Adam berg dissertation denver 76 final

The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Health and Human Development DENVER ’76: THE WINTER OLYMPICS AND THE POLITICS OF GROWTH IN COLORADO DURING THE LATE 1960s AND EARLY 1970s A Dissertation in Kinesiology by Adam Berg © 2016 Adam Berg Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2016 The dissertation of Adam Berg was reviewed and approved* by the following: Mark Dyreson Professor of Kinesiology Dissertation Adviser Co-Chair of Committee R. Scott Kretchmar Professor of Exercise and Sport Science Co-Chair of Committtee Jaime Schultz Associate Professor of Kinesiology Peter Hopsicker Associate Professor of Kinesiology Lori D. Ginzberg Professor of History and Women’s Studies Stephen Piazza Professor of Kinesiology Graduate Program Director *Signature are on file in the Graduate School ii ABSTRACT On May 12, 1970, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded Denver, Colorado, the 1976 winter Olympic games. About two and half years later, on November 7, 1972, Colorado citizens voted by a three to two margin to make it a violation of Colorado’s constitution for state funds to be allocated toward the event.

Colorado politicians and business leaders had spent years planning, campaigning, and traveling the globe to earn the right to host the winter sports festival. Nevertheless, with funding suddenly inaccessible, Denver’s Olympic planners were forced to rescind their invitation to “the youth of the world,” as Olympic hosts traditionally declared every four years. This dissertation delves into the political controversies surrounding the 1976 Denver winter Olympic games. Colorado’s decision to banish the Olympics was the product of a change in how Coloradans viewed economic growth, combined with broadened understandings of the political power of citizenship.

A pro-growth and pro-development mindset present in early 1960s motivated Denver’s political and business leaders to initiate their bid and facilitated their overriding confidence in the notion that they had the support of a large majority of Colorado’s populace. By the beginning of the 1970s, however, the idea that growth and development were unequivocal social goods had been quieted by a diverse set of issues connected to expectations regarding individual rights. Namely, within Colorado, anxiety over the infringement of open spaces near people’s homes, objections to undue spending of taxpayer dollars, and anger that citizens had been shut out of decision-making procedures inspired various people to challenge the wisdom and morality of hosting the Olympics. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Selected Acronyms…….vi Introduction: Colorado, Growth, and Sport as Political History………………………….1 Chapter 1: The Historical Context of Pro-Growth and Pro-Olympic Policies in Colorado………………………………………………………………………………….14 Chapter 2: Selling Colorado to the United States ……………………………………….47 Chapter 3: Selling Denver to the International Olympic Committee ……………….78 Chapter 4: The Beginning of Jefferson County’s Environmentalist Revolt ……….…118 Chapter 5: The Aesthetic Rights of Middle-class Citizenship …………………………142 Chapter 6: Denverites and Politicians Take Aim at the Olympics ….

Bringing Direct Democracy to Middle-America ………………………….209 Chapter 8: The DOC’s Turn to Olympism ……………………………………….247 Chapter 9: Colorado’s Defeat of the Denver Olympics ……………….291 Epilogue: The Olympic Spirit of ’76 after November 1972.…323 iv Selected Acronyms ARO Auraria Residents Organization CIEO Citizens Interested in an Equitable Olympics CCF Citizens for Colorado’s Future COC Colorado Olympic Commission DOC Denver Organizing Committee DURA Denver Urban Renewal Authority DRI Denver Research Institute HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development IOC International Olympic Committee FIS International Ski Federation JBC Joint Budget Committee MAPC Mountain Area Protection Council POME Protect Our Mountain Environment SCUSA Colorado Ski Country USA SCOOC Southern California Olympic Organizing Committee TRO Tenants’ Rights Organization USOC United State Olympic Committee v Acknowledgements This dissertation benefited from the support and expertise of many people. First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Mark Dyreson, my advisor and committee chair. Over the past six years, he devoted countless hours to helping me grow as a professional scholar and historian.

I would also like to recognize and thank committee member Dr. Scott Kretchmar, who also devoted significant time and effort over the past six years to assist me in my scholarly endeavors. Furthermore, I have no doubt the quality of this dissertation has been elevated by the advice and feedback I’ve received during my studies at Penn State from Dr. Jaime Schultz, Dr.

Peter Hopsicker, and Dr. I am very happy that they agreed to serve as committee members. This dissertation was made possible by the work of dozens of librarians and archivists at the Denver Public Library, the Stephen H. Hart Library at the History Colorado Center, the Colorado State Archives and Records, the Jefferson County Archives, and the International Olympic Committee’s Olympic Studies Center.

I am thankful to all of them. In particular, the Olympic Studies Center provided a research grant that enabled me to travel to archives in Denver, Colorado, and Lausanne, Switzerland. The sources discovered on these trips have proven to be invaluable. I could never thank my parents, Aaron and Patrice Berg, appropriately.

They have always been a source of love and support. I am sure that this dissertation would not have been written without their endless encouragement. Finally, the love of Jackie Maher has and continues to lift my spirits every day. In both tangible and intangible ways, she quite literally enabled me to stay motivated and focused on the Denver winter Olympic games.

vi Introduction Colorado, Growth, and Sport in Political History In February 1973, John Jerome, a writer for Skiing magazine, turned his attention to politics. “When the votes were all counted,” Jerome recalled, “the inevitable had happened. Nixon had been reelected President and – by about the same margin – the good people of Colorado had rejected the 1976 Denver Winter Olympics.” On May 12, 1970, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded Denver, Colorado, the right to host the 1976 winter Olympic games. However, about two and a half years later, as Jerome observed, Colorado citizens voted by a three to two margin to undermine the IOC’s decision.

Indeed, on November 7, 1972, Coloradans created an amendment which made it a violation of Colorado’s constitution for state funds to be allocated toward the event.1 By the time of the vote, anti-Olympic advocates within Colorado had already influenced Washington D. The United States Senate pledged $15.5 million for new Olympic facilities, but decided to make the commitment dependent on additional state support.2 Thus, after November 7, 1972, when Colorado voters passed “Amendment Number Eight,” both state and federal funds became inaccessible. As a result, Colorado’s Olympic organizers were forced to rescind their invitation to “the 1 John Jerome, “Goodbye, Denver Olympics: The Initial Bid Was a Fraud but No One Believed that Colorado Wouldn’t Go Along,” Skiing (February 1973): 68-70, 92-93, quotation from 68; “Denver Triumph a 7-Year Effort,” New York Times, 13 May 1970, p. 2 Congressional Record – Senate, S 15021, 15 September 1972, Box 1 Folder 21, Denver Olympic Committee for the 1976 Winter Olympics Records, Denver Public Library, Denver, Colorado (hereafter DOC DPL).

1 youth of the world,” as Olympic hosts traditionally declared every four years. Coloradans in effect dismantled Denver’s Olympic cauldron before it could even be built Alongside Tokyo, Japan, which rescinded the 1940 games (after Japan invaded China during World War II), Denver became (and remains) the only other city to obtain and then relinquish the Olympics and the only one to do so through a popular vote.3 By November 1972, according to Rocky Mountain News investigative reporter Richard O’Reilly, many Colorado observers viewed the question of whether or not to host the winter games as a decision “more important to the state’s future than the election of any of the state’s political candidates.”4 As Olympic proponent and President of Denver’s Chamber of Commerce Rex Jennings declared a week before the ballot: “Great cities and great states face perhaps a half a dozen crucial decisions in their entire history. These decisions are recorded in history and dramatically affect our destiny. I believe we face such a decision in defeating Amendment No.

8 at the polls next Tuesday.”5 Denver Olympics opponent and Democratic state representative Richard Lamm agreed on Amendment Number Eight’s importance, though he anticipated a different result than Jennings. As Lamm proclaimed, passing the amendment would represent a “quiet revolution” that would turn the world of traditional politics “upside down” and reveal “new realities” for Coloradans.6 Though journalist John Jerome took a more moderate 3 "Colorado: No Olympics," Chicago Tribune, 8 November 1972, p. 4 Richard O’Reilly, “Growth, Funds Key Issues in Olympics Controversy,” Rocky Mountain News, 1 November 1972, p. 5 “The Olympics Story,” Transcript from Luncheon, 31 October 1972, Box 86 Folder 27, Denver Chamber of Commerce, Denver Public Library, Denver, Colorado (hereafter DCC DPL) 6 Richard Lamm, “Citizens Can Move Their Government,” Colorado Destiny, 2 September 1972, 1, Folder 4, Citizens For Colorado’s Future, Denver Public Library, Denver, Colorado (hereafter CCF DPL).

2 view, he also saw significant weight in the result of the Denver Olympics referendum. The “Denver mess,” he claimed, was “a single city microcosm of the current national political turmoil.”7 This dissertation delves into the events and controversies surrounding the 1976 Denver winter Olympic games. How and why did Coloradans win and then discard the Olympics? Why did Colorado boosters set out to host the games in the first place? How were they able to do so successfully? Why did a majority of Colorado voters then become united against Denver’s Olympic plans? Furthermore, what can this event teach about the history of Colorado during the late 1960s and early 1970s? What, additionally, might it reveal about the place of sport within American society during that era? The Politics of Growth Colorado’s decision to banish the Olympics was the product of a change in how Coloradans viewed economic growth, combined with broadened understandings of the political power of citizenship. A pro-growth and pro-development mindset present in early 1960s motivated the state’s political and business leaders to initiate an all-out bid for the winter games.

Importantly, the predominance of this pro-growth outlook facilitated the bidders’ confidence that they had the support or at least the implied consent of a large majority of Colorado’s populace. By the beginning of the 1970s, however, a diverse set of issues connected to expectations for individual rights challenged the notion that growth and development were unequivocal social goods. Namely, within Colorado, anxieties over the infringement of open spaces near people’s homes, objections to undue 7 Jerome, “Goodbye, Denver Olympics,” 68. 3 spending of taxpayer dollars, and anger that citizens had been shut out of decision making procedures inspired Colorado constituents to challenge the wisdom and morality of hosting the Olympics.

The people who bid for the games wanted to use the Olympics to spur Colorado’s economy and promote fast development. Ironically, by bringing the games to the Centennial State, Colorado’s Olympic planners created a venue where an overt clash over the meaning and merits of economic expansion could take place. The controversy over the Denver Olympics represented a political issue in and of itself, but it also became a larger forum through which citizens gathered to debate how they should structure and organize their community. In supporting or objecting to the Denver Olympics, Colorado’s citizens contested more than a single sporting event.

At least since the 1970s, scholars and cultural critics of sport have argued that sport, and “physical culture” more broadly, carries the potential to become a vehicle for communicating and normalizing socially constructed knowledge.8 Such knowledge functions to create a sense of order, coherence, and meaning within social groups. As the anthropologist Clifford Geertz claims, messages conveyed though sport often provide a commentary “upon the whole matter of assorting human beings into fixed hierarchal 8 Within historical literature “sport” is usually defined (implicitly and explicitly) as a structured activity with human invented rules and goals in which the rules stipulate physical skills permitted to reach the goals.