Camping at Sandstone Ranch a ‘disaster waiting to happen,’ firefighters, residents warn

By / / Top Stories, Local, Rocky Mountain Voice

By Jen Schumann | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice

Douglas County calls it a ‘pilot program.’ Opponents call it a ‘firestarter kit.’ Despite fire safety warnings, financial concerns and widespread public opposition, county officials are moving forward with the pilot project to allow primitive camping at Sandstone Ranch.

Commissioners haven’t budged despite 500-plus public comments, a CORA request revealing near-zero support, community-led petitions and two local government resolutions against the project.

At a recent meeting, Commissioner George Teal suggested the project could still be abandoned, signaling cracks in the county’s insistence on moving forward.

“Perhaps it’s something that we will abandon after taking a look at it,” Teal said.

For now, however, the county is moving ahead, dismissing concerns from fire officials and residents who say the risks are too high.

Larkspur Fire Protection District (LFPD) and Perry Park Metro District (PPMD) have formally opposed the camping plan, warning that Douglas Co. has not conducted a proper wildfire risk assessment.

“We formally oppose this because it’s reckless and contradicts established fire mitigation policies,” PPMD Board President Darren Hill said.

Hill emphasized that the region’s fire-prone landscape makes the proposal an unnecessary risk.

“We’ve worked hard on wildfire mitigation, and this project actively undermines those efforts,” he said.

LFPD Chief Tim McCawley pointed out that Sandstone Ranch is particularly vulnerable because of high winds, dense overgrowth and proximity to residential neighborhoods.

“I think any open space is a high-risk area, but that particular one is down in a valley that is fairly windy. There are several neighborhoods that back up to it. As we have seen with the California fires and with recent fires in Colorado, there are risks that come with having neighborhoods next to open spaces where you’re allowing camping,” McCawley said.

Commissioner Abe Laydon Laydon downplayed the fire risk, likening potential wildfires to the daily activities of homeowners.

“I appreciate the concerns, but the reality is that fires can start anywhere. Are we going to start banning people from using their hairdryers or cooking in their homes? The risk of fire doesn’t just come from campers,” Laydon said at a Jan. 28 meeting.

Residents pushed back, noting that wildfires in remote open space can spread long before emergency crews even know they’ve started.

“If someone in Perry Park starts a little burn in their backyard, the fire department gets called immediately,” said Kim Greer, a former volunteer firefighter and Larkspur resident. “Out there, in the middle of the night, who’s going to see a small plume of smoke before it spreads?”

McCawley reinforced that concern, explaining that LFPD has not been given any formal plan from the county on how emergency response teams would manage evacuations or enforce fire safety.

“That’s another risk we don’t have all the answers for because we don’t have a true proposal yet. All we have is a theory at this point. If a fire breaks out, we would have to search the area to make sure no one got lost or disoriented in the smoke or fire conditions. And it’s not just wildfire — we’re also talking about floods, blizzards and even tornadoes that could put campers at risk,” McCawley said.

Hill sees the county’s plan as a direct threat to years of fire mitigation work in Perry Park. 

“Fire risk is a huge issue to this community, and that’s why we put so much time and effort into fire mitigation. It’s not something we’re very happy with when we’ve done everything we can to avoid being the next major community wiped out by fire. And then they want to put camping less than a mile from us,” Hill said.

Despite commissioners’ claims that Boy Scout troops and “others” support camping at Sandstone Ranch, residents are scratching their heads about who that may be.

“I have no idea who ever came to Laydon and said they wanted camping on county open space,” former Commissioner Lora Thomas said. “Those people have never come forward. I’ve asked Abe, ‘Who is that?’ And he never answered me.”

A formal records request revealed that nearly every public comment submitted on the proposal was in opposition. Even after public meetings where residents voiced concerns, the county has not reconsidered its stance.

Adding to the confusion, commissioners previously banned homeless encampments in open space areas because of fire risks. Residents question why that logic doesn’t apply to this project.

Beyond fire risk and public rejection, the project’s financial feasibility is another concern.

The County has already spent $379,400 on feasibility studies and estimates an additional $100,000 per year in operational costs. If the project proceeds, taxpayers will foot the bill for ongoing maintenance, enforcement and staffing.

Local resident Carson Baumann broke down the financials at a recent meeting, highlighting the unrealistic cost burden.

“At 40 percent occupancy, the cost per site jumps to $259 and $519 per night,” Baumann said. “This is cost-prohibitive and irresponsible for Douglas County taxpayers.”

Adding to the controversy, the County’s decision to create its own camping program competes with private businesses.

“The state, the county government now want to compete with the private sector, which is an absolute violation of Republican principles,” Thomas said.

A private campground, Jellystone Park at Larkspur, already serves campers in the area, raising questions about why the County is stepping into the market.

LFPD has received no response from Douglas County since passing its resolution opposing the project.

When asked whether the county properly consulted emergency responders before advancing the proposal, McCawley was measured in his response.

“They haven’t necessarily made a proposal yet. Right now, it’s all theory and conjecture,” he said.

McCawley called for more public meetings where the county clearly explains its plan and opens up for real discussions about safety concerns.

“Honestly, I’d like to see more public meetings where they actually explain what they’re doing. I don’t believe they’re looking at this from the perspective of what Douglas County residents want — they’re looking at it from the perspective of possibilities,” McCawley said.

He also emphasized that if the county does move forward, emergency responders need to be included in pre-planning.

“We need to have a better plan for developing that area, making sure there are resources in place, and ensuring that all concerns — ours and the public’s — are addressed before this gets to a point of no return,” McCawley said.

With concerns over fire risk, emergency response and public opposition still unanswered, the debate over primitive camping at Sandstone Ranch isn’t over. Residents can share their views through several upcoming avenues:

“The fire risk alone should be enough to halt this project, yet the BOCC continues to push it forward,” Greer said.

As of publication, commissioners have failed to respond to Rocky Mountain Voice’s request for comment.