10/07/2025
Listen, we get it, turning Hughes into a Natural Area might sound like a good idea. If we didn’t know the full story, we might agree with you. But the truth is, the people pushing this idea aren't being fully honest.
Everything being sharing here can be fact-checked.
First, voters did not approve turning Hughes into a Natural Area in 2021. What we voted for was to rezone the property as Public Open Lands. That zoning allows for a wide range of future uses, including parks, recreation, natural areas, wildlife rescue, open spaces, and more. The key point is: we voted against housing on the site, not for any specific use.
Let's be clear: no one is asking for the 165-acres of land to be developed in it's entirety - not for buildings for a rehabilitation and conservation center or for a bike park.
As far as the wildlife rescue and rehab - yes there will be structures but the goal is to keep the footprint as small as possible. No, the city (tax payers) will not pay for it it will be funding though philanthropy and a capital campaign. The center will be there for wildlife and the community to learn. It will serve as an educational opportunity for nature, wildlife, science, cultural history, land stewardship and more. The design will be "green" to showcase what can be done to support wildlife, pollinators and the grounds will beautify the land.
Those advocating for a bike park support using only a portion of the site—not the whole thing (no more than 35 acres). For context, the world-renowned Valmont Bike Park in Boulder is just 42 acres. The idea that we already have plenty of bike parks is simply false. Yes, we have scattered elements of bike parks around town—but we don’t have a single, purpose-built bike park within city limits.
We believe the rest of the land should be used however the city sees fit to meet the needs of the community—for natural areas and open space, Indigenous gathering and cultural spaces, multi-use trails, disc golf, sledding, xeric landscaping and more.
Supporters of the Natural Area plan claim that recreation like sledding and disc golf would remain. That’s not likely. In fact, per Fort Collins Municipal Code Sec. 23-193, sledding and disc golf are illegal at all existing Fort Collins Natural Areas. They also claim that a Hughes natural area would allow for recreation, but 27% of them don’t allow bikes or even on-leash dogs (which is only allowed in dog parks per leash laws).
Another important point: Fort Collins Natural Areas (FCNA) had the chance to buy this property in 2016 when CSU vacated it—and they declined. Why? Because the $12 million purchase price and several million in remediation costs would come entirely out of their budget, limiting their ability to protect truly pristine land in the future. For comparison, FCNA has historically paid around $46,172 per acre for undeveloped land. Hughes cost $85,366 per acre. What happens to future conservation efforts if this becomes the new baseline?
We are not asking you to take our word for it. We are asking you to look at the facts and make up your own mind. But don’t let misinformation drive the conversation about one of Fort Collins’ most valuable public spaces.
