No Gold for Denver: Denver's loss of the 1976 Winter Olympics History Seminar May 1, 2012 Professor Agee and Instructor GustinThe Olympics are traditionally viewed by people around the world as a celebration showcasing world unity and human athletic prowess, The Olympics are a time for the nations of the world to come together in peaceful athletic contests to compete for national pride. However, during the early 1970s the Winter Olympics were a point of contention for many Colorado citizens. Denver was awarded the honor of hosting the 1976 Winter Olympic Games by the International Olympic Committee on May 12, 1970.’ Less than two years later on November 7, 1972, Colorado voters “[p]rohibited the State from levying taxes and appropriating or loaning funds for the purpose of aiding or furthering the 1976 Winter Olympic Games.”” This prohibition of state funding came as the result of 517,228 Colorado voters checking “yes” on Referendum No. 8.* Federal funding for the Olympic Games had previously been tied to this referendum and was withdrawn as a result. Without funding to host the Games, the International Olympic Committee subsequently moved the 1976 Winter Games to Innsbruck, Austria. Colorado became the first and only venue to turn down the Olympics after having been officially awarded the Games. During the months that led up the November 1972, elections Denver was a battle ground for Colorado's pro- and anti-Olympic groups. One group, Citizens for Colorado's Future (CCF) stands out above all the rest as responsible for the withdrawal of State funding for the Olympics. In less than a year CCF was able to rally small groups of citizens concerned about the environment, allocation of state funding, and harboring a deep distrust of the Denver 5 James A, Whiteside, Colorado: A Sports History (Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1999), pg.159. * Laure Lee K. Olson, Power, Public Policy and the Environment: The Debate of the 1976 Winter Olympics in Colorado, thesis, University of Colorado, 1974, pg. 265. * John Sanko, “Colorado Only State Ever to Turn down Olympics,” Rocky Mountain News (Denver), October 12, 1999,Organizing Committee for the 1976 Winter Olympics, Inc.(DOC) to create and pass Referendum No. 8.* Background and Historiography In May of 1970 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded Denver, Colorado, the opportunity to host the 1976 Winter Olympic Games. According to historian James Whiteside, “the decision capped a twenty-one-year effort,” in which Coloradans fought for the chance to hold the Winter Games.” That effort began in April of 1949, when Colorado Governor William Knous expressed interest in holding the 1956 Winter Games via telegram to the International Olympic Committee. Without state funding and public backing Knous’ attempt never materialized. A second bid was made for the 1960 Winter Olympics, but the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) selected Squaw Valley, California as the U.S. candidate instead. Colorado's successful bid for the 1976 Winter Olympics began in June of 1963, when Governor John A. Love announced his desire to hold the 1976 Winter Olympics in Colorado during a speech given in Steamboat Springs. Governor Love found the 1976 Games particularly fe with the state’s centennial and the U.S. Bicentennial enticing because they would coin: celebrations. Love additionally felt the 1976 Games were far enough in the future to provide ample time for planning and organizing the events. Acting on his ambition Governor Love created the Colorado Olympic Commission (COC) in December of 1964 in order to begin planning Colorado's bid for the 1976 Winter Games. The mission of the Colorado Olympic ‘Throughout this paper the Denver Olympic Committee is referred to as the DOC for consistency and clarity It should be noted however that in July of 1972 the Denver Olympic Committee renamed itself the Denver Olympic Organizing Committee(D00C) and many of the sources after that date refer to the Committee as the DOOC. “James A. Whiteside, Colorado: A Sports History (Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1999), pg, 147,Commission was initially to examine Colorado's ability to host the games, designate a host city, find potential venues for events, and supervise Colorado's Olympic bid to the United States Olympic Commission. Members were selected from Colorado’s business community based upon their influence within political, sporting, and business circles. ’ Denver was ultimately chosen by the Colorado Olympic Committee to host the Olympic events because it was the only city able to keep all the venues within a close proximity of one another. The Colorado Olympic Committee believed having all the events take place within relative proximity of the host city would be advantage in the bidding process. On June 23, 1966, two months after the Colorado Olympic Committee selected Denver as the potential host for the Olympics; Mayor Thomas Curtigan informed the city of the prospective role Denver played in hosting the 1976 Winter Olympics. Following the International Olympic Committee's decision that Sapporo, Japan, would hold the 1972 Olympics, Colorado Olympic Committee representatives began a year and a half campaign to win the United States Olympic Committee’s designation as the U.S. candidate to host the 1976 Winter Olympic Games. In April, 1967, the Denver Organizing Committee for the 1976 Winter Olympics, Inc. (DOC) was formed as a private organization. The DOC consisted of a large number of Colorado Olympic Committee members, with the mission of pursuing Denver's bid for the Olympic Games. The Colorado Olympic Committee remained in existence, acting as a funnel for city and state funds to the DOC. By late 1967, the DOC had selected prospective event sites and facilities, developed a construction schedule, and estimated the costs and ‘lames A. Whiteside, Colorado: A Sports History (Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1989), pg. 148, James A. Whiteside, Colorado: A Sports History (Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1999), pg 148.economic impacts of the Games. On December 17, 1967, the United States Olympic Committee selected Denver as the U.S. candidate to host the 1976 Winter Olympics. The DOC’s plan to host the Olympics was determined to be the best by the United States Olympic Committee because sites were close to Denver and the planned use of existing facilities would reduce costs.* Downhill ski events were to take place at Loveland Basin ski area and the undeveloped Mount Sinktau. Conveniently both of these venues were near Interstate 70, and roughly forty-five minutes from Denver. The community of Indian Hills, an area just outside of Denver near Evergreen, was selected as the planned site for the Nordic events. The city of Denver would host ice-hockey and figure skating at the University of Denver Arena and the Denver Coliseum. The opening and closing ceremonies were to be held at Mile High Stadium. The dormitories at the University of Denver were chosen to house athletes, performing the functions of the Olympic village. Two housing projects were planned for the use of the nearly 3500 members of the press, with the intention of later being used as low and moderate income housing. In May 1970, members from the DOC traveled to Amsterdam for the International Olympic Committee meeting that they believed would determine the fate of Denver's Olympic bid. The DOC delivered a presentation which, according to historian James Whiteside, “included a fourteen-by-twenty-six-foot display, slides, movies, and models of Denver, proposed facilities, and mountain sites.” The International Olympic Committee was so impressed by the DOC’s presentation that on May 12, 1970, they awarded the 1976 Winter Olympic Games to Denver. Denver was chosen over Sion, Switzerland; Vancouver, Canada, and Tampere, Finland. To the “lames A. Whiteside, Colorado: A Sports History (Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1998), pg.151 * James A. Whiteside, Colorado: A Sports History (Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1999), pg, 159.elated members of the DOC it appeared that Denver was well on its way to hosting one of the most prestigious sporting events in the world, bringing prosperity, recognition, and money from thousands of visitors to Colorado for two weeks during the winter of 1976. What the businessmen of the DOC who had accomplished their goal of bring the 1976 Winter Games to Denver had not counted on was the public reaction that would follow. In trying to understand why Colorado voters withheld funding from the Olympic Games; historians have examined the situation from a variety of directions. Historian James Whiteside, in his book Colorado: A Sports History, dedicated a chapter to “The Battle over the 1976 Olympics”. Whiteside compares the disastrous events surrounding the ineffective fight for the 1976 Winter Olympics to the failed invasion of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, eleven years prior. Whiteside argues that both the Bay of Pigs invasion and the 1976 Winter Olympics were “poorly conceived and organized, and even more poorly executed.””° He believes that the bid made by the DOC for the 1976 Olympics Games, “though initially successful, foundered because of poor planning, arrogance, secretiveness, and a lack of understanding of the nature and strength of the opposition.””* Throughout Whiteside’s argument he makes it apparent that the committee members, initially from the Colorado Olympic Committee and then the DOC, made repeated attempts to keep their plans secret and deceive Colorado citizens, the United States Olympic Committee, and the International Olympic Committee in order to strengthen their bid for the Olympics. Whiteside explains that this secrecy then came back to haunt the DOC members after their bid was successful. The initial secrecy and deception led citizens concerned about the ° James A. Whiteside, Colorado: Sports History (Nw, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1999), px, * James A. Whiteside, Colorado: A Sports History (Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1999), pg.146.potential disadvantages of the Olympics to fight against a group that they felt was dishonest and incompetent in their preparations for the upcoming Games. In an article titled James G. Blaine, “Alferd” E. Packer, and Western Particularism, historian Gene M. Gressley argues that Colorado voters’ decision to block state funding for the Olympics was one example of Western reactions to environmental and antigrowth feelings present throughout the Western United States during the 1960s and 1970s. Gressely explains that Westerners’ fear of their own “extinction via either chemical poison of their food or strangulation from a particle laden atmosphere, or if worse were possible, that they were advancing rapidly to doomsday via procreation” led residents from the Western United States to fight against factors they believed would result in an increase in population, pollution, and foreign economic oppression.”? Gressley argues that “Western particularism” grew out of distrust of Eastern corporations and politics that developed after the Second World War. The distrust was the result of increased Eastern tourism to the West, and pressure by corporations from the East Coast to access the West's natural resources." Gressley believes that the pivotal event influencing these feelings was the publishing of the book The Silent Spring, which detailed the environmental impact of pesticides. With the combination of perceived ever-increasing Eastern influence and new-found environmental concern from the publication of The Silent Spring, Gressely believes that “the environmentalist found a fervent true believer in the Westerner.”** Gressely uses the Alferd E. Packer Society, an anti-growth organization founded © Gene M. Gressely, "James G. Blaine, "Alferd" E. Packer, and Western Particularism,” The Historian 44, no. 3 (May 3982): pg. 367. * Gene M. Gressely, "James G. Blaine, “Alferd” E. Packer, and Western Particularism,” The Historian 44, no. 3 (May 1982): pg. 366. * Gene M. Gressely, "James G. Blaine, “Alferd” E, Packer, and Western Particularism," The Historian 44, no. 3 (May 1982): pe. 367.in Colorado during the 1970s as another example of “Western particularsim’. Fearing extreme growth of Colorado's communities the society adopted the motto: “Have a Land Developer for Lunch.”** Looking at the Olympic Winter Games from more of an international environmental perspective, Jean-Loup Chappelet in his article “Olympic Environmental Concerns as a Legacy of the Winter Games,” argues that concerns of environmental activists have surrounded the Winter Olympic Games since they were first held during January 1924, in Chamonix, France. Chappelet begins his article stating that “[t]he Olympic Winter Games are partly held in mountain resorts and are thus closer to nature, a fact that has frequently led them to encounter strong opposition from environmental organizations.”"° Within the article Chappelet describes how environmental organizations all over the world have fought against the development of the Winter Olympics’ event sites, when their construction threatened the natural environment. initially environmental opposition to the Olympics was limited to a local scale, but Chappelet argues that “[pJolitical ecology emerged at the end of the 1960s and during the 1970s, notably following the publication by the Club of Rome of a report entitled The Limits to Growth.””” According to Chappelet, this new political ecology led to changes in the locations where the Winter Olympics were held and their environmental impact, eventually influencing the Summer Olympics. Chappelet briefly mentions the Winter Olympics in Denver, citing environmental concerns as the chief reason Colorado voters removed funding from the * Gene M. Gressely, “James G. Blaine, “Alferd” E, Packer, and Western Particularism,” The Historian 44, no.3 (May 3982): pg. 377. * Jean-Loup Chappelet, “Olympic Environmental Concerns as a Legacy of the Winter Games,” The International Journal of History of Sport 25, no, 14 (December 14, 2008): pg, 1884 Jean-Loup Chappelet, “Olympic Environmental Concerns as a Legacy of the Winter Games," The International Journal of History of Sport 25, no. 14 (December 14, 2008): pg. 1888-1889.Games. Chappelet explains that 1976 Winter Olympics were moved to Innsbruck, Austria, because Innsbruck already had facilities from the 1964 Olympic Games reducing the environmental footprint of the Games. Colorado citizen’s concerns about the Olympics In response to the Olympic Games being awarded to Denver, a variety of issues surfaced among Colorado citizens concerned about the potential negative impacts the Games might cause. One of the earliest concerns Colorado citizens expressed was centered on the potential for a negative environmental impact. As early as 1968 residents of Indian Hills, an area in the foothills near Denver learned that their community had been selected by the DOC for the future site of the Nordic events. The planned events included cross-country skiing, ski-jumping, bobsled, and luge, and would require clearing land to construct courses, along with roads and parking lots to allow spectators access to the events. Concern quickly developed among Indian Hills residents worried about the environmental impact to the natural habitat surrounding their community that would result from the construction of these sites. In June of 1968, a retired University of Denver law professor, Vance Dittman, along with twenty-six residents of Indian Hills, expressed their discontent with the decision in a letter to the DOC."* The DOC, believing that as Olympic plans continued to evolve public support for the Olympics would increase, simply assured the residents of Indian Hills that the sites would be re-evaluated. Over the next two years Front Range citizens concerned with the environmental impact to their communities grew. Additionally the number of letters expressing these concerns increased, with some eventually * Laure Lee K. Olson, Power, Public Policy and the Environment: The Debate of the 1976 Winter Olympics in Colorado, thesis, University of Colorado, 1974, pg. 108.reaching Governor Love and Denver Mayor William McNichols. In an April, 1970, meeting with concerned Front Range residents both Governor Love and Mayor McNichols agreed to remove the planned events from Indian Hills and Evergreen. The agreement to remove the Olympic events from Indian Hills and Evergreen was contingent upon the secrecy of all parties involved until the International Olympic Committee had officially approved Denver's bid.” In August 1970, residents from Evergreen and Indian Hills formed a new organization named Protect Our Mountain Environment (POME) with the goal of preventing the Games from taking place in their communities. After unsuccessfully lobbying the DOC to prevent Olympic events from taking place along Front Range, Protect Our Mountain Environment began the process of obtaining support within the state legislature in January of 1971. Protect Our Mountain Environment requested that state funds be withheld from the DOC until the Nordic event sites were moved away from areas surrounding Evergreen. Undaunted by the Front Range opposition, the DOC moved the biathlon and cross country skiing events to Steamboat in May of 1971 because the proposed Front Range sites would most likely not have enough snow to adequately accommodate the Nordic events,”” Throughout the debate Denver newspapers, whose top officials sided with the DOC, presented mainly a pro-Olympics viewpoint to readers. Few examples of anti-Olympic opinions involving environmental concerns found their way into Denver newspapers. Those that did were mainly in the form of letters to the editor. In one such letter, Indian Hills resident C. Holmes Pierson, referenced Irish Statesman Edmond Burke's proclamation that : “it is an act of ® Laure Lee K, Olson, Power, Public Policy and the Environment: The Debate of the 1976 Winter Olympics in Colorado, thesis, University of Colorado, 1974, pg. 129. * Charlie Meyers, "76 Ski Sites Still in Doubt," The Denver Post, 1971.intolerable presumption and imprudence for any single generation to destroy or exploit for its ‘own political concerns or desires, our natural heritage. This takes truly colossal arrogance.”** Pierson used Burke’s words to emphasize his concerns for the environmental impacts the Olympics would pose to Colorado’s landscape. Pierson believed that thousands of Coloradans held similar beliefs to his that the DOC’s intention was to exploit Colorado’s natural resources for their own gain. A Denver Post article by Charles Myers from 1972 points out that citizens from along the Front Range were not the only ones unhappy about potential environmental impacts to their community. Myers states, “At any rate, a leak of the bid in Aspen Wednesday reportedly has already resulted in vehement opposition on the part of a citizenry concerned ‘over rampant land development and growth.””? Aspen residents’ discontent came as a result of ‘the DOC's examination of alternate sites to Mount Sniktau. According to Laura Lee Katz Olson in her PhD. thesis “Power, Public Policy and the Environment: The Defeat of the 1976 Winter Olympics in Colorado” from 1974, Aspen was never seriously considered as an alternative for the Alpine events.”* Colorado citizens were not the only people concerned about the environmental impact; concerns were expressed at the national level. Author Milton Viorst, in an article from the Saturday Review titled “Bumpy Course for the Denver Olympics,” raised concern for the impact of the Olympics on Denver. Viorst argued that “Denver, despite the vision of clean air and unspoiled greenery that its name seems to evoke, has in fact been in environmental trouble for some time.” Viorst pointed out that Denver had the largest number of vehicles registered per ® CHolmes Pierson, "Patriotism, Courtesy and the Olympics," The Denver Past, October 5, 1972, ® Charlie Meyers, "76 Ski Sites Still in Doubt,” The Denver Post, 1971. ™ Laure Lee K. Olson, Power, Public Policy and the Environment: The Debate of the 1976 Winter Olympics in Colorado, thesis, University of Colorado, 1974, pg. 153. 10capita and the most carbon monoxide in its atmosphere of any U.S. city.” Viorst also mentioned that the Environmental Protection Agency had recommended that “the Olympics should be recycled to such previous sites as Squaw Valley, California, or Lake Placid, New York, and asked Congress to consider these sites before approving of federal funding for the 1976 winter games.”** According to a Denver Post article from October 3, 1972, EPA concerns also included “long-term reduction in open space; increased recreation and tourism pressure on mountain areas; long-term problems of solid waste disposal, air quality loss, noise pollution, and the use of water for snowmaking.””* The fact that environmental concerns were expressed at both a local and national level lends credence to the theory that they played an important role in why Colorado citizens were opposed to the Olympic Games. Olympic environmental concerns were near the top of the DOC's list of potential road blocks to their goal of hosting the Winter Olympics in Denver by 1972. A study conducted for ‘the pro-Olympic advertising committee, Coloradans for the ’76 Winter Games, by William R. Hamilton and Associates expressed that “the ‘hardest’ disadvantage(to gaining public support] is the perceived environmental impact” the Olympics would have.”” William R. Hamilton and Associates’ survey found that thirty percent of all voters polled believed the potential environmental impact of the Olympics was the main disadvantage of Colorado hosting the * \uilton Viorst, "Bumpy Course for the Denver Olympics," Saturday Review, October 21, 1972, pg. 14 % milton Viorst, "Bumpy Course for the Denver Olympics," Saturday Review, October 21, 1972, pg. 12. ® The Denver Post, "EPA Olympics Report Shows Concern,” October 3, 1972. william R. Hamilton and Associates, A STUDY OF VOTERS’ OPINIONS TOWARDS COLORADO'S HOSTING THE 1976 WINTER OLYMPICS, report (Denver: September, 1972), pg.li. in William MeNichols Papers, Denver Public Library: Western History and Genealogy (hereafter DPL), Box 103, Folder 2. aGames. * Additionally the study found that forty- eight percent of all voters were “not in favor of the Winter Olympics coming to Colorado because it will probably damage the environment and ecology.””” This data represents the amazing increase of environmental concern surrounding the Winter Olympics that had developed since June of 1968, when twenty-seven residents of Indian Hills signed a letter to express their concerns to the DOC. Financial Concerns about the Olympics While environmental concerns may have played a significant role in influencing voters’ decisions in the November referendum, public concerns about funding for the Olympics were even greater. When the DOC presented their initial bid to the United States Olympic Committee, the DOC claimed that staging the 1976 Winter Olympics in Colorado would only cost 14 million dollars. This figure changed frequently and significantly over the next five years According to Historian James Whiteside: By the time the IOC awarded the 1976 Winter Games to Denver in May 1970, the DOC had spent $759,000 to plan and promote its bid. Of that money, 45 percent came from the State of Colorado, 19 percent came from the City and County of Denver, and 36 percent from self-generated and private sources. From the onset, then, the Olympic project was largely a publicly financed, though not a publicly controlled, project.” This would come to have a huge impact when, between March 1970 and March 1971, the DOC requested even larger amounts of money to support their efforts to plan and execute the 1976 Olympic Games. Responding to concerns about how funding was being allocated, legislators from the city of Denver and the state of Colorado began to question the DOC about the overall * william R. Hamilton and Associates (Washington, 0.C.), A STUDY OF VOTERS’ OPINIONS TOWARDS COLORADO'S HOSTING THE 1976 WINTER OLYMPICS, report (Denver: September, 1972), pg.13. in William McNichols Papers, PL, Box 103, Folder 2. * william R. Hamilton and Associates, A STUDY OF VOTERS’ OPINIONS TOWARDS COLORADO'S HOSTING THE 1976 WINTER OLYMPICS, report (Denver: September, 1972), pg.22. in William McNichols Papers, DPL, Box 103, Folder 2. “lames A. Whiteside, Colorado: A Sports History (Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1999), pg.159. 2cost of the Olympics for their citizens. Members of both the DOC and Colorado Olympic Committee were far from prepared to answer those questions, because no one was quite sure what the Games would actually cost. Nowhere is the great confusion over the actual price of the Olympic Games more evident than periodicals of the time. In a September 7, 1972, letter to the Denver Post editor, Melinda H. Reed argued that “the DOC has reportedly estimated $35 million as the state’s share” of costs for the Olympic Games. According to Reed's calculations “each state citizen would be paying over $15 for the Olympics.”** Only a few days later on September 11 W. R. Goodwin, Chairman of the DOC, responded to Reed's letter contending that out of the “35 million... only a relatively small portion falls exclusively on the Colorado taxpayer.” Goodwin continued his argument stating that the total cost to Colorado taxpayers would be roughly $4.8 million, “which represents in round numbers 50 cents per year per resident of Colorado.” Milton Viorst, in his October 21, 1972, article from the Saturday Review, stated that “At the moment the projected expense of the Colorado Games... has reached almost $100 million.” Over the course of two months the perceived cost of the Olympics varied by $95.2 million. Even after the state Olympic funding was withheld by Colorado voters, the cost of the Olympics to Colorado citizens was a newsworthy issue. A Denver Post article from March 27, 1972, reported that according to Carl N. DeTemple, the previous president of the DOC, planning for the Olympics that never took place “cost the city and state more than $1.5 million in tax funds”. & Melinda H. Reed, "Different Ways of Figuring Cost of Olympics,” The Denver Post, September 7, 1972. © william R. Goodwin, "Clarification of Figures for DOOC Budget," The Denver Post, September 11, 1972. ™ The Denver Post, "76 Olympics Cost $1.5 Million,” March 27, 1973. 1BFinancial concerns for the 76 Olympic Games not only included how much it would cost but a number of Colorado citizens were also concerned with whether or not city and state ‘Olympic funding could be put to better use in other areas. In a New York Times special, political activist Sam Brown was quoted describing the Olympics as “a winter sport for the rich paid for by the poor.” Brown like many others believed that not only would the poor be paying for the Games but the social needs of Colorado citizens would suffer from misspent funding. A letter to the Denver post editor by Boulder resident Emerson W. Shideler reference Brown in a similar quote “The cost of the speed-skating facilities is seven times the budget for handicapped children; and the ski jump will cost 75 times the amount spent on the control of venereal disease last year.”* Arie Taylor, candidate for the Colorado House of Representatives, “suggested that if the city can afford to spend money on the Olympics it can also afford to spend money on police protection and on housing and could lower the ‘heavy’ property taxes” in a Denver post article form August of 1970.** With so much money being allocated to a sporting event that would last only about ten days Colorado citizens struggled with the ethical issues of Olympic funding. The results of a March 1972, Rocky Mountain News questionnaire shows that seventy- seven percent of over four thousand Colorado residents polled were opposed to “the spending of local tax funds for the planning and site construction” required for Denver to host the Olympic Games.*” William R. Hamilton and Associates’ survey conducted later that year found that, thirty-three percent of all voters felt that the greatest disadvantage of Colorado holding * anthony Ripley, "Colorado Is Cool to Winter Games," The New York Times. in William McNichols Papers, OPL, Box 103, Folder 2 ® Emerson W. Shideler, “Other Views on Olympics," The Denver Post, October 25, 1972. ® Norman Udevitz, “Olympic Vote Drive Starts,” The Denver Post, August 18, 1972. * Rocky Mountain News (Denver), "Results of Rocky Mountain News Olympic Questionnaire," March 13, 1972. 4the Olympic Games would be an increase in taxes and expenses that Colorado residents would incur as a result of hosting the Games.”* Tax-related concerns were so great that William R. Hamilton and Associates’ report specifically stated that Coloradans for the '76 Winter Games should stress the Olympics as low cost, “not necessarily in terms of dollars, but more in terms of ‘no additional taxes.” This statement made it appear that William R. Hamilton and Associates believed the fear of having to pay increased taxes for the Olympics was a greater issue than how the state would allocate current funds in order to support the Olympic Games. Additionally, the fact that three percent more people believed that the economic impact was a greater disadvantage then the environmental impact shows that the economic concerns may have played a larger role than the environmental concerns that historians Gressely and Chappelet have both argued was at the center of Colorado voters’ decision to withdraw Olympic funding. Concerns surrounding how the DOC conducted themselves Historian James Whiteside argues that the way the DOC conducted their planning of the ‘Olympic Games led to distrust from Colorado citizens and ultimately precipitated the downfall of the organizing committee's plans. There are a number of examples from articles at the time that support Whiteside’s argument. In a letter to the editor of the Denver Post titled “Another View of the Olympics,” former Denver Post sports editor-columnist Harry Farrar describes how “naiveté is a cute virtue for girls under the age of 12” but not as a quality in adult businessmen. Farrar concerned about the DOC’s understanding about all of the elements involved in staging, * william R. Hamilton and Associates, A STUDY OF VOTERS’ OPINIONS TOWARDS COLORADO'S HOSTING THE 1976 WINTER OLYMPICS, report (Denver: September, 1972), pg.13. in Wiliam McNichols Papers, DPL, Box 103, Folder 2. ** william R. Hamilton and Associates, A STUDY OF VOTERS’ OPINIONS TOWARDS COLORADO'S HOSTING THE 1976 WINTER OLYMPICS, report (Denver: September, 1972), pg. in William McNichols Papers, DPL, Box 103, Folder 2. 15Olympic Games, proceeds to state “the naiveté so evident in the folks who are planning or supporting the 1976 Winter Olympic Games in Colorado is beyond my ken.” Farrar, who had covered the 1960 Winter Olympic Games in Squaw Valley, California, as a sports columnist, went on to attack not only the DOC but the editorialists who defended DOC plans for holding the Olympics, based upon his previous experiences at the 1960 Games.” Ina Denver Post letter to the editor, Indian Hills resident C. Holmes Pierson attacked the DOC stating that “[o]ne can only deplore the fact that the individuals whose lands were pictured in the DOC’s bid books at Amsterdam in 1970 and the communities ‘offered’ had not been consulted and have been disregarded and treaded as irrational and stupid in their resentment.””" Pierson’s mention of the DOC’s bid book was one of many made concerning the felt the DOC’s deceptive bid to the International Olympic Committee. A number of DOC's cri book was full of lies. The fact that the photograph of Mount Sniktau from the book had snow airbrushed onto it making it appear more appealing to the International Olympic Committee was frequently mentioned by critics. “* To many opponents of the Olympic Games being held in Colorado this photograph represented a prime example of the DOC’s deceptive actions. The William R, Hamilton and Associates’ report recommended that “because more Voters have an unfavorable opinion of the DOC than have a favorable opinion... the DOC should not continue to be a public promotional arm of the Olympics.”*? This recommendation came as the result of the study's finding that thirty-seven percent of those polled held an unfavorable ‘option of the DOC compared to thirty-five percent who viewed the DOC favorably; twenty “© Harry Farrar, “Another View of the Olympics," The Denver Post, March 12, 1972. © CiHolmes Pierson, "Patriotism, Courtesy and the Olympics,” The Denver Post, October 5, 1972.. James A. Whiteside, Colorado: A Sports History (Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1999), pg. 158 william R. Hamilton and Associates, A STUDY OF VOTERS’ OPINIONS TOWARDS COLORADO'S HOSTING THE 1976 WINTER OLYMPICS, report (Denver: September, 1972), pg. in William McNichols Papers, DPL, Box 103, Folder 2. 16percent had no opinion of the DOC and eight percent did not recognize the DOC’s name. Distrust of the DOC’s was evident during the early 1970s but does not appear to play as large of a role as the environmental and financial concerns of the time. Prior to 1972 environmental concerns, financial concerns, and DOC’s distrust were individual concerns. Environmental concerns were expressed by groups like Protect Our Mountain Environment while other groups and individual groups focused on the financial issues the Olympics represented. There was no coherent opposition against the Olympics, only small pockets concerned with very focused problems. The DOC while annoyed by these pockets of resistance was not concerned about their potential effect on the Games. In early 1972 everything changed with the creation of Citizens for Colorado's Future. The end results of Olympic concerns in 1972 The ultimate downfall of the DOC’s plans to host the 1976 Olympic Winter Games came as a result of environmental and financial issues along with concerns about the ability of the DOC to plan and conduct the Olympic Games. These concerns were brought to the forefront by the anti-Olympic group, Citizens for Colorado's Future. According to Laura Olson, the CCF was created out of a mecting that included State Representative and future Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, Estelle Brown, a Colorado environmentalist, and representatives from Protect Our Mountain Environment. The meeting was organized by Brown and Lamm to discuss the concerns about the Olympics environmental impact. Recent articles by Rocky Mountain News reporter Richard O’Rilly that attacked DOC activities, along with a University of Colorado environmental based land-use study, were the basis for the meeting’s discussions. vBelieving that it was important to properly inform citizens about potential concerns, members from the group present at the meeting, raised enough money to “place an ‘Olympics Fact Sheet’ in the Denver Post.”“* Significant public response to the “fact sheet” led the group to explore public opposition further, by circulating petitions throughout the state. Within three weeks the group had collected over 25,000 signatures from opponents to the Olympics. The loose knit group came together naming themselves Citizens for Colorado's Future on January 4, 1972." CCF in an effort to make the International Olympic Committee aware of Colorado citizens’ opposition to the Winter Games approached the International Olympic Committee directly. Within weeks of their incorporation, three members from CCF traveled to Sapporo, Japan, to present their case to International Olympic Committee. Without prior approval to attend the International Olympic Committee’s meeting, the CCF representatives elucidated their case anyway, presenting their petitions, fact sheet, and a thirty-two-page booklet filled with letters from individuals and groups opposed to the Olympics.”“® CCF hoped to not only show the International Olympic Committee how the DOC had misrepresented its Olympic bid to the International Olympic Committee but gain publicity for their cause. CCF representatives were escorted out of the meeting by police officers for interrupting the closed meeting. After the International Olympic Committee had a chance to examine the documents presented, CCF representatives were given a chance to formally present their arguments. As a result of these “Laure Lee K. Olson, Power, Public Policy and the Environment: The Debate of the 1976 Winter Olympics in Colorado, thesis, University of Colorado, 1974, pg. 174-175. James A. Whiteside, Colorado: A Sports History (Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1999), pg. 169, ““James A. Whiteside, Colorado: A Sports History (Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1999), pg. 169, 18actions, the International Olympic Committee withdrew Denver's invitation to host the 1976 Winter Olympic Games. The DOC, in an attempt to regain the Olympics initiated a second Olympic campaign calling in favors from politicians all over the nation. The lobbying effort that ensued includes requests from city, state, and national politicians requesting that the International Olympic Committee reinstate their original decision for Denver to hold the Games. President Richard M. Nixon even made a personal plea to have International Olympic Committee reverse their decision. The next day Denver was once again named the host city of the 1976 Winter Olympics, after the International Olympic Committee reversed its decision in light of the intense ‘campaign initiated by the DOC.” Not deterred in the slightest, the CCF decided to attack the Games on a new front. If the CCF could not convince the International Olympic Committee to move the Winter Olympics out of Denver then they would rally citizens to remove state funding for the Games. In March of 1972, the CCF began collecting petitions to place future Olympic funding in the hands of Colorado voters. If CCF could collect enough signatures they could place a referendum on the November 1972 State Ballot withdrawing state funding for the Olympics. During the month of May a number of CCF members visited thirty-one cities in Colorado to collect signatures for their petitions on a five-day bicycle tour. According to Laura Olson, “[bly the end of the month more than 185 towns had petitions circulating in them and 26,442 signatures had been obtained.” On July 6, 1972 the CCF presented 77,392 signatures, over 27,000 more than the 50,000 thousand required, to the Colorado Secretary of State, guaranteeing that the future of *" Laure Lee K. Olson, Power, Public Policy and the Environment: The Debate of the 1976 Winter Olympics in Colorado, thesis, University of Colorado, 1974, pg. 177, 19State Olympic funding would remain in the hands of Colorado voters. Additionally the CCF collected almost 10,000 signatures from Denver voters to place a similar initiative on Denver's November ballot fearing that if their state referendum was successful Denver would have to fund both the city and state portions of the Games.”* Another significant impact for the future of the Olympics in Colorado came on August 9, 1972. That day State Representative Richard Lamm testified in front of the Senate Interior Committee on behalf of the CCF and thirty-one environmental organizations, presenting the ‘opinion that the Olympics should not be held in Colorado.“* Supporters of the Olympics testifying on behalf of the DOC included State Representatives, ski industry representatives, Denver Mayor McNichols, and Governor Love. Senator Alan Bible of Nevada, the chair of the Senate Interior Committee, feared that if Colorado voters withdrew state Olympic funding in November that the federal government would be forced to pay the bill. Senator Bible as a result tied federal funding to the outcome of November referenda. This meant that for the Olympics to gain the much needed federal funding, that Colorado voters must first express their desire to hold the Olympics by providing state funding for the Games.” The CCF’s efforts concluded in the dissolution of both the DOC and the CCF when the results of the city and state elections were determined. Colorado citizens in both elections voted to prevent further funding for the Olympic Games in Denver by a 3-2 margin. W. R. Goodwin, Chairman of the DOC responded to the election results with, “I think they're trying to * Laure Lee K. Olson, Power, Public Policy and the Environment: The Debate of the 1976 Winter Olympics in Colorado, thesis, University of Colorado, 1974, pg. 188-189, * Laure Lee K. Olson, Power, Public Policy and the Environment: The Debate of the 1976 Winter Olympics in Colorado, thesis, University of Colorado, 1974, pg. 192, * Robert A. Burns, "Hosting Games Depends on Election, Love Says,” Rocky Mountain News (Denver), August 12, 1972. 20tell us something and we should listen” ending the DOC’s fight for the Olympic Games." Federal Funding for the Games that was contingent upon Colorado funding a portion of the Games was never provided as a result. The International Olympic Committee was forced to move the 1976 Winter Olympics to Innsbruck, Austria in an attempt to salvage the Games The success of the CCF rested in the fact that, unlike many of the other individuals and groups opposed to specific elements of the Olympic Games, the CCF worked in such a way that all of the individual concerns could be expressed. The CCF additionally created a means to express their views that could not just be brushed off by DOC officials by allowing voters to decide whether or not Colorado should host the Olympics. A Denver Post Article from October 11, 1972 described how in just over a year the CCF was able to “catalyze dozens of isolated anti- Olympics opposition groups, individual legislators and assorted politicians-all of whom had been fuming against the Olympics independently and ineffectively-into a powerful coalition known as the Citizens for Colorado’s Future (CCF).”? Udevitz quoted Margaret (Meg) Lundstrom , one of two paid CCF employees, who said, "[w]e’ve developed the type of coalition politicians dream of...there are conservatives, liberals, homeowners, union members, the Grange, the Sierra Club, members of minority groups, young, the old and middle-aged.”*? This unique coalition allowed for the success of the CCF in a battle over the Olympics where their ‘opponents consisted mainly of wealthy businessmen. Since the winter of 1972, citizens, politicians, and scholars have debated which factor played the largest role leading Colorado voters to withdraw funding from the 1976 Winter * Charles Meyers, "DOOC Dissolves, But Can't Say So," Denver Post, November 10, 1972. Norman Udevitz, "Small but Artful Activist Group Wielding Rare Power," The Denver Post, October 11, 1972. Norman Udevitz, "Small but Artful Activist Group Wielding Rare Power," The Denver Post, October 11, 1972. aOlympics. One concern alone is not responsible for influencing the decisions of Colorado voters. Instead the combination of a variety of concerns including economic, financial, and distrust for the organizers influenced voters’ decision to check “yes” on November 7, 1972. More importantly though is the efforts of the volunteers from Citizens for Colorado's Future. Without their efforts the aforementioned concerns would have never have found an outlet. Colorado would have held the 1976 Winter Olympic Games, instead of becoming the first and only venue to ever turn down the Olympic Games after they had been awarded. 2