Editor’s Note: All opinion section content reflects the views of the individual author only and does not represent a stance taken by The Collegian or its editorial board.
From 1968 to 2016, Colorado State University held its football games at Hughes Memorial Stadium. Situated beneath the Aggie A and west of Canvas Stadium, the prior home to the Colorado State football team is now relinquished of its duties, and its fate is up to the residents of Fort Collins Nov. 4.
With two competing ballot measures, 2H and 303, the predecessor of the highly controversial Canvas Stadium finds Fort Collins in a contested fight concerning what the city should do with the 165-acre land that hosts the remains of the old stadium.
For Fort Collins residents alike, the language, rhetoric and campaigns around these measures have been confusing and unclear, leading to an increased level of uncertainty on which way to vote. After extensive research and analysis, the ambitious multiuse plan is a grand and exciting endeavor brought to us by the city. With multiple pathways of consultation and input from the community and its representative groups, here’s why you should vote YES on state ballot measure 2H and NO on 303.
While 303 offers strong arguments regarding wildlife preservation and savings on taxes, the restrictive language and the prolonging of an inevitable decision on what to do with the land proves 303 unfit for the City of Fort Collins.
In 2021, the sponsors of ballot measure 303, PATHS — Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably — passed a ballot measure that required the city to buy the site and zone the land for parks, recreation, open space, natural areas and wildlife rescue and education. This measure passed in a resounding success, keeping the land from becoming commercial property. Although the 2021 measure and this year’s 303 share the same writers, what the previous decision called on the city to dedicate the space to will finally be realized if 2H passes.
In early May 2025, city council hosted a civil assembly that held 30 hours of deliberation over two weekends. The assembly was offered through a democratic lottery process that formed a demographically representative group of community members to deliberate on neutrally presented information to develop recommendations for the city. With members supported by public feedback and surveys, the participants of the civil assembly heard presentations, discussed ideas and voted, ultimately creating a final report of their cumulative findings — a multiuse solution. These findings guided the city in their final presentation and produced 2H.
It is uncommon in local politics — and American policy in general — for governments to not only prioritize and offer such a democratic and accessible pathway for public opinion, but also to utilize it. This assembly demonstrated a democratic process that should be rewarded, and although it may not please every resident, it has at least considered and offered a compromise to most.
“A shameful and unproductive solution awaits if ballot measure 2H concedes to its binding and confusing opponent.”
A profound proposition included in 2H is that, in the process of building and completing the plan, the city will be required to receive and implement input from surrounding Native tribes and Indigenous communities. Indigenous people who have owned and managed the land for far longer than any American government should have full restoration of this land. Since that is not on the ballot and not an option we can vote on today, this collaborative procedure is the quintessential alternative. It should especially help inform your decision, as this measure continues to encapsulate a progressive, prodemocracy and representative approach.
Outside of its process and production, the multiuse option offers a contemporary and dynamic solution that will feed the city and its natural land. The points of this plan include preserving 60 acres of natural area; dedicating 30 acres of space for wildlife conservation and educational facilities that will include a separate wildlife rescue and rehabilitation center; and implementing a trail system and 35 acres for a city park for recreation and biking.
It may seem counterproductive to use already-preserved land to build a facility for education on preservation and conservation, but this land is not untouched. Unfortunately, this space was home to a grand stadium that was demolished, so large amounts of acreage are not in a natural state.
Additionally, in High Plains Environmental Center’s report on the conditions of land at the site, they detailed, “The Southern section of the lot … does not have as diverse, healthy native populations. There are higher numbers of noxious, invasive weeds threatening to dominate the landscape.”
Keeping this land untouched is the actual counterintuitive solution here. As stated, the untouched section of the lot is vulnerable if the landscape of the demolition site is not addressed. Thus, it would be a harmful waste to not develop something in the invasive area.
Come Nov. 4, Fort Collins voters should capitalize on 2H’s proposal. With the measure’s fresh, representative and democratic culmination as well as its prioritization of Native voices, the people have spoken on this long-awaited issue. Action is inevitable and necessary for the Hughes site. A shameful and unproductive solution awaits if ballot measure 2H concedes to its binding and confusing opponent. Vote in-person or mail in your ballot, but when it comes time to bubble in your decision, say YES to measure 2H and NO to measure 303.
Reach Caroline Studdert at letters@collegian.com or on social media @RMCollegian.
