The Routt Report

In usufruct to the living . . .

 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 . . .

Sometimes it's complicated

 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 ARTICLE

  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.

And for those joe blog readers out there that; 

a. read The Routt Report 

b. read David Sirota's blog today and 

c. remember this saturday night live skit,

d. and are playing a political blog drinking game

Knee Jerk.

(If you fit that category I promise that joke is Hilarious!)

Where credit is due . . .

 Boulder County Clerk and Recorder did the right thing. This is not to give Hillary Hall a pass on the delay in election results. This is not to say that the public ought to forget that she won this job by crucifying Linda Salas, a fellow Democrat for exactly the same actions while she served as the County Party Chair. But by making a public statement and owning her responsibility she has done the right thing. This demonstration of courage and accountability is all to rare from those holding public office and for this Hillary Hall is to be commended.

  As for the considerable delay in the election results, it is certainly regrettable, those responsible deserve scrutiny, and the consequences. However it is certainly premature to lay the blame solely on the County Clerk. I believe when the audit is complete it will show that the errors that caused the delay stem from many sources. It is likely that from the County staff to the voting machine vendors there will be plenty of culpability to go around and everyone involved will get their fair share. With that in mind given the situation that was known at the time the County Clerk did her job by favoring accuracy over  speed. The mistake was not the choice in the heat of battle, but Hillary Hall's own words in her campaign against Linda Salas are an unfortunate but earned liability.

  The lessons learned here are that for starters we have a serious endemic problem with how we run our elections in Boulder Countyand our struggles here certainly call into question the reliability and accuracy of the counties state and nationwide that use similar voting machines. Within the temptation to vilify Boulder County for the delay, the better part of wisdom does beg the question, did the other jurisdictions have superior staffing or did they not recognize or worse choose to ignore the same problems that Hillary Hall corrected? We also learned that it is unwise to turn a knee-jerk  reaction into a campaign platform. It is difficult to truly know what a job is until you  are actually doing it. Aside from running elections County Clerks spend most of their time filing title deeds and issuing license plates. For what it is worth, in the 2006 primary I voted to retain Linda Salas.

 I respected and was frankly surprised by the unusual spirit of democracy that was evidenced by a primary election against an incumbent. To often political party's "let it ride" with their incumbent knowing full well that the city, county, state, or nation would be better served with "anybody but". And if as party chair you recognize that your party's best chance to retain a seat is to run yourself, I would even argue that it is then your responsibility to do so. With that in mind, in lopsided Democratic Boulder County Linda Salas was in no danger of loosing a general election, and aside from the 2004 election I thought she was doing a fairly good job. As a car salesman I have frequent interactions with the DMV for example and as far as DMV's go, I thought Linda Salas was doing a fine job and saw no compelling reason to fire her.
 

  So from the outcome of this election I hope that we have learned that we should offer equal amounts of patience as criticism to our elected leaders as became apparent in this case a knee-jerk reaction to replace leadership yielded exactly the same results. Had we exercised prudence rather than passion perhaps we would have figured out what actually happened in 2004. Let's give Hillary Hall a chance to fix this problem.

And while we offer Hillary Hall time and scrutiny in equal measure I think we also owe Linda Salas a heart felt apology.

For Boulder's sake . . . pt3 Yes on 2A

  I will preface this post with a few points for disclosure:

1. I have not decided whether or not I will run for City Council next fall.

2. This measure failed by  less than 100 votes last year

3. I am no fan of our current City Council

  This is the right measure at the wrong time, but I do ask the reader to consider a vote of yes on 2A to raise council compensation. Like the other City issues on the ballot, it is important to decouple the merits of the issue from the performance of this council. 

     Without saying "you get what you pay for . . ." It is important to realize that the compensation of about $6000 a year for at best a part-time job, but really and additional full time job is not enough to encourage those who would likely be the best for the gig. Boulder is an expensive place to live, and if you are a working class person in Boulder it is a decided disincentive to serve on council, not to say that a raise to $12,000 will open the flood gate of opportunity but it would certainly cast a wider net. If the goal is to attract a higher quality of council members, and to diversify the tax brackets that are represented on council, and thus have a council who's decision more accurately reflect the values of Boulder's residents, particularly it's working class, in the cost benefit analysis an additional $6,000 dollars spent on council compensation in the context of 237 million dollar budget is worth the risk. 

   

   There is also the argument about "public service" I understand that argument, but encourage you to consider the value of the practical input of lower economic classes in the political process. When positions of public policy are solely occupied with those with great means, you tend to get a body politic that doesn't give appropriate gravity to the dollars they spend. Working class people inherently know the importance of tightening the belt in hard times. Further they are intrinsically more empathetic to the impacts of public fiscal policy on personal finances. I do not intended to begin class warfare here but there is no denying that as the  taxation measure becomes a larger percentage of your income, the less likely you are to support it. The lower the income of a council member the more fiscally conservative they are likely to be, not to say the wealthy members are reckless, it's that they are as sensitive as is appropriate in their personal lives. A higher level of sensitivity to revenue generation and a higher burden of proof for the effectiveness of expenditures is a good thing in the public discourse. If you believe that is valuable to broaden the economic perspective of our city's leadership then vote yes on 2A.

  This issue is not a referendum on the current council, but it may play a role in the composition of future councils. And there is the question of the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. When the City's charter was written and council compensation established in the early years of the previous century, $400 a month was A LOT OF MONEY. The intent of the authors was that for members of council, attention to the city's business should be a major priority and therefore should be compensated thusly. A pay increase to $1000 a month is a big increase by percentage but falls short of the Consumer price index inflation adjustment of $6,469.33 for equivalent value in 1917. The spirit of the law is that council should be compensated in a manner consistent with a considerable time commitment. Perhaps the failures of recent councils is a direct result of those who do work not being able to devote enough time, while the majority of the body is comprised of those who do not work and have lost touch with the true value of the hard earned dollars of their constituents. 

  Local government is best when it is pragmatic. Practical solutions can only be effective if they encompass the needs of the full body of residents. The best way to assure that we have a broad discussion is to ensure the full economic spectrum is represented. 2A is not about this council, it's about improving opportunities  for our residents to serve. Please consider a vote of yes on City of Boulder 2A, for Boulder's sake.

For Boulder's sake . . . pt2 Yes on 2D

  The last post on City Ballot measures concerned extension of a funding mechanism for essential services, question 2D deals with how we can best support non-profit social services, arts organizations and myriad public/private partnerships that inherently reduce the need for taxpayer expenditures. 

  

  With the current evidence in the financial markets of the importance of credit in the operations of entities from local non-profits and small businesses to state governments, it is apparent to many that there is an undeniable link to an organization's overhead expenses and  efficacy in it its programs. We all know that in our personal budgets  the percentage spent on on-going cost of life impacts the availability of funds for the pursuit of happiness. 

 

 It is for this reason that Boulder should support City ballot measure 2D. Housing a small business or non-profit is an expensive proposition in Boulder. Raising capitol in our current economic climate whether through philanthropy or bank credit is also an increasing challenge. 2D will lower the operating expenses for entities that provide social, and artistic services to our community as well as businesses that provide critical sales and use tax revenues that finance our quality of life. 

  

  We all know the cost of living in Boulder. The Spice of life Cafe and the Dairy Center for the Arts know too. These organizations like many residents know the cost of maintaining their home's is escalating and sometimes capitol maintenance or improvements require credit. A longer term loan is a quantifiable and immediate reduction in overhead, however our non-profit agencies using city owned land are cannot extend credit more than 15 years, resulting in interest rates and monthly payments simply inconsistent with the modern costs of operation. For organizations providing artistic and social services, as well as those businesses providing jobs, these dollars directly degrade the ability to serve so that banks can make more profit. Not only is this money directed away from employee salaries, it also curtails services for our residents. 

 

 With a 40 year lease the dramatic reduction in monthly overhead would allow many local organizations that contribute untold assistance to members of our community, inspiration and opportunity to our residents in way's we'll never measure, and quantifiable  and essential tax dollars to our municipal coffers to continue and in many cases expand their important work. 2D at once stabilizes municipal revenues, expands artistic and social services, and bolsters employment in sectors of the economy that our community has identified as important. 2D also has the added benefit of private capitol maintaining  and improving public asset's, saving our residents money while freeing up resources for programs that directly enhance the quality of life in Boulder.

    In the interest of support for non-profit organizations and cost saving public/private partnerships in Boulder  I encourage you to support City of Boulder ballot measure 2D

  

For Boulder's sake . . . pt1 Yes on 202

   These are strenuous economic times for all of us. In my industry and in my tax bracket these challenges have been going on for nearly two years, while those with better means and wiser career choices are just feeling the sting. However an election is the time where we put aside our personal challenges and consider what is truly in the best interests of ourselves and our neighbors. 

   It is in that spirit that I write these four pieces to ask my neighbors to consider supporting four of the ballot measures for the City of Boulder.

   I will preface this by offering the following disclosures:

1. I ran for Boulder City Council in 2007

2. I generally have a negative opinion of our current City Council, with the STRONG exceptions of Ken Wilson, Suzy Ageton, and Angelique Espinoza who's performance has shown a strong commitment to pragmatic leadership.

3. I personally know (and generally like) all the members of our City Council, and consider many, even the ones with whom I politically disagree on EVERYTHING friends.

4. I have not ruled out (nor have I decided that I will)  run for City Council in the 2009 or subsequent elections.

  

 City of Boulder question 202-

Please vote yes. This is NOT A NEW TAX. This is a continuation of a .38% General fund sales tax. Should it not pass, you will not see sales tax relief until 2011 when the current tax expires. Thats right you will not save 38 cents on a 100 dollar purchase until 2011!  However because of the way the City's budget is structured ( a format that we the voters have chosen, not council, not the city manager, but the people) you will see the budget cuts in police, fire, libraries and an increase in potholes as early as 2010.

 

 The City's general fund is the funding mechanism for basic services like Police, Fire, Libraries, basically all of the services that most residents would agree are "essential". Our City's revenue based on our current 3.41% sales tax, (which by the way is a lower tax rate than Broomfield, Denver, and many of our surrounding municipalities, is hacked up into myriad dedicated funds, (feel free to insert "pet-projects", "pork barrel", "earmarks" go ahead get it out of your system,  okay, now breathe . . . feel better? . ..  ready to continue?)

 

  Funds like Open Space, Parks and Rec, and a very long list thereafter are dedicated funds. This means that the voters approved a tax that can only be used for that purpose. For example if the general fund ran dry and there was no money for the fire department, The City Council or City manager cannot simply move the 10 million dollars in the Open Space till. They would have to go to the voters. Welcome to TABOR country!  The City can in limited circumstances "borrow" between funds, however that requires charging itself interest on the loan, and not to mention the inevitable court challenge by the TABOR die-hards. 

  I frequently hear that "council needs to re-prioritize" "Council should spend less on xyz and more on abc" and while I agree in principle, 9 out of 10 times, they simply can't, their hands are tied by our statutory (and the root of statutory is . .. State, as in constitution, that pesky piece of paper they keep down in Denver) budgetary requirements, and dedicated funds that we the voters thought were great ideas. 

  

  It is only the general fund where our elected leaders have any flexibility (and again less than you would think) to react to challenges and opportunities. Had I been elected to council I would call for more "de-brucing" (Colorado for return a larger portion of the statutory tax rate to the general fund) ballot measures. This .38% extension is a fiscally responsible request to literally keep the streets safe, the lights on, and the fires out. This is not a referendum on this council, (that's next fall) nor is it a request for goodies. I do hope that this an subsequent council's have the courage to ask the voters to increase the general fund slice of the revenue pie without raising the total tax rate. This will require strength to take on historically popular dedicated funds, and the patience to educate the public that for example .25% (a quarter on 10$) means NOT .25% for public safety (general fund). 

 

 Finally I would agree there is management and inefficiency in most City agencies. However it's important to note that Concrete, Fuel, Asphalt, Energy, all the commodities the City buys for use in our public safety infrastructure from parking structures to cop cars have skyrocketed in cost, while our financial crunch has reduced revenue. Again our reliance on sales tax has more to do with the state that we live in than our elected leaders locally. That is not to say that years of anti-business practices have not made our problems more acute, but many communities across our state our feeling the pinch, Boulder is not alone. 

  

The remedies include 1. efficiency in services the city must provide. 2 a pro-active approach to economic development to diversify our tax base portfolio. 3. identify and cut services that are ineffective (particularly ones that are financed through dedicated funds). 3. identify programs that could be best run through public/private partnerships (the golf course, bikequest . . . Yes bikequest remember that one?  you don't? Odd 80,000 of your dollars seems to remember). 4. Return a larger share of the revenues to the general fund.

  This approach is going to take YEARS!  A lot of it will have to be approved by the voters, and even things that can be done through legislation will take time to bear fruit. 202 is not the correct avenue to show dissatisfaction with this council's performance. 202 is not the correct channel to demand a more pragmatic approach, 202 is the most pragmatic move this incredibly divisive council has made. 202 simply ensures that there remains a funding mechanism for our public safety infrastructure. 

 

 Our city's revenue stream and expenditures are complex (and yes more more complex than they need to be our ought to be, and I do believe there is a role for council to address that) so please post questions on this post. I am happy to go into specific detail as to how the budget works and why passing 202 is important. Remember the Chamber of Commerce and PLAN Boulder agree on 202, in Boulder you know that means that this is important. It's just impossible to explain all the moving parts in a blog post when you factor in my predilection to verbosity. I look forward to this dialogue, 202 is probably the most important measure on the ballot for City of Boulder voters. Politics really happens on the local level, please vote yes on 202.

For the common good

 Public process, as cumbersome as it might be is in place for a reason. It is the challenge of legislative officials to balance the subjective concerns of people and groups, vs. the objective letter of the law. The more controversial (therefore rife with subjective opinion) the matter, the more important that the process is objective. 

   Though I disagree with the landmarking of the Clement's property agaisnt their will, as both a matter of principal and in the context of this case, I also seriously question the objectivity of this "quasi-judicial" hearing. The backstory is, this couple bought this home that at the time had no current or pending landmark designation. As a result of the normal process for a structure over 50 years old, the original remodel plans triggered a landmarks review. It was the opinion of the Council appointed, landmark advisory board, not once, but twice, that since there was no demolition of the original structure involved, that landmarking against the will of the owner would be an abuse of the historic preservation ordinance, an opinion with which the city of Boulder's planning department as well as historic preservation department agreed. Like my grandmother used to say, "not everybody can be wrong" 

   Enter Historic Boulder, a non-profit special interest group. Upon review of the Clement's remodel plans, Historic Boulder brought before the landmarks board their desire to landmark the property (which does dramatically change the legal definition, development rights and value of the property) becuase they believed the addition would denegrate the historic value. Let's not forget that at this point this body twice decided that this property did not warrant a special designation per the letter of the ordinance. At the compulsion of Historic Boulder, the Landmarks board became the applicant to ask for designation of the property. The city staff as required took a position on the board's recomendation. The opinion of the staff was that "landmarking over the objection of the property owner is a tool that must be reserved for a very high threshold as to maintain credibilty of the historic preservation program and balance community assets with private property rights, this landmarking does not meet that threshold" (paraphrased). The decision by council on this and all similar matters has to be done as a "quasi-judicial" hearing. Meaning the council suspends their legislative authority and must be judges of if the proposal meets the legislative intent of the ordinance as is, not to be confused with "as ought to be". Members must disclose any information they got before the hearing to become record because the decision must be made solely on the facts presented during the hearing. We are all aware of the controversy regarding incompatible redevelopment of homes. Having seen the Clement's plan, my gut feeling is that the house they wanted to build would detract from the "historical value" of the property, and likely conflict with the "established neighborhood character" (as defined by the aesthetics of the built environment, save the familiess schools and churches that comprise the "neighborhood" a definition I strongly disagree with).

   However those subjective issues where externalities that are not appropriate to question of this judicial hearing. The only objective issue at hand was, "Does the landmarking of this property, in context of the process that brought the proposal forward, against the wishes of the owner, meet the legislative intent of the historic preservation ordinance?" The answer is clearly no. This is evidenced by the failure to designate the property multiple times before. It does not meet the standard of this designation of last resort as it is not contribuing to a historic district(of which we have 10) nor does it meet the hard standards of a threatended individual landmark (as there where no plans for demolition). What ensued on council was as partisan a "dialouge" can be in a "non-partisan" elected body. It was most evident in the request to continue the meeting so that an absent member of council could be preset to vote on it, in Washington they call that a filibuster. Thankfully that waste of taxpayer time was defeated. But the vote went exactly down "party" line with the pragmatists Ageton, Espinoza, and Wilson voting against this proposal that simply did not meet the legal standard. And the discussion that ensued on the Daily Camera blog (which granted would have been heated regardless the outcome) is only more evidence that suspending democracy to pursue an agenda, now matter how righteous, (let's not forget George W. Bush also believes in the righteousness of his policies) only serves to further denegrate the public dialouge and compromise any chance of reaching consensus. The bulk of the commentary in the public has been those against the decision clamoring about the infringment of property rights and proponents championing a victory for "eradicating McMansions" and punishing "wealthy, profiteering developers" First of all, equal protection is just that, rich or poor, property rights are the same, further the Clement's intended to be resident owners, but most importantly, That was NOT the point of that hearing! The council was simply charged with determing if this was an appropriate application of the heaveist tool in the historic preservation ordinance. The lack of discussion by council on that issue is evidence of a dearth of leadership. Their vote to landmark was at best a misuserstanding of the procedure, at worst a deliberate derilection of duty in favor of a zealot comitment to an ideological agenda. And the divisve debate that will result in the public is their responsibilty.

F.A.R. Away from concensus

At a well attended meeting the City of Boulder began it's revisit of a controversial plan to regulate residential development amid complaints that some properties are being developed in ways that our out of scale with the existant neighborhood character. The city has hired a consulting firm to the tune of about $100,000 to hold a series of community charetes to define the problem and craft possible solutions. Further this public process is intended to build some support and concensus for the action city council eventually takes. There were about 80 people present not counting City staff and politicos. I would venture the room was evenly split between those for an action and those against. Aside from responses to a few comments the mood was fairly civil. That will conclude the objective reporting for this post. This process is a waste of money, that will only result in anemic support for a bad idea. I sympathize with those who have felt impacted by what their neighbor has done with their property. I understand folks feel they have lost some privacy or that the character of their neighborhood (loosely defined as the aethetics of the buildings, regardless the people and families that comprise it) has been altered. But legislating subjective issues of design, which make no mistake is the desire of proponents of this issue is simply bad public policy. And in our current economic climate it is further poor policy to spend city resources, both in money and staff time (read money) that impacts far less than half of it's residents. Lets however assume for a moment that the worst concerns of the proponents of this measure are indeed true. Let's pretend that out of state housing speculators are running rampant, profiting hand over fist by demolishing perfectly usable modest homes to replace them with multi-million dollar mansions. If this is the case, then surely this is having a devastating effect on the affordabilty for low income families right? Wrong! More than 50% of Boulderites rent their homes, further less than 50% of homeowners in the city currently have a mortgage on their property. This means that Boulder is a. A wealth driven housing market and b. The amount of units being redeveloped by a person who is not the resident owner is nominal. Further the majority of lower income households that own their home (in Boulder that is combined income of under 80k) either own condos or have owned their home for a signifcant amount of time. Further in a world where the services funded by property taxes are ever increasing, New large homes and their fancy new tax bills have the ironic effect of stabalizing property taxes across the board. (Because of TABOR, when the county hits the growth limit they have to stop collecting, the new assesments offset the need for mill levy increases.) Last, these "million dollar homes" replace 500k homes, Boulder's dwindillng middle class couldn't afford those anyway. The affordabilty question is a myth. What about profiteering? First of all even if that was true, so what? But that claim has aslo been proven false. By the city's own planning and development department, the overwhelming majority of permits are for well under 50k in construction value meaning most are people remodeling the home in which they live. The overwhelming majority of permits are issued to the current occupant of the property. And according to realtors, very few homes that undergo major remodels subsequently end up on the market. What about neighborhood character? OK maybe. But first we have to assume that the ONLY defining feature of a neighborhood's character is the size and shape of it's homes. Not it's families, nor, it's schools, or churches or whether it is a "King soopers or Whole foods" part of town. (I happen to live in Safeway 'Hood) The subjective aesthetic question is the only issue that hasn't been proven patently false. However that brings us right back to how to define the problem, AND, solve it, WHILE protecting individual property rights, AND not reducing peoples net worth by devaluing their properties, AND come up with guidelines that everyone can live with, AND like, AND be consistent with the already eclectic housing stock in most neighborhoods, AND not have every house look exactly the same, AND accomodate odd lot sizes, WHILE only setting policy based on objective architectual features, because you can't legislate subjective aesthetic features without ending up in court (pesky constitution), well I think that's everything, I might be forgetting something . . . Suffice to say, while I know and respect and geniunly like the members of our city council, I do not presume they posses the legislative genius required to accomplish all of those goals, and make the proponents happy, AND not inspire outrage in the rest of the community. Make no mistake even in condo land in north Boulder, folks who will not be directly impacted, (except for perhaps slightly higer property taxes in a few years as County expenses exceed revenue due to the devaluation of half the city) this idea is not popular. And forget about the opportunity costs of dedicating months of time and resources only to find no concensus. At last night's meeting even the proponents were divided over whether this is an issue of size or aesthetics. Well in order for it to be policy it must be objective removing aesthetics from consideration. For council that means immediately discarding half of their base of support for this misadventure. For the sake of putting this issue to bed so that our leaders can get back to the business of running a city I hope that I'm wrong. I hope that the opportunity and capital costs bear fruit and that we can arrive at a solution that at once protects quality of life and property rights. But from last nights meeting the only practical solution that appears available today is to do nothing. And for the record my home is 607sq. ft.