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]

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]

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]

How Did I Do? Better than the County Clerk!

Every year after the election I compare how I recommended and voted with how all of the ballot issues actually fared at the ballot box. This time, it took three days for the county to finish counting votes in Boulder County, the slowest in the entire state.

What went wrong? Well, apparently the folks doing the counting were paying attention and noticed some anomalies in the optical scanning that was picking up votes that weren't made. It took hand checking each ballot for paper dust and ink smudges, a very slow process. I guess no other jurisdictions were doing the same type of check, so they were able to finish faster. Please, nobody tell them that their vote counts may not be accurate.

Anyway, back to my own report card. First, I got 100% on the City of Boulder issues. That's right, the city voted with my recommendations on all seven of the questions on the ballot. Are that many people reading and agreeing with my blog, or are the people here just that much smarter? Basically, people agreed to continue funding the city at the current level, but not to give council more powers.

At the county level, I got one out of two. I recommended a NO vote on extending the Worthy Cause tax, and it passed with flying colors (which I could have predicted.) Oh, well. I don't think the money from this sales tax will go to any group that doesn't deserve it. I just wish people were trusted to make their own decisions on who to give to.

We did pass, in line with my recommendation, the new clean energy district, a novel way to fund, with no public expense, small renewable energy and efficiency projects. Boulder folks are smart AND generous.

On the state level, I didn't do as well. State voters ignored my recommendations on nine out of fourteen issues.

My successes: Luckily, Amendment 48, which redefines "person" in parts of the state bill of rights went down narrowly. Amendment 52 also failed -- it would have taken money from water projects, pine beetle mitigation, and other priorities that will be getting more urgent with global warming, and spent it on getting more people in their cars to ski resorts. Two out of three of the attempts by business to cripple unions also failed. Less critically, voters agreed with me that 21-year-olds are not old enough to run for state legislature.

Big losses: Referendum O would have protected our state constitution against the continued onslaught of amendments, but failed because too many people were convinced (incorrectly) that it would decrease their ability to write initiatives. Amendment 50 won, giving state casinos the right to not only stay open all night and increase bet limits, but also prevent their own taxes from going up. Two measures that would have helped with education funding went down -- Amendments 58 and 59. Amendment 51, a sales tax to help people with developmental disabilities failed; I guess Coloradans as a whole are not as generous with their sales tax dollars as Boulderites. Amendment 54 passed. Like Amendment 41 in a previous election, it takes a semi-reasonable idea (in this case preventing undue influence by government contractors) and pushes it way beyond reasonable, probably way beyond constitutional.

Mixed blessings: Also failing was Amendment 46, which would have ended affirmative action in the state. No doubt it is still useful, but symbolically it still grates. And Referenda M and N also passed contrary to my recommendation. These remove so-called obsolete clauses from the state constitution, although I wasn't convince in either case that we had the whole story.

Yes, this Insomniac is out of touch with the Colorado voter, and proudly so!

What Are the Odds I'm Going to Vote for This? Colorado 2008 Amendment 50

A while back, the people of Colorado voted to allowed "limited gaming" (gambling) in three mountain towns, ostensibly to help preserve their historical character. Now they've gotten the taste of money and they want more, and they are prepared to bribe us to get it.

Currently, the Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek allow slots, blackjack, and poker. The maximum bet on anything is $5. And the casinos must close between 2:00 AM and 8:00 AM.

Under Amendment 50, the casinos in those three towns (with the approval of the local voters) would be allowed to stay open all night, add roulette and craps, and up the maximum bet to $100.

They have another big ask, which has not been so well advertised: Currently the gaming tax is 20%, but the gaming commission has the right to up that to 40%. But if this measure passes they would require a statewide for any such increase.

For comparison, the gaming tax in Nevada is 6.75%, in Atlantic City is 9.25%, in Mississippi is 24%, and in Pennsylvania is 55%.

So what would we get in exchange for turning our "family-friendly" $5 bet casinos into all-night, high-stakes joints with even more ways to lose your money, and for protecting the casinos from the threat of paying higher taxes?

First of all, the gaming commission has to figure out what portion of the gaming tax revenues are attributable to this new rule. I guess that means casinos have to separately track all bets between 2:00 and 8:00 AM, all bets on roulette and craps, and all bets over $5. (I'm wondering if the casinos suporting this issue are budgeting for this new expense.) This money would not be subject to the TABOR limits that restrict increases to tax revenue.

Then the amount of gaming tax that exceed the revenue from fiscal year 2007 would be deposited into a special fund, and distributed 22% to the local governments of those three towns (based on how much increased revenue they brought in because of this new law) and 78% to community colleges in the state. Of course, that is dependent on the amount of tax revenue actually going up.

So, to summarize, we turn these three towns into high-stakes gambling destinations, destroying what little historical character they have left. We protect the casinos from a potential doubling of the casino tax. We give the local governments a bribe to encourage them to make these changes. And if there is any money left over (remember, we're in a recession, and who knows how many people will be willing to bet $100 at a clip) it can be used to support community colleges. That would be instead of actually funding them at a responsible level.

Vote NO on Amendment 50.