Six Votes are Better than Seven

I discussed my choices for the Boulder city council election recently.
And, even though we get to vote on candidates for seven seats, I plan on only voting for six.

I came up with six candidates at the top of my list, and three not quite as strong. However, each of those three (Appelbaum, Cowles, and Osborne) is a pretty strong candidate with a reasonable chance of winning a seat (although none of them is a shoe-in). Osborne is the most highly endorsed candidate. The other two have significant city government experience (Appelbaum as a previous council member), and have as many endorsements as two of my favorites.

This means that a vote for any of these three could bump them up over one of my favorites. Therefore, a vote for one of my second tier selections could actually be a vote against one of my first tier selections. If I voted, for example, for Macon Cowles, he came in seventh place, and beat Larry Quilling by one vote, I could have cost big Larry the seat.

So, I suggest if you have some favorites that you consider not voting for candidates that you may not feel as strongly about.

Advice of Council: Boulder City Council Election 2007

Choosing who to vote for in the city council election is not simple for somebody like me who tries to always think rationally. At least with ballot issues you can read the text of the question and rationally evaluate what it says. With council candidates, you have to look at dozens of sources to get a feel for the positions of each candidate, along with determining whether that candidate has the smarts and temperament to serve in this position for the next four years.

And this election is particularly tough, with 22 candidates for 7 seats.

Of course, being me, I made a spreadsheet. On one axis, I listed each candidate, and along the other I listed each major issue and each major endorsement. Then I read the candidates' stated responses to the various surveys and forums and assigned them plus and minus points for each. I gave (or deducted) extra points for each endorsement from a major interest group.

So, here's where I ended up. These are not endorsements, just a statement of who I plan on voting for. Your selections may vary depending on your own spreadsheet.

The top six (in alphabetical order):

• Crystal Gray
• Lisa Morzel
• Eugene Pearson
• Susan Peterson
• Larry Quilling
• Ken Wilson

I highlighted Susan Peterson and Larry Quilling because neither has gotten as many endorsements as the others, but both seem very thoughtful and knowledgeable and deserve careful consideration by any voter.

My seventh vote will be one of the following, and I'll probably decide when I fill out my ballot:

• Matt Appelbaum
• Macon Cowles
• Susan Osborne

Or I may just vote for six.

Boulder Ballot Summary 2007

It's an odd year (very odd, in fact), so the ballot is short. But there are a few local issues to figure out. I've gone through all of them so you don't have to (but please do so anyway.)

As usual, my advice is to vote NO on any issue you don't understand fully.

Boulder County Measures:

• YES on Issue 1A: Open Space Tax
• YES on Issue 1B: Transportation Tax

City of Boulder Measures:

• NO on Issue 2A: Permit City Lease Up to Forty Years
• YES on Issue 2B: City Council Compensation
• NO on Issue 2C: Clarifying Circumstances That Cause a City Council Vacancy
• NO on Issue 2D: Filling City Council Vacancies

Forty Year Old Virgins in the Wilderness: City of Boulder Question 2A

Question 2A on the city's ballot is pretty simple. Should we grant the city council the right to lease public property for up to 40 years (instead of the current 20 years)?

Well, they already have the right to lease out public property. And it would require a 2/3 council majority. And it would free them up to better do their job.

However, one must ask, why are they asking for this now? Is there something coming up that we don't know about that will require leasing public property for 40 years? The things that come to mind are the Conference Center which has been proposed for the Farmer's Market area, and the Transit Village west of 30th Street. These are both highly charged projects that will require significant discussion. It appears to me that this change would allow the council to bypass some of that public discussion.

Vote NO on City of Boulder Question 2A.

More Pay for More Crimes Equals Less Turnover: City of Boulder Ballot Questions 2B, 2C, and 2D

The Boulder City Council has been thinking about itself more than usual lately. Three out of four of the city measures on the upcoming ballot ask us to improve the way the city council works.

Question 2B gives council members a big raise. They could earn up to a big $1,000 per month for what amounts to about a half-time job. Plus, they'd get cost of living increases in the future. This is almost a 200% increase for someone that attends the usual two council meetings per month. Although the relative amount of the increase is large, the total compensation still doesn't make it a lucrative position.

It is interesting that, although the per meeting pay would almost triple, the pay would cap at two meetings per month, as opposed to the current four. This would provide some incentive to not schedule special meetings (which they occasionally do today.) That's probably not a big issue, but it does make me think twice.

Question 2C would change the city charter's clause that currently states council members can be removed when they are convicted of a crime or felony, to state that they will be removed upon conviction for a felony. Yes, it would clarify some ambiguous language in the charter, as nobody today knows exactly what's included in the phrase "crime or felony". However, it leaves a pretty big hole in that council members can no longer be removed after conviction for a serious misdemeanor. For example, if a council member is convicted of misdemeanor assault against another council member, he or she would still be allowed to serve out the term, with nothing short of a recall available to force him or her out. I say the council should go back to the drawing board on this one.

Question 2D would eliminate special elections to fill vacant council seats when there are only one or two vacancies. That's a good cost-saving goal. But the special elections are the result of a citizen initiative, and the council should not toss them out quite so radically. In this case, it would take three vacancies to trigger a special election. Under the proposed change we might have to go up to 16 months with a council short by one or two members. Again, the council is going too far to solve this problem.

Vote FOR Question 2B.
Vote AGAINST Question 2C.
Vote AGAINST Question 2D.

Find a 0.1 Penny, Pick It Up: Boulder County Issues 1A and 1B

It's October, and you know what that means. That's right, it's election season. And I'm here to help sort out what it all means.

Boulder County has two proposals on the ballot this year, appropriately named 1A and 1B. Each of them is an up or down vote on extending an existing sales tax, in both cases a tax of one cent on a ten dollar purchase.

Issue 1A is an extension of the county Open Space tax, which expires in 2009, for another 20 years. The tax will go to the repayment of bonds that will be used for acquiring open space property (or easements), to make improvements and build trails, and to manage and maintain existing open space property.

It's hard to argue against this one. It's only a penny on a ten dollar purchase, it's an extension of an existing tax so that sales tax won't increase, and it goes to support the county open space program. The program, along with that of the City of Boulder's is something that makes Boulder what it is today. Arguments against the proposal generally come down to lack of support for the value of open space to our community. Given that I believe it adds greatly to the value of the community, I strongly support a YES vote on measure 1A.

Issue 1B is similarly a 15-year extension of a one-cent-on-ten-dollars sales tax set to expire in 2009, in this case for transportation (or to pay for bonds, the revenue from which would be used for transportation projects). There is a long list of proposed projects in the write-up for the measure, so you can get a very good feel for how the money will be spent. Of course, there is no guarantee that the projects on the list will be the ones that actually get funded. The projects are proposed to be completed over the next 15 years, so it could also be a while for your favorite project to make the top of the list. It also counts on federal or other matching funds to get some of them done.

Of the total county expenditures under this bill, 36% would be for roadway improvements for safety and to reduce congestion. It looks like the big majority of these projects are in eastern Boulder County, and I guess that makes sense, as that is where most of the non-city traffic is. However, I do wonder about the lack of mountain projects on the list.

The next biggest chunk, 27% is for improving shoulders along existing roads, primarily to allow better sharing of the roads between motor vehicles and bicycles. As a cyclist, this is something that I wholeheartedly support, and I would think that drivers who are concerned about cyclists on the road would support it as well. I looked over the list of roads, and they are all places that are popular with cyclists. I don't want to wait 15 years to finish everything here.

16% of the total is to be spent on transit projects. This money will continue the county's support for the Eco Pass program, which provides low-cost bus passes. It will also provide continued and additional service on several county bus routes. Making it a bit easier for folks to take the bus seems like a good investment on traffic issues.

A bit less, 15%, would be spent on trails. This would include two of my favorites, the US36 bikeway (Boulder County portion), and the Boulder Reservoir Feeder Canal Trail all the way out to Lyons.

Last and least, the tax would also fund some pedestrian projects, primarily pedestrian underpasses at some treacherous spots. Each project is guaranteed to tie up traffic for a year while it's being built, but eventually we'll get over it and appreciate them.

So, with enough projects on the list that everybody should find something to love, along with the fact that this is nothing more than a renewal of an existing small sales tax, I encourage a YES vote on Boulder County Issue 1B.