So far, my “Worst” list has only one city: Tucson, Arizona. You can read some of the reasons for my opinion in my blog entry ”The Trouble With Tucson.”

Now for a quick summary of why I hold the other three cities in such high esteem.
#1. Cincinnati, Ohio. I moved to Cincinnati in 1988 and resided there through most of 1999. I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of relatively undisturbed greenspace for such a historically old city. The geographic location, situated on the Ohio River opposite northern Kentucky and adjacent to Indiana (the Miami River separates the two states), means very high biodiversity in the region. Eastern deciduous forests in general are rich in flora and fauna, but there is both a northern and southern influence here. The only habitats missing are non-riparian wetlands. Ponds are mostly on golf courses here, and artificial impoundments built for recreation do not support as much wildlife as natural lakes. Most city parks are easily accessible by public transportation. County parks are, unfortunately, not served by buses, with rare exceptions. The privately-owned Cincinnati Nature Center requires membership, and/or fees for entry. I have a real problem with that. Still, Cincinnati and Hamilton County love their parks and are dedicated to maintaining and even expanding them.

#2. Colorado Springs, Colorado. I moved to “The Springs” in October of 2011, but I can already tell that this city is special. Nowhere have I found park accessibility to be this easy. A system of regional trails would let me hike to Wyoming or New Mexico if I had a mind to do so. Buses serve most city parks or get you within spitting distance. The topography of the city, which ranges from high plains to high peaks, means an enormous diversity of habitats and therefore high biodiversity. I have found insects here that are common to Arizona, Oregon, and Ohio. Again, the only habitats lacking are standing waters, and there are fairly decent facsimiles of natural lakes and ponds anyway. A combination of government agencies and non-profit organizations are dedicated to preserving parks and securing new lands, too, though budgets are very tight here. Over 300 days of sunshine each year guarantee ample opportunity to get outside. Parks get an incredible amount of use, and trails have a lot of traffic, especially on weekends. Not only are hikers, runners, dog-walkers, and horse-riders likely to be encountered on the path, but mountain bikes as well on some trails. This multi-use mandate is something of a drawback in my own opinion as a wildlife-watcher, but it means high use and therefore a high priority among government officials. I’m a long way from having exhausted all the wild areas Colorado Springs has to offer, and that alone is exciting.

#3. Portland, Oregon. I spent the first twenty-seven years of my life in Portland and have been spoiled by that fact. Portland has raised zoning and urban planning to an art form. Bond issues for parks pass overwhelmingly when put on the ballot. Despite the truly rainy climate (not quantity, but sheer number of wet or dreary days), people go to parks in droves. Portland would be at the top of my list were it not for the dominant coniferous forest habitats that have such weak biodiversity. I found open areas like Oaks Bottom and Powell Butte to be more to my liking than Tryon Creek State Park (yes, there is a state park in the city limits!), or Forest Park. Still, parks are linked by the “40 Mile Loop,” or soon will be, as envisioned by the Olmstead brothers who conceived of Portland’s park system over a century ago.

Your turn! Tell me why your city should rank high or low using the criteria of parks with wild areas, urban planning, park use, biodiversity, climate, accessibility, and funding. I look forward to your replies, and will post the longer, more thoughtful ones as guest blogs.