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]

The case of the missing education funding

My ballot was sitting on my desk, only one blank remaining. I was confused.

Colorado Proposition 103 is supposed to restore cut state education funding by increasing our taxes for the next five years. But I distinctly remember that we passed a constitutional amendment about ten years ago that promised to increase school funding every year.

Either the Legislature has been violating the state constitution by cutting education spending, or someone isn't being quite honest (or possibly both).

Amendment 23 passed with 52.7 percent of the vote in 2000. It promised, among other things, to "(increase) per pupil funding for public schools and total state funding for special purpose education programs by at least the rate of inflation plus one percentage point for the next ten years and by at least the rate of inflation thereafter." And yet, for the past couple of years, education funding has been on the chopping block along with everything else.

I sympathize with the Legislature. Theirs is an impossible task. They are being micromanaged by us citizens with many conflicting goals.


[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]

Cyclists Lose a Round

Last summer I wrote about Black Hawk's cycling ban. The news since then hasn't been good for cyclists.

In 2009, the Black Hawk Board of Aldermen passed a law giving them the right to ignore state traffic regulations and prohibit bicycles within their city. In 2010, they passed a law banning cycling on most Black Hawk streets.

Several cyclists were ticketed under the ordinance, including three cyclists on a loop from Golden through Idaho Springs, Central City, Black Hawk and back to Golden. They were ticketed for riding on Gregory Street, the only road connecting Central City to Black Hawk.

The cyclists challenged their tickets, arguing the ordinance is a violation of state law. Their arguments are many and convincing.


[more]

Does Why Matter?

A pair of recent local convictions brought up the issue of how laws against bias-motivated crime relate to free speech protections.

Joseph Coy was convicted of both second-degree assault and bias-motivated crime for his racially motivated attack on Nigerian CU student Oluyibi Ogundipe. Zachery Harris was convicted of bias-motivated harassment for using racial slurs against Ogundipe and his Saudi friend, Ahmad Abdulkareem.

The First Amendment was designed to protect expression that may not be popular, even expression that makes people angry. Yet, even the Supreme Court has ruled that it has limits. Some speech may be regulated within the confines of free speech.

Coy won the lottery with his two-for-the-price-of-one crime. Clearly, there was evidence to convict him of the assault. Was the bias-motivation a separate crime, worth doubling his punishment?


[more]

An Uncivil Union

There's no doubt in my mind that the opposition to the recently defeated civil unions bill was based in one group's need to impose its religious beliefs on the rest of us.

There is no other explanation for the fervor of the testimony against the bill given by the largely religious groups. There is no other explanation for the obsession with protecting their tradition and their definition of a single word. And there is no other explanation for what I believe is the clear violation of the oath each member of the legislature took to support the Constitution of the United States.

These opponents can't stand the idea that somebody else is getting married in a way different than what their religion supports, and civil unions are just too darn close for their comfort.


[more]

Dropped under the Bus

I took RTD to a meeting in south Denver on the same day as our recent snowstorm.

The plan: avoid the stress of driving on snowy roads, gain time for paperwork and reading, pay less than for gas, and take only a few minutes longer than driving.

It turns out that RTD sometimes cancels express buses when the weather is bad, leaving fewer, slower, more crowded buses. Plus, missing a connection by one minute means waiting 15 or 30 minutes for the next (or longer if it's running late).

No matter. I was 30 minutes late, but I could have been just as late if I'd driven. Public transit is often a viable option, with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

One of those disadvantages is the farebox.


[more]

The opening of open space

After the recent election, Boulder County officials immediately approved new open space purchases using revenue from the Issue 1B tax increase.

This year's vote was a squeaker -- the measure passed by 0.86 percent. The county clearly learned something from last year's embarrassing loss, but can obviously no longer count on overwhelming support for program expansions.

Most recent opposition to open space expansion cited higher taxes and the large amount of open space already protected.

But some of the loudest opposition came from the program's biggest fans.

Some withheld support because there are too many bikes on open space trails, others because there is not enough bike access, too many dogs, not enough dog access, too many people and too many trails, or too much open space that is not open to the public.


[more]

How Did I Do? Election 2010

Are people reading my recommendations more this year? Are they starting to take me more seriously? Are people actually starting to read the issues and think about their implications before voting?

I'm not sure what happened this year, but the election results were much closer to my recommendations than they have been in past years. Probably just luck.

I called for a protest to vote "No" on all statewide ballot issues. In fact, almost all were soundly defeated. The only one that passed was a measure referred by the legislature to allow them to temporarily move the state capital in a state of emergency. Definitely not a big deal.

And voters approved every single county, city, and school district issue, including five tax increases. The only issue in the batch that I had recommended against, the Boulder Valley School District tax increase was certainly for a good cause. My concerns had to do with accountability, and hopefully BVSD will prove responsible with this new chunk of cash.

And maybe my winning streak will continue into future years.

Summary of 2010 Boulder and Colorado Ballot Issues

Here are my analyses and recommendations for each issue on this year's ballot from the City of Boulder, Boulder County, and the State of Colorado. You may not agree with any particular recommendation, but you can easily see how I came to my recommendation and come to your own decison 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. The most important issues are bold. Click on any specific issue to see my full analysis.

Colorado Measures

Vote	Issue
NO	Amendment P Regulation of Games of Chance
NO	Amendment Q Temporary Location for the State Seat of Government
NO	Amendment R Exempt Possessory Interests in Real Property
NO	Amendment 60 Property Taxes
NO	Amendment 61 Limits on State and Local Government Borrowing
NO	Amendment 62 Application of the Term Person
NO	Amendment 63 Health Care Choice
NO	Proposition 101 Income, Vehicle, and Telecommunication Taxes and Fees
NO	Proposition 102 Criteria for Release to Pretrial Services Programs

Boulder County Measures

Vote	Issue
YES	Issue 1A Human Services Safety Net Mill Levy Increase
YES	Issue 1B Countywide Open Space Sales and Use Tax Increase and Bond Authorization

City of Boulder Measures

Vote	Issue
YES	Issue 2A Public Accomodations Tax
YES	Issue 2B Five Year Utility Occupation Tax to Replace Lost Franchise Fee Revenue
YES	Question 2C Height Limit

Boulder Valley School District Measures

Vote	Issue
NO	Issue 3A Property Tax Increase

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]

Vote No

Colorado's constitution is ridiculously easy to change. To pollute our fundamental governing document with your own poorly written special-interest trash only requires convincing 50 percent of voters in one marketing blitz.

There may be some hidden benefits among this year's Colorado ballot measures, but to make things easy and make a point I'm voting against them all.

The crème de la crème of over-the-top ballot issues is the group of Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101. Their sheer complexity is reason enough to reject them. Funded by people hiding in the shadows, the goal of these measures is nothing less than destroying state and local government in Colorado.

[more]

The Brighter Side

Nine years have passed since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I remember that day as clearly as yesterday, as I'm sure many of you do.

There was the phone call telling me to turn on the television, and then the disbelief, the shock, the grief as I watched buildings with thousands of people inside crumble and collapse to the ground.

What I and millions of other people wanted was information. But there were few sources, and nothing could be done by those of us on the sidelines.

Out of respect I hesitate to compare the Fourmile fire to the 9/11 attacks. But there are some parallels.

Communication technology, both successful and failed, was a significant part of the 9/11 story. We'll never forget the final phone calls from the hijack and tower victims, the loss of the network broadcast towers when the North Tower collapsed, or the overloading of the cell networks.

[more]

Gut Check

It's not easy being logical in forming opinions. We humans are wired to make decisions with our guts, and to manufacture a rational world around those decisions.

We are easily manipulated. A news story with lots of blood convinces us that a minor issue is the problem of the day. For example, the Camera front page has a story about an accident at a flashing crosswalk, and suddenly flashing crosswalks are death traps. We conveniently ignore the fact that most traffic accidents do not happen at these crosswalks.

Then you throw in peer manipulation. One person says that pedestrians don't look before crossing the street. Pretty soon it is common knowledge that pedestrians in Boulder have a death wish and always walk out directly in front of cars without even a glance, an opinion that, if examined logically, couldn't possibly be true.

[more]

Gunning for Guns

The University of Colorado Regents are trying to preserve their right to ban guns on campus. They say they decide who gets to do what on university property.

Meanwhile, gun rights activists are telling us that guns are necessary on campus (and elsewhere) because you never know when a random killer is going to attack. Someone with a concealed gun can take out that killer and prevent mass casualties.

By my calculation fewer than two lives per year would have been saved in this country since 1966, even if every university shooter had been killed by a legitimate gun owner at the first shot.

School shootings have gone up in the past decade, but still, fewer than five lives would have been saved per year in that period.

Clearly, more than five additional deaths would occur each year with the presence of legal guns due to gun accidents, escalation of arguments, stolen weapons, and other types of mortality.

And yet, the U.S. Constitution, as recently confirmed by the Supreme Court, guarantees the right of the people of this country to have weapons and to carry them.

[more]

Black Hawk: The Definition of Arrogance

I looked up arrogance in the dictionary, and this is what I found:

1. Banning a legal activity (cycling) inside your city
2. Exempting your own residents from the ban and only applying the ban to people passing through and likely unprepared
3. Not posting adequate signs warning people of the ban
4. Claiming the ban is for your citizens, and then defining those citizens to be the biggest companies in town, not the real residents
5. Making sure the ban covers a nationally-known cycling route
6. With no reasonable alternate route
7. Which is in violation of state standards
8. And federal standards
9. Claiming the ban is for safety, with zero history of bike safety issues
10. Without consulting any cyclists or cycling groups
11. Rebuffing any attempt by cycling groups to even participate in the discussion or offer alternatives
12. Ignoring state statutes that limit the ability of municipalities to modify state vehicle codes
13. Modifying the standard model vehicle code to give yourself the right to ban bikes
14. In the law giving yourself the right to ban bikes, citing non-existent research
15. In the law banning bikes on specific streets, citing non-existent research
16. In the research does exist, using a measurement technique that is designed to increase use of bikes
17. When the measurement technique didn't produce the desired results, fudging the numbers to make it appear the roads are less usable by bikes than in reality
18. Telling cyclists they have to walk their bikes, which causes a larger impediment to traffic
19. And causes the traffic impediment to last longer
20. And less safe, because cyclists walking their bikes are less maneuverable than cyclists riding
21. Writing the law so poorly that it bans bicyles, not cycling, and in effect would even ban walking your bike or carrying it trough the streets.
22. And the latest, banning bikes in your resort town, and then inviting the president of the League of American Cyclists to host events there.

Fine for cycling

One mis-click when registering for Bike to Work Day, and I would have chosen Black Hawk as my commute base. This would have been sadly ironic because Black Hawk recently enacted a ban on cycling on most of its streets.

Like many municipalities, Black Hawk has adopted the Model Traffic Code, which says nothing about banning bikes. In 2009 they passed an ordinance citing "engineering and traffic studies" that demonstrate how cycling is incompatible with safe and normal traffic, and gave themselves that right. This year they passed another ordinance that bans cycling on several specific streets based on additional "investigation."

I asked the city for copies of the studies and investigations cited in the ordinances. Imagine my surprise when I receive just one analysis, dated after the first ordinance was passed.

A grand total of two streets were analyzed, although the ban covers eight. It appears the Black Hawk City Council has violated its own rules by banning cycling on streets without a proper investigation. Either that or they violated the Colorado Open Records Act by withholding information I had requested.

[more]

Enforcement under the Radar

Recent letters to the Camera have questioned the city's photo radar locations, suggesting that vans are placed to maximize ticket revenue. However, the city lost $21,000 on the program last year. Perhaps something else is going on.

Photo radar, as part of Boulder's neighborhood traffic mitigation program, is designed to decrease speeding violations in neighborhoods and school zones, a laudable goal. It has indeed reduced speeds.

In 2008 the city got heat for its radar site on North Broadway; the van was stationed in a no parking zone, spewing noxious smoke into the adjacent bike lane. In response, the city added a sign under the no parking sign excluding police vehicles and replaced the van with a less stinky one.

There is another reason to question the North Broadway location, which is 50 yards short of where two lanes merge into one. Although drivers should be prepared to merge without speeding, local factors can make obeying the speed limit difficult. The lane loss is not marked well in advance, and occurs shortly after a pedestrian crossing and a steep hill with limited sight distance.

[more]