For no other reason than I had the free time in order to do it, I arrived in Casper Wyoming for the first rehearsal for our holiday concert about an hour early. Usually due to other obligations of work, I arrive exactly on time if not slightly late to those first Thursday evening rehearsals, a constraint I regrettably no longer have. As I was about to make the final turn of the trip, I noticed a Toyota Camry on the side of the road stuck in a hole. Instead of carrying on about my way to arrive early, perhaps have a candy bar, I decided to stop and help. Not only was that the right thing to do, but being stuck on the side of the road is a less than perfect situation with which I am all to familiar. (see the video below)
First I tried to aide the woman by attempting to push the car out of the hole. This effort only resulted in me being covered in mud, head to toe. Finally a guy with a big truck came along, I had no problem crawling under the car to attach a tow strap, as my lone pair of jeans that I had brought for the weekend was already covered in mud, and there was no point in having anyone else sullied with generosity. Without exchanging anything save a few laughs, my anonymous interaction with the women and the guy in the truck came to a successful end as her car emerged from the ditch and we 3 drove away to continue our separate lives.
It would have been easy and in some way righteous of me to believe that my personal challenges were a rationale to just stay out of this situation. What if someone hit my car sitting along a traveled lane, I can't afford the fallout of that. What if the situation got out of control somehow, what if through aide I myself became liable? What if they time it took to help caused me to be late and loose the last scrap of gainful employment I have?
There was not an outcome other than the one that actually happened that I could afford. The risk was high, and aside from the good feeling of doing the right thing, and that my jeans came clean with minimal effort, there was no return on my labor. However there was no good to come of wallowing in self pity, and likewise, as we as a nation enter what will be a time of struggle unknown to the living memory of the majority of the living generations, It is now more important that when we can, we seek to help. Whether by misfortune or design, the pitfalls of others indirectly impact us all. In good times the general largesse of society can easily absorb those effects so that we don't notice them. In times like ours however there is not enough cushion and the difficulties of our neighbors will find a home at our doorstep. As a matter of efficiency and decency, it is in these times that the spirit of volunteerism and personal sacrifice will be the only means by which we can all survive.
In these times the great reason in the phrase "we shall all hang together or we shall assuredly hang separately" bears new relevance. It will be as important for our leaders in national and state capitols to heed this wisdom as it is for all of us as individuals. Providence will provide if we allow for it, and these discrete and silent charities will be the difference that will define our era as either a time of the resurgence of the not only the American, but the Human spirit, or a time of profound tragedy.
The words of Thomas Jefferson may prove inappropriate to wax nostalgic on the fate of a bar, a dive bar no less, but I feel the premiss "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living" if accepted as a guiding principle on the nature of society and progress, sets the stage on which the evolution of the Catacombs may be mourned, but not criticized
I loved the Catacombs. I loved the Catacombs of 6 years ago, a bar that in many ways had more in common with my parents generation than the watering holes in Boulder that my generation including myself finally removed too. The smoke filled basement full of fun seekers favoring abandon over prudence was as nostalgic of the post local prohibition time of the bars founding as it was the scenes in which me and my fellows learned those behaviors. The thing about the Catacombs that made it king among the few dive bars in our ever elite city was it's irony. The Catacombs was a place for a cheap beer in an expensive town. The Catacombs, was the trashiest bar, in the basement of the nicest hotel in town. And with every bit of irony intended, the Catacombs had the best service per dollar spent.
And as our city of Boulder develops yet another sign of it's awkward growing phase, the reaction in the public is the same as the news that our newspaper is selling it's downtown home. I like many mourn the Catacombs, a place I haven't been in quite sometime, not because I want it in tact should I return but because of what this change is indicative of. The irony of the Catacombs is emblematic of the charm of Boulder, a character that is in fact slowly slipping away. Perhaps I'm "too young" or "haven't been in Boulder long enough" to lay a legitimate claim to a snapshot of the City's past. Perhaps its ridiculous to long for the "Good 'ole Days" of 6 years ago, and certainly only the lens of revisionism gives a clear view to logic of voluntarily returning to those days of hangovers ringing ears and bad habits. But what is sincere, if not misguided is longing for the bar and the Boulder that "I knew", that healthy mix of yuppies, hippies and rednecks that was my paradise while certainly another's hades.
And I must remember that as my haunts and my City have changed, I too have changed and woe be to me to be critical of the former, lest they are critical of the latter for if not by evolution how is one to measure the health of their mind and worth of their days?
It is not my place to decided what the Hotel Boulderado chooses to do with it's dive bar, nor is it my place to decide what a person does with their home, or community does with it's social fabric. Indeed the world belongs to the living generation, and while Jefferson in his letter to Madison was speaking to responsible personal and national debt as an analogy to the proper term of the endurance of the laws of man, I do see a correlation in the angst of the ever changing character of a City.
Shall we preserve the City in amber? And if so who's Elysium shall we choose? Circa 1978?, '84?, '96? I would choose 2002, and like the proponents of every year between 2008 and 1876 would find myself in a lonely and impotent minority scorned by a majority who can't believe anybody would prefer "that time" in Boulder over their own preferred epoch. The natural state of a living being, which a City is, is constant change and evolution. While Jefferson would believe that some of the laws that have caused Boulder to be the City it is today, ought be repealed by sheer virtue that they have exceeded 19 years of age. Perhaps however he would be convinced that as a member of the living generation should I see fit to keep the band of open space, that is my prerogative as the rightful heir to the land that sustains me. I bet he would insist however that my generation seek to renew and amend those laws rather than just inherit them.
indeed the world belongs to the living, and a community is likewise the province of those present. It is appropriate to mourn loss, and to question the value and logic of change. However these passions must be tempered with an acknowledgement that change is a function of a healthy community. There is no requirement to love the new evolution, but the criticism should be on merits, not on principle that change itself is inherently bad. Perhaps the "new" Catacombs may become my new favorite bar, perhaps the City that Boulder will evolve to will be a better, more charming place, but what is certain is that change is inevitable and to fight it is only to be left behind. It is the better part of wisdom to embrace the future to have a hand in shaping it. This Jefferson would say is the responsibility of the living generation, to be stewards of the world we were bequeathed while in equal measure preparing for an unencumbered transfer to the will and desire of those who will inherit the earth from us. But he would warn us that too much energy spent longing for the past is akin to deferring responsibility to the deceased.
CHEERS!
And for the record and incase it wasn't clear somehow, I LOVE THE CATACOMBS!
and frankly Boulder could use a few more dive bars . . .
Today, after several delays, the Boulder County Board of Commissioners finally closed the door on the expansion of the Dawson School. This is a private school in Lafayette that is held in fairly high regard, situated in a rural agriculturally zoned area
When I read this headline seeing the vote of 2-1, I made a few assumptions. It is always fun when you read the article and realize that you assumed TOTALLY WRONG! The assumption that I made was the Commissioners Toor and Pearlman, voted against and Commissioner Domenico voted in favor. I made that assumption because a. Cindy Domenico lives in, and represents that part of the County. b. I generally think that Domenico is the most sensible member of the board (the context being a view that Boulder County's development policies are unsensible) and c. I voted for Cindy Domenico and not for Will Toor (I voted for Ralph Schnelvar). Like all who assume I was righteous in being wrong.
Commissioners Domenico and Pearlman voted no and Toor in the affirmative to my surprise. I was pleased to be wrong for a few reasons. First it's always good to be reminded that it is prudent to get more information before making a rash judgement. Knee-Jerk reactions are frequently my criticism of public officials so it's important to realize that you may be guilty of the same offense. Second it was clear that the boards decision was NOT a knee-jerk reaction. While the length of time it took to arrive at a decision is subject to criticism, there is no denying that whether or not you agree with the outcome it was well vetted.
Since the result itself was evidence that I was prepared to make a knee-jerk judgement, I decided that I should try to actually take a look at the development plans before I rushed to scribing an opinion I would live to regret once supplied with facts.
My search for information led me to another realization . . .
The City of Boulder's website is really good (as compared to other municipal websites). On Boulder's City Council agendas, there is usually a hypelink to the actual information in the council packet. On the county commission agenda online however you are on your own. There is a handy "docket search tool " however when you search the docket number it gives you the title but no text. So Way to go City of Boulder in terms of open records. While I don't mean to accuse Boulder County of not having open records, (I could just go down to the county and get hard copy of the docket), and I'm sure I could probably get the school's plans somewhere online if I tried hard enough, I just was glad to have an opportunity to commend the City of Boulder on its access to information.
What I do know is that the school's plans would without a doubt would be a significant change to the land use in that area. The change from a 49,000 sq. ft facility to 255,000 sq. ft. in a rural area is no small detail. Knowing only that detail, without knowing what the new facilities would look like, how they would be used and how much energy, water, and vehicle access would be required, it's easy to make a knee jerk reaction in support of the commissioner's decision. Of course you can't legislate taste so the issue of what the facilities would look like is a non-starter. Energy efficiency, traffic mitigation and appropriate uses are germane to good land use, and simply put, if your land use philosophy is conservative in general, the burden of benefit would be pretty hard for such a large expansion. It's easy therefore to take a knee-jerk position in defense of the board.
**CORRECTION**
I received the following email from someone who knows something about it,
Greetings, I was just googling info on the Dawson school expansion, noticed your comments and wanted to correct an error: You said, “The change from a 49,000 sq. ft facility to 255,000 sq. ft. in a rural area is no small detail.” Actually the expansion itself is just 49,000 SQFT over several years.
Currently, the buildings add up to a total of just over 200,000 SQFT. The newspaper confused a lot of people when it stated it that way. The additional 49,000 would total 255,000, so it would go from its current 210,000 SQFT to 255,000 SQFT by the year 2012.
Just thought to mention that…… Thanks, Bev
My apologies for having incorrect information.
On the other hand this is Boulder County, infamous for draconian land use regulation and a really easy target for knee-jerk criticism. Also this is a school they said no to, people don't say no to schools in Boulder County, PERIOD. With a long track record of no development, no how, no way. With the context that this issue comes after a huge revision of the school's plans and the matter being tabled four times, it would be easy to take knee-jerk position, critical of Boulder County yet again standing in the way of reasonable progress in pursuit of a conservative land use agenda.
After weighing both sides relying solely on limited physical evidence and anecdotal conjecture, if one still wanted to get more information about this project before joining the Daily Camera blog lynch mob, one would google search "dawson school expansion boulder county" and then find . . .
This is when it gets complicated. If you are in the process of defending yourself in a lawsuit, AND you have an opportunity to discredit an argument against you through a defensible action, at the same time the case is being heard, well . . .
That is not to say I believe the commissioners where making a purely political decision, although if the politics did inform their decision, that would be okay, a. they are politicians, and b. it is in the public's interest which the commissioners are sworn to protect to not loose lawsuits, and not have their decisions overturned by state or federal courts, particularly when the rest of the state has already decided that Boulder County's land use is draconian and decide against the county at every opportunity for political reasons.
So I won't say the decision was political, and I will say that I rather hope that it was at least in part. Even when I disagree I can respect when leaders are principled. I will also offer that if the motive was overtly political the decision would have been made 2 or 3 motions to table ago.
I don't have enough information however to know if I agree or disagree, or to make a knee-jerk critique of the commissioners decision. What I do know is that it was in fact "complicated". What is reaffirmed is that whenever you voluntarily leave the political mean you open yourself to knee-jerk criticism and Boulder County's conservative/protectionist land use philosophies carry the liability of needing constant defense. Frequently Boulder County is right, though it sometimes takes a long time for that to become apparent.
Boulder County, for it's folly is visionary. However this does not mean that it is inappropriate to question how far from the mean we've gone and to recognize the inefficiency that results when one moves too far to the left or the right.
Recent Comments