You Don't Have to Go Home (But You Can't Stay Here)

Boulder City Manager Jane Brautigam has proposed a new rule closing all city parks and open space properties between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. It wouldn't apply to pedestrians or cyclists passing through without stopping, but any hint of delay would open the lollygaggers to citation.

Communications Manager Patrick von Keyserling says this rule is not a response to the Occupy protesters, but rather is meant to protect their safety and health (a rather Orwellian description).

It is also meant to address illegal nighttime activity in dimly lit, sparsely populated areas. It's easier to stop all parks and open space usage at night than to just enforce existing laws.

However, my biggest issue with the proposal isn't its questionable justification. It's the legitimacy of the process being followed.


[more]

Caution -- Slow Bikes

City staff has proposed several changes to transportation code, some of which affect how crosswalks are regulated. The changes were presented to council on Nov. 15 and the first reading was approved, which means that the changes will be discussed in more detail this Tuesday.

If the changes are approved as presented, drivers will have to stop at a crosswalk if another driver has already stopped to let a pedestrian cross. This is common sense and brings the city's regulations into line with state law.

The changes affecting pedestrians and cyclists are more impactful.

Pedestrians using a crosswalk with an alert system, like the flashing yellow lights found around town, are only allowed to do so after the lights have been activated. Some pedestrians avoid triggering the flashing lights if there is plenty of time to cross and they don't want to inconvenience drivers.

However, I believe this is a reasonable requirement. Making the use of the lights more consistent will help with drivers' expectations. And if there is an accident in which the pedestrian didn't activate the signal, it will help assign responsibility.

The remaining crosswalk changes restrict the speed of bikes in crosswalks.


[more]

Boulder Election 2011

Given recent local election coverage, you'd think the only things we're voting on were municipalization and corporate rights. However, Boulder has no fewer than eight ballot issues this year.

Issue 2A allows the city to sell $49,000,000 in bonds for critical infrastructure needs, including maintaining streets, bridges, buildings, and recreation facilities; upgrading software, the main library, and police and fire equipment; and improving transportation connections and streetscapes. It's hard to argue with those priorities. The bonds will be paid back using existing revenue streams. Plus, the work will generate local jobs, helping the local economy.

Issue 2B allows the city to extend and increase the utility occupation tax levied on Xcel's customers to further investigate the feasibility of a municipal power utility. Question 2C authorizes the city council to create a power utility, if it proves it can do so in a cost-effective manner, with rates and reliability comparable to Xcel's and a plan for more renewable energy.

David Miller, in his guest commentary a week ago, rightly pointed out that there are many unanswered questions related to this proposal. We don't know how much it will cost, nor how much additional renewable energy will be feasible. However, we can't know these answers without approving both measures. So, the real question is whether we want to know, or whether we will continue to trust Xcel to work in Boulder's best interest.


[more]

Take our Time with Energy Decision

Two weeks ago I wrote about Xcel's proposal to provide Boulder with lots of wind energy. I said that Xcel would be able to count that wind energy towards its legislated mandate to provide 30 percent of its Colorado electricity as renewable or recycled energy.

I received a couple of emails from folks who told me I was wrong. Xcel would sell the renewable energy credits associated with the new wind energy to Boulder, and Boulder would get the RECs.

However, the Colorado statute that mandates utilities to provide a minimum percentage via renewable and recycled energy doesn't mention RECs. It just says that the utility has to generate or cause to be generated the energy.

The Public Utility Commission rules that implemented that law say that a utility will use RECs to meet the mandate, but they don`t seem to say that RECs are the only way to meet the mandate.

Confused? According to Xcel, the interpretation of this requirement doesn't matter. They say that they`ve already gotten enough renewable energy lined up to meet the mandate without Boulder, and to meet it early. Whether or not they are allowed to count the Boulder wind toward the 30 percent, they are not planning on doing so.

They don't need us.


[more]

Zero net carbons

Xcel Energy has finally outlined a proposal to City Council for a new franchise agreement that looks like it meets the goals for Boulder's energy future. I'm not convinced.

It's actually quite slick, a virtual game of three-card Monte. Who uses the renewable energy? Who pays for it? Who gets credit for it?

Xcel already provides renewable energy. They have to by law. Under their Boulder proposal, they won't have to provide a single kilowatt-hour more. Xcel claims that this wind power generation capacity will be built specifically for Boulder, but that is disingenuous. It will still count against Xcel's statewide renewable energy mandate.

They think they've found a mark for their con game. Boulder citizens want more renewable energy, and Xcel management is betting we'll willingly spend more to get it. They've also used the classic con strategy of telling us the deal is off the table if we don`t agree by November.

With Xcel's offer we'd be getting the same renewable energy that Xcel already has to generate, but we'll be on the hook to pay for it while everyone else in Colorado will get a price break.


[more]

How High in Boulder?

When I first saw Boulder Ballot Question 2C, I thought it was arrogant. I assumed builders were asking to be able to build up to the maximum height, and then add on extra for their solar panels. Why couldn't they just plan for the solar panels in their overall plans and build a bit shorter to allow for them?

But my assumptions were wrong. Question 2C is about the ability to add solar panels on top of existing buildings, buildings which were built before the concept of solar gardens was conceived.

Solar gardens, recently approved in Colorado, are a new way to provide solar energy to the masses. Build larger arrays, large enough for several families, on larger rooftops and other locations. Then, the people who couldn't use solar energy otherwise can take advantage of its benefits. People like renters, or people with shady lots.

Boulder Question 2C is a simple proposal and makes sense. Vote yes.

Local Taxing Issues

For those of us living in Boulder, five of six local ballot issues this year include tax increases. Given the current financial conditions, we need to look closely at the short-term and long-term benefits of each before casting our ballots.

County Issue 1A's property tax increase was drafted in response to a confluence of three factors. State legislation required the county to spend down its human services rainy day fund; state funding for human services needs has been cut significantly; and, due to the recession, the rainy day has arrived.

Not only is it wise and humane to help people in our community who are feeling the worst pain of the economic downturn, the county is also required to do so by state law. This measure is responsibly crafted: It has a five year sunset, makes good use of public/private partnerships, and directs the commissioners to reduce the new tax as state funding is restored and conditions improve.

County Issue 1B is a new 0.15 percent sales and use tax for open space acquisition. Most people are not fans of higher sales tax, but most in the county like our open space.


[more]

Arizona, Take Off Your Rainbow Shades

A month ago, Arizona passed a law requiring all police officers in that state to determine the immigration status of anyone they came into contact with if they had "reasonable suspicion" that their presence in the U.S. was not legitimate.

Of course, we liberals and civil liberty huggers were up in arms. That law was clearly a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches, an obvious attempt to add security at the expense of the constitution and our personal freedoms.

I'm not talking about the personal freedoms of illegal immigrants. I'm not even talking about legal immigrants, who are already required by law to carry their papers at all times (as the law's proponents are so quick to remind us). I'm referring to the personal freedoms of legal citizens.

[more]

Flashing Makes You Cross

Last summer, many Boulder residents were upset about pedestrian-activated flashing signs. A driver ran into a family of three cycling through a PAFS crosswalk, sending a 7-year-old boy to the hospital. Shortly thereafter, Boulder transportation operations engineer Bill Cowern told the media that the rate of accidents at several of these crosswalks had increased.

Although Cowern also stated that accidents had decreased or stayed the same at some crosswalks, and that the increase couldn't be interpreted without the completion of a study underway at the time, many called for the removal of these devices.

That study was completed and presented to the Transportation Advisory Board late last year and to City Council earlier this month.

The good news from the study is that PAFS crossings are no more dangerous than other signalized crossings in the city. This, when combined with the finding that they significantly increase both usage by pedestrians and yielding to pedestrians by drivers, shows that they are a valuable addition to the city's arsenal.

[more]

Free Speech Means Just That

A couple of recent incidents in Boulder illustrate just how fragile free speech guarantees are.

Seth Brigham, local activist, was first interrupted and then arrested when it appeared he was about to criticize a couple of council members during the public participation portion of a city council meeting. Fortunately, the charges were dropped, and council apologized. But there are still some on council who think the actions against Seth were legitimate. Council needs to immediately change the rules so that complaining about a particular council member during public participation is not against public policy.

Second, the local Catholic school told the lesbian parents of two students that they would not be allowed to re-enroll the children because of their homosexual relationship. Many in the community have taken the church to task for this decision.

Some have accused the complainers of being "intolerant". (Never mind that these people are themselves being intolerant of the complainers.) Since when has the right to free speech been limited to things that don't hurt someone's feelings?

You can fight city hall

As one of its final acts before seating its new members, Boulder City Council approved an agreement years in the making.

The city's new agreement with Silver Lake Ditch and Reservoir Company only directly impacts a few hundred folks. However, it closes an embarrassing chapter in the city's history that could have destroyed the ditch company.

[more]

Burning Carbon to Save Carbon

The City of Boulder has been invited to make a presentation at the Copenhagen global warming summit. Pretty cool, huh?

It seems that some of the innovative things we've done have gotten noticed, things like open space, bike trails, and our climate action plan. Other municipalities want to learn from what we are doing.

Some naysayers here are saying that we should not be putting the CO2 into the air from flying two of our staffers to Denmark and back. They are also complaining about the $2,500 the city is spending on this.

(That's actually quite cheap, as the staffers are flying coach, bringing sleeping bags so they can sleep in private homes, and bringing bikes so they don't have rent cars.)

The money is coming out of the climate action plan budget, so if it furthers the goals of that plan the cost is not an issue. No other programs are affected.

If even one other city takes what we've done and implements it because of what we present, then the carbon savings from that one community will more than offset what's being burned for two airline tickets.

This was also unanimously approved by city council, from the most liberal to the most conservative. So obviously once you look at the tradeoffs it becomes worth it.

I hope this proves fruitful, and maybe even they'll bring back some good ideas from elsewhere.

Ideas that will, no doubt, inflame that same group of naysayers.

How Did I Do? -- Election 2009

First of all, I'm glad to say that all of my choices on the City of Boulder issues were agreed to by the voters. Four out of four, not bad.

I didn't do so great on the county issues. Issue 1A, the extension of the Open Space tax, failed by about 4 percentage points. It looks to me that this was partly because of the economy, partly because the County Commissioners did not do a good job of explaining why it needed to be renewed 10 years in advance of when the tax expires, and partly out of backlash against current open space policy.

However, if you look at that backlash, it seemed to come from both sides -- for example, one person commented that he voted against the tax because he wasn't allowed to mountain bike on county open space, while another said he voted against it because of too many bikes on open space. This sounds like a can't win situation. That's especially true since most of the folks who complained about the open space department seemed to be confusing the city's open space rules with the county's -- the contentious mountain bike rules actually are on city property. So, bottom line, lack of a good sales pitch by the county, coupled with ignorant voters who had to lash out against something.

The real puzzler was County Issue 1B, the extension of the ClimateSmart loan program, which lost by two percentage points. This program is already in place and has been enormously successful. It helps locals fund improvements that cut CO2 emissions. It adds to local jobs. And the best thing is that it doesn't cost anybody a nickle except the people who take out the loans.

It looks like 1B was caught in the backfire against 1A, as there was no organized opposition. Again, opponents seemed to not understand it, thinking it was a tax increase, and the county did not do much PR in advance of the election.

Both of these issues will undoubtedly be on the 2010 ballot, and the county will undoubtedly do a much batter sales job then.

Still undecided is Question 1D, the extension of term limits for DA from two to three terms. Latest results show that ahead by just 41 votes, too close to call with the last of the ballots still to be counted.

And that leaves me with the city council race. My endorsed candidate, Barry Siff, came in sixth in a race in which the top five get seats. He missed it by just 672 votes (not all votes have been counted, but there are not enough ballots outstanding to change the results).

Why did Barry lose? (Ok, best of the rest.)

As I see it, the biggest issue was the media and others who lumped the candidates together into so called "power blocks". There was the pro-environment slate, those endorsed by the Sierra Club and PLAN Boulder County, and there was the so-called pro-business slate. With his credentials, Barry could have been on either list. But because he has been a businessman, he was lumped in with the second group.

In Boulder, not being endorsed by the Sierra Club and being labelled pro-business are the kiss of death at the ballot box for many. Undoubtedly, he gained some votes by association with the business crowd. But he did not stand out from that group, and I think it was a net loss for him.

It would have been a better strategy, I think, for Barry to have tried to straddle both groups. He could have been the environmental candidate who actually knows how to pay for it, for example.

In any case, the fundamental makeup of council didn't change much, in spite of the loud voices of the mostly anonymous single-issue attackers.

So, Barry, have a well deserved vacation and when you come back think about whether there is some other way to contribute to this community and maybe get to be better known for the next election cycle (if you're still up for it).

Summary of 2009 Boulder Ballot Issues

This post summarizes my analysis of the 2009 City of Boulder and Boulder County ballot. You may not agree with any particular recommendation, but you can easily see how I came to my recommendation and come to your own decision based on all of the facts. My biggest goal is to ensure that fewer people vote on issues based on either just the ads or just reading the issue title on the ballot.

Remember, when in doubt, vote no! Here's the list. Click on any specific issue to see my full analysis.

Boulder County Measures

Vote	Issue
YES	Issue 1A Open Space Sales and Use Tax Extension
YES	Issue 1B ClimateSmart Bond Authorization
YES	Issue 1C Energy Conservation Bond Authorization
YES	Issue 1D DA Term Limits Extension

City of Boulder Measures

Vote	Issue
YES	Question 2A Sales and Use Tax Extension
YES	Question 2B Open Space General Obligation Bonds
YES	Question 2C Pension Bond Funding
NO	Question 2D Changes to Housing Excise Tax

City of Boulder Council

Vote
Barry Siff

Letter to the New Council

Dear City Council,

You will be meeting soon with at least two new members. Welcome to this thankless position. As if you weren't getting enough, here's a bit of advice.

[more]

Unsocial Media

The wave of the future is supposed to be social media. You know, tweets, Facebook friends, etc. But for some people it seems to be the opposite.

You probably know what I'm talking about. If you know me or read my blog, you know I write a column for the Daily Camera, our local newspaper here in Boulder. (Yes, we still have one!) The online version of the paper, like many, allows readers to comment.

But most of the commenters use fake names. Most of them specialize in the clever put-down, the snide remark, the single-issue rant. Many like to push right to the edge of what is socially acceptable. If they go over the edge, no big deal. When they get banned from the site they can just create a new login with a new fake name. But you always recognize them, because it is the same style, the same rant, the same misspellings.

If you don't use your real name, you can't be held responsible for what you say.

Recently, there was a story in the Camera about one of these unsocial types. It seems this nameless person had infiltrated a Facebook group page, using the name of one of the city council candidates, and had been making rude comments about other candidates and commenters.

Well, the perp was banned from the group and his account was removed from Facebook. You'd think the story would end there. It didn't.

The person who created the Facebook page entered a comment on the Camera online story. Anonymously. Satisfied that the problem had been resolved, because the impersonator had been removed. And urging people to join the group (but using their real names) to discuss local politics.

I was, of course, curious. I like to talk about local politics and I have a Facebook account, so I quickly became a fan of this group.

If you are familiar with Facebook, then you know that their usage policy requires every account to be associated with a real person and to use that real person's name. So it was surprising to me that several of the commenters were using obvious pseudonyms. In fact, the organizer of the group was using his pseudonym to make comments on the page as well. There was no clue as to who the organizer was.

The comments were generally negative insinuating comments about certain council members/candidates. These people were using social media to make anonymous attacks on public figures. They were telling people it was in the spirit of public debate, but obviously they had an agenda.

As a fan of the page, I had the ability to post comments as well, so I started asking questions. Questions like, "Who are you?". And, "What is your source?".

It was not very long before I got de-fanned from the group and my comments deleted. So much for this group being formed for open political debate!

On the Internet, nobody knows you are a dog. But they sure as hell can tell if you are a jerk!

(Anonymous comments are welcome here, but comments with real names are even more welcome.)

Yes, the Election Can Impact Global Warming

The smallest things can have a butterfly effect. If you are concerned about global warming, vote YES on 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2B, and vote for Barry Siff!

Also, check out http://www.blogactionday.org

2009 Boulder Ballot Issues

I discussed the city's ballot issues in my column in the Camera this morning. My specific recommendations were not in that column, so that there is no confusion between my endorsements and theirs. So, here are mine.

Issue 2A, Vote YES, for the reasons stated in that column. We need the revenue from continuing the sales tax at the current level to maintain services at the current level.

Issue 2B, vote YES. Yes, there is a risk that the city will have to raise property taxes if they miscalculate and issue too many open space bonds. But even if that happens, in the meantime we will have been saving money on those bonds from the better terms we have negotiated just by having the possibility of those taxes.

Issue 2C, vote YES. Honor our commitment to our retired firefighters and police officers.

Issue 2D, vote NO. This is a big change in how taxes are collected for this fund, and I haven't seen the kind of analysis from the city to justify the change. Perhaps between now and when I mail in my ballot they can change my mind.

City of Boulder 2009 Ballot Issues

City Council approved four issues for the 2009 ballot, all related to taxes and debt, and all deserve careful consideration before voting.

Each ballot issue is defined in an ordinance that includes a summary of council`s findings on the issue - good for letting voters know council's rationale. But each ordinance also specifies that these findings are not to be printed on the ballot - bad for deciding how to vote.

Voters who want to know more can find these ordinances on the city's Web site and in the county election pamphlet. But for additional information about the issues voters need to know at which council meetings they were on the agenda, search for meeting notes, and hope that the discussions were actually documented.

[more]

Boulder City Council Election 2009

There are five open seats on council up for election. I'm not going to endorse five candidates, because I don't think there are five outstanding candidates.

The ballot tells us to vote for up to five candidates. I've asked several people who they are supporting, and usually they can rattle off two or three or four names. But they're not sure who they are going to add to make up their five choices.

Here's what I tell them: Don't do it. If you really like three candidates, vote just for those three. If you also vote for two candidates you think are okay but not great, those two votes are votes against the people you support. Your second tier candidates may win against your favorites because of your votes and the votes of others who also just included them to get up to five.


There are many specific issues on which to evaluate the candidates. But I don't think this is about specific issues. I think this is about principles, and about the kind of person.

Here are some of the things that I think are important for council, and candidates should be on top of these:

• Council needs to learn to run this city without micromanaging. Council meetings cannot go until 2:00 AM just because they can't get through all the issues.
• Council needs to set direction, and staff needs to be on board and held accountable. Today there are too many rogue departments and rogue department heads who are interested in turf building, rather than supporting the direction defined by our elected representatives.
• Council needs to lay down the law with the City Manager to make sure she is enforcing this principle with all departments.
• There is no real understanding of business principles in the council. As far as I can tell, some departments don't even understand which aspects of their programs make money and which ones lose money. Council can't make sound fiscal decisions without this kind of information, and nobody on council seems to have the background to understand what is necessary.
• Fitting in with the national mood, it seems to be common belief that you have to be either pro-environment or pro-business. Yet our leaders need to embrace both in order to properly represent our interests and serve us.
• The relationship with the county government is good, and the relationship with CU is improving. But the relationships with Boulder Valley School District and RTD are dismal. It is critical that the city be able to work well with these other government agencies.
• It is a PR nightmare when the city moves forward with big, unpopular capital projects while cutting back library services. The city needs to better figure out how to remain flexible in its budgets and responsive when needed.
• In fact, in general the city government needs to work on its PR. They makes lots of decisions that are controversial, and the reasoning behind the decisions is only evident to the people who stayed to 1:00 AM at the council meeting at which the topic was discussed. Currently, the public discussion is often controlled by the opponents to these decisions, who make their own one-sided emotional appeals. There's nothing wrong with one-sided appeals to the public, but the council needs to figure out how to get its story out too.
• Make it a high priority to make information available and to make it easy for people to actually find that information.
• Be willing to drop an idea if the public is obviously opposed. For example, whether or not council deserves a raise, they should have dropped the idea once the public voted it down the first time.

So, who am I endorsing?

I've known Barry Siff for several years, so perhaps I'm biased. But he is taking his council bid so seriously that it is impossible to ignore him.

When Barry started considering the run for council, he started going to every single council meeting, and he stayed until the bitter end. He even sold his booming business to be able to concentrate on this effort.

Barry has been in business for years and has business savvy. He understands all aspects of running a business, having been in senior management at a large company, as well as owning and running a small local business. He understands the bottom line, and he knows the value of having the best people working for him -- without that nothing can happen.

Barry is excited about changing the way council runs, stopping this crazy business of running meetings until the wee hours of the morning. After all, the way things are now, citizen participation is a joke.

Barry took a small local triathlon, and built it into a successful business that ran several races every year. So successful, in fact, that he had several suitors when he was ready to sell. He picked the buyer that would be best for the sport and best for Boulder -- Ironman is the biggest brand in the sport and is well-known outside the sport, and bringing that brand to Boulder without the city having to court them is a huge coup.

While running 5430 Sports, Barry did something he didn't have to. He turned his races into an environmental example for the entire multisport community around the country. It wasn't just having Eco-Cycle come in and collect recycling and compostables. It was actively pursuing what he called tri-sustainability. Using solar power at the races. Encouraging alternative transport. Even finding ways to recycle water bottles, bike parts, and energy bar wrappers. This shows that Barry is not just talk, that he can not only do the right thing, but also show the way to the rest of the world.

Everyone talks about having good relationships with other government entities. However, Barry called up Bruce Benson, the President of CU, made an appointment, and sat down with him. Our current council members are not doing that, much less the other candidates.

Barry has put a huge amount of effort into supporting low-income children in Boulder. He just doesn't talk about it, he does it.

Barry has more energy and enthusiasm than anyone I know. He's a former adventure racer, and so has unique qualifications to make it through marathon council meetings. He is also a huge Boulder booster.

Look at who is backing Barry. It's everyone from the most conservative to the most liberal. He doesn't have the biggest name recognition, but he is becoming well known all around town.

I say, when you make your city council selection(s) this year, include Barry Siff. I'm convinced he will make a huge contribution to the city. I don't agree with him on every issue, but on the guiding principles he is a perfect match.