This comes on the heels of a resolution that was passed by the City Council in January, 2003, opposing the forthcoming invasion of Iraq.
Also last week, the Nederland Board of Trustees failed to pass a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush.
Do local governments have any business weighing in on national and international issues like these? Or should they focus on local issues, like keeping the prairie dogs safe?
I believe that this type of thing is legitimate if and only if the big issue can be made into a local issue (or, of course, if the electorate votes for it.) For example, in the arguments for impeachment, it was pointed out that President Bush is trying to sell National Forest land, land that is part of the Nederland natural and cultural heritage and legacy, in order to pay for his budgetary mismanagement and war. That is bringing it home, and I think makes it legitimate local legislative fodder.
What about the Boulder issue? I've read the proposed resolution. Lots of great points. But, consider that:
- The Boulder City Council has no expertise in this area.
- The MoveOn resolution is just one plan out of many possible plans, even if you agree that something needs to be done. Why should the Council adopt this plan? Just because it was presented first or most loudly?
- The resolution does not make the case that this is a local issue.
- Who is going to take Boulder seriously, anyway? I mean, many folks will be surprised that we didn't pass this, and disappointed that they won't have another reason to belittle our city.