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]

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]

We're going about this thing all wrong

I'm talking, of course, about the economy. It's annoyingly broken, and for some reason just refuses to fix itself.

The tea party gang would have you believe it's as simple as spending less money and reducing the deficit. However, they can't actually believe that will work. Every economist and his brother-in-law tells us that cutting government spending will just send the economy further into the toilet. Economies in the toilet, as we've seen recently, tend to result in larger deficits.

Of course, Obama and the Democrats don't have a much better plan. They're banking on stimulus that's so tepid that Republicans might even vote for it if they hold their noses. Tepid stimulus leads to, you guessed it, tepid recovery.

I have a modest proposal.

[more]

What, Me Vote?

It always amazes me when elected officials take the fact of their election as a message that people actually agree with them.

OK, it doesn't amaze me, but it still doesn't seem logical. Of course, once you are elected you really can't operate under any other assumption, but that doesn't mean you're not wrong.

In this country, about a third of those eligible to vote are actually politically active enough to vote regularly. There's your base: half of these regular voters. You can count on them as long as you don't do something stupid.

It's the fifth of all adults who vote once in a while that you really need. Convincing them of your position won't convince them to vote for you, nor will that strategy work for your opponent. They don't know much about the issues, nor do they care much about politics. What gets them to the polls is anger.


[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]

A Deficit of Honest Discussion

No matter which party is in power, the other party thinks that the budget deficit is a vital issue. The party in power, generally, considers it a lower priority.

But, at least for the time being, the GOP has convinced enough voters the issue is critical. So now both parties are talking about how to reduce our country's deficit spending.

Of course nobody is proposing anything that will seriously make a dent at any time in the foreseeable future. Each proposal simply reflects the ideological priorities of the proposer, and suggests cutting programs they don't like.

Anybody can play that game. See how easy it is to trim the deficit by $100 billion.


[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]

Talking the Talk

A few months ago, I wrote that Sarah Palin and other Tea Party darlings were fanning dangerous flames with their violent imagery, but that they were within their First Amendment rights to do so.

I also predicted the public would lose its sympathy for Tea Partiers after an event like Tucson's assassination attempt.

It's too soon to say whether my prediction will come true. However, it is clear there's been a backlash, in the form of calls for "civility." I'm opposed to those calls.

It's not that I'm opposed to civility. I'm not. Civility is greatly underrated.

But the principle of free speech is a foundation of this country. The way to protect against speech you don't like is not to tell people to shut up. It's to make a convincing argument why they are wrong.


[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.

Whose words?

Many are happy to interpret recent election results, but to me it's simple. People are out of work and taking it out on their elected officials.

According to my statistical analysis of past elections, the unemployment rate has been responsible for about a third of switched congressional seats. Further, when the unemployment rate is above about 7 percent, that contribution leaps to somewhere between half and two thirds.

When unemployment is high it is a huge factor in house seats being lost by the president's party. When unemployment is low, other factors come more into play.

Based on this theory, you could have predicted that Democrats would lose at least 40 seats in the House without looking at a single news story, poll result, party platform, or campaign ad.

But there's more to this story.

[more]

Scary Monsters

The Republicans have been working on their Halloween costumes for weeks. This year they are dressing as Founding Fathers.

Last month they introduced their "Pledge to America," giving the rest of us a frightening vision of their costume.

The basis for this pledge is the idea that the citizens of this country do not consent to our government and its actions. It echoes back to the Declaration's explicit dissolution of our bounds to Britain. Why is that frightening? Our nation is a representative democracy that depends on peaceful elections and transitions of power. Talk of revolution pretends that process is optional.

It's not. That process has held this country together for over 220 years.

[more]

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]

W's last laugh

It's not totally correct to blame the pending tax increase on Bush. Although the 43rd President did push for and sign the law, it was Congress (primarily the Republicans) who came up with this clever scheme and wrote the laws that will raise all of our taxes on Jan. 1.

The tax acts of 2001 and 2003 included temporary tax cuts followed by corresponding increases. Republican marketing at the time focused on tax relief, but today's press focuses on the tax increase, conveniently while the other party holds the Presidency and Congress. The GOP gets all of the credit and none of the blame, in an election year to boot. Brilliant.

Of course, at the time there was no way to know Democrats would be in power when the tax increase was scheduled to tax place. That's just happy coincidence.

The sunset provision was purely a political ploy. By keeping the tax cuts in effect for fewer than ten years, Republicans could sidestep rules that would have required paying for them, a tacit admission that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

[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]

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]

Deepwatergate

Eleven men dead. Wildlife dying. Livelihoods lost. Beaches fouled. Oceans polluted. Unknown deep-sea impact.

Someone must be to blame.

Some say this is President Obama's Katrina. But what can he do but fly to the Gulf, sound sympathetic, and talk tough to BP? Neither Obama nor anyone in his administration knows how to stop the flow of oil, much less eliminate the oil that has already spilled.

Some environmentalists and scientists say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is to blame and should resign. After all Salazar's Minerals Management Service was responsible for regulating the drilling operation and screwed up. Literally. MMS staffers were partying and sleeping with the people they were supposed to be regulating. Talk about strange bedfellows.

[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]