The Routt Report

We are the 15%!

 

Congressional approval rating is hard to really know.  Like all polling the data is subject to variables such as who is aksed? what was asked? who answered ... and why did they answer.

There are recent polls that put the approval rating of Congress as low as 9%.  However I would guess that it actually hoovers around 15%.  I use 15% primarily because it's a nice round number but I also base that on a premise that has recently occured to me.  Be it noted that I'm not sure I believe this premise nor do I think it a good excuse for elected leaders to punt leadership, however I offer this as a view of hope and eternal wisdom, not cynicissm.

 

I think there this probably a floor of approval for Congress at about 15% ... this floor is comprised of (hear me out):

1. 8.5%  Simple majority of regular primary voters (primary voters being about 17%)  

2. 6.5%  A combination of people who actually agree with the policies of the current Congress (they did pass patent reform and 3 trade agreements, for the people that care about those isssues above others the 112th Congress has been fantastic), and perhaps some people who may agree with the following premise:

Congressional inaction is by design and obligation ...

 

HEAR ME OUT!

Let's take a few steps back ...  The founding fathers where many things, visionaries, idealist, etc.  But they were also products of their times.  Wealthy elites in a world where it was not only acceptable but in many cases seen as divine right that the wealthy elite should rule over the populace (let alone women and slaves) for the populace's benefit.  It is not an accident that even in the most liberal and populist founding documents of their age, the franchise of government was limited to those who were wealthy, male, white and of the correct faith.

And though it has been the history of our republic that the franchise is expanded over time, that expansion has never been easily won or immediatley embraced by those already in the franchise.  Whether the voter suppression was overt (poll taxes etc.) or covert the systematic silencing of voices and end runs around their participation has been the rule not the exception.

The most sustained covert voter suppression on the Congressional level has been the re-districing process.  As districts become increasinly lopsided in favor of a party the result is only the members of the local majority party get to decide who represents them in Congress.  The minority party -and even the simple minority of the majority party are effectively silenced.  And since in the most gerrymandered districts the winner of the primary is the winner of the general election, many members of Congress are the wholly owned subsidary of not the unsympathetic corporate interests or lobby pools but rather the elite majority party activist who though are earnest as any indiviual in their policy beliefs, are hardly representative of a communities national view or practical needs.  Their world view is developed by and limited to about 15% and as result those people who are being represented are of course happy with the job Congress is doing.

But their world view is a very narrow world view.  And though the founding fathers were not particularly interested in an inclusive franchise, they were supremely interested in all those who were in the franchise having equal right to power.  Every foreseeable caution was taken to ensure that the voice of the Congress represented the complete voice of those in the franchise.  What they couldn't bring themselves to do unfortunately is compell participation by those in the franchise.  At the time it probably wasn't an issue but as the franchise increased combined with voter suppression efforts every step of the way, we now have a situation that the majority of those in the franchise are not participants in it.

So the Congress, representing only clean minority voices as opposed to the noisy majority voices as intended is working with clear mandates from a small class.  A small class that in itself is deeply divided.

Congress is by design supposed to take in the broad diverse view of the populace and distill it to find the policy that does have broad consensus.  However because of an emboldened minority in Congress both party's seeks to create policy that they think makes sense while coercing (or silencing) the minority into compliance.  

I offer as a premise that the failure of the Super Committee on Deficit Reduction is actually exactly what is supposed to happen in this context.  The Super Committee was tasked with a very big job. A job where there is no clear mandate from the divided 15% and no input from the remaining 85% of the franchise.  

Perhaps what we have been calling partisan gridlock is actually just a safety valve.  

 

hear me out ...

The current state of affairs is that Congress, designed to run on the input of all the disparate voices of the franchise, is now only being fueled by passionate minority voices.  As a result of lack of fuel (or bad fuel depending on your viewpoint) the engine just shuts itself off to protect itself from further damage.

I agree that this is not a time for inaction.  This concept is not intended to apologize for lack of leadership.  However ask yourself do you really want THIS Congress to do anything? Example, without doing a poll I would expect that a majority of those in the franchise i.e. registered voters of any party affiliation over the age of 18 but still breathing, would be in favor of Congress passing a federal budget. However they haven't done so in quite awhile.  Why?  Because while there is clear directive from the extreme left and right there is no voice of the center.  Members of Congress are supporting the ideology of the small electorate, not distilling the voice of all people to find some small area of consensus to move forward with.  Since the fuel is rancid the engine shuts itself down.

I argue that if primary voting regardless of party reached a majority of active voters, the candidates coming out of primaries would be more moderate, representing (or better said beholden to) a wider swath of ideas.  The general election between two moderates would result in the most moderate (or rather most broadly beholden) candidate winnig.

Granted this would yield the kind of politicians many people think they don't want ... unprincipiled, compromsing at every turn, placing expediency over virtue flip-floppers.  You know just like now like we have now.  

But the incentive model for compromise will have fundamentally changed. 

Our national legislative body, (not unlike our local elected body in Boulder with our all at-large, minority electorate for City Council) in it's current form is incredibly susceptible to the influence of powerful minority interests.  With a small zelaous, ideologically charged electorate it is very easy for those with influence to retain and expand their influence.  

With a large electorate elected officials must at best find and hold themselves to what few areas of broad consensus exist or at worst avoid being too far into any particular ideological corner.  It is easy to point fingers at corporate money, lobbying and special interest groups as the reason Congress is ineffective however at best those are only rationale for why Congress does things that individuals disagree with.

I offer that the root of the problem is that a small electorate is like diesel being poured into a Twin Turbo Gasoline engine.  

We have a population that is more moderate than the electorate and an electorate that is more moderate than the much smaller primary electorate.  Add to this (and I argue as result of this) we have a Congress that believes it's job is to create and sell its policy as opposed to distilling the combined wisdom of the governened and turning the limited consensus into policy. 

Therefore our founding father's have given us a collective time out.

The House of Representatives was designed to be the virtue of the populace and the Senate a further distillation to ensure only policy that has incredibly broad consensus can become national law.  Without proper fuel the engine SHOULD cease to run.  

This is granted a bit of tough love.  Refueling our legislative engine can only come from increasing participation in primaries to levels equal to general elections (and increasing that as well to much higher levels) then accepting  that the noise of the masses is better than quite of the minority.  We have to accept that within the noise is truth.  As individuals it does not require setting aside your ideology or bias but it does require making that voice heard while respecting the right of others to disagree.  

 

And this may be the hardest part but it also requires allowing politicians to be exactly that. Politicians!

Activist and Politicians serve different and important roles in our public discourse and while it is essential that activist hold fast to their views it is equally important the politicians have a much more flexible worldview that balances passion and pragmatism. It's not to say politicians should not have ideals or agendas, but it is to say that those ideals and agendas should only come to fruition as the result of their wisdom being made plain to their colleagues rather than the accident of their party having a majority in Congress at the time.

Like a well designed modern engine our centuries old Congress has a safety valve.  Without proper fuel Congress is actually limited to only must-do emergency policy ... you know things that have broad consensus such as not going into national default.  If you look at what the past few Congress have actually accomplished and compare those things to the public opinion polling of the time you see that very little was done, most of which also enjoyed at least simple majority public support at the time.  

Congress does not know enough to determine the best way to reduce the defict among many other things because the electorate has not made its full voice heard.  It's not that we don't have serious problems that demand bold and solutions in a timely fashion. It's that Unfortunately our legislative engine was not designed that way. Our engine was designed to run on the full voice of those in the franchise ... or not at all.  Congress is not solely responsible for our nation's problems, whether they be economic, environmental or otherwise, we are all in our own way complicit and in our own ways empowered to fix them.  

The eternal wisdom of our founding fathers is that the ability of any ideology to hold too much power is to be avoided.  Even if that group is simply a vocal minority that has power due to the apathy of the rest of the franchise it is still dangerous.  And when the power rest in the hands of those drunk with ideology the engine will stall until it can be regained by a sober hand.

And right now the 15% is as drunk as a frat boy on his 21st birthday.  

Sobriety can only be returned by the 85% and that's simply going to take awhile.

Is Congress broken? Well perhaps not broken but it is in SAFE mode, and though we would be better off if it was functioning properly this is still better than if our situation was made worse by a very active but broken Congress.  

     I've yet to see a toddler think that their time out was well timed, however I do see the wisdom of our founding fathers  telling our current political class that it's time for them to sit in corner and think about what they have done.  

Here's some fun additional reading to help you draw your own conclusions:

 

Congressional Approval rating, click here 

Primary Voting turnout, click here

And a member of Congress who may actually agree with this premise ... click here

2011 elections

 

It's taken me a few weeks to put pen to paper ... or rather finger to keyboard because to the extent elections are a team sport, my team got clobbered!  

With the one bright spot for "my agenda" being in Routt County where voters in Steamboat Springs and Routt County voted in favor of staying the course with their medical marijauana programs.  Aside from that it was defeat after defeat after defeat for the things I care about.

First allow me to say the following which will be enough whining to get you wasted off of my sour grapes:

I don't know if folks like "Team Ft. Collins" ( a group of "civic-minded" beer producers who bankrolled the effort to remove medical marijuana centers from Ft. Collins) and PLAN/Sierra, the majority (read only) organized political party in Boulder's nominally non-partisan City elections inteneded to ply their case in 2011 because this was their best electorate.  Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that thier timing was just a stroke of luck by folks who believe in what they do and just got lucky. But what is clear is that if you are trying to win a battle of (pick your word, local conservatism, status quo, re-affirmation of the claims of those who already have the power) any political strategist will tell you this is accomplished by first picking your electorate and then ensuring that electorate is small and conservative.  

Statistically the smallest and most conservative electorate is the odd number year before a presidential election. Add to that, this year was a bonus for non-intentional voter suppresion because our election day with an all mail-in ballot was a week earlier than the calendar election day.  

I don't accuse the victors of this year's election of manipulating odds to their advantage any more than I accuse the loosers for failing to factor in the electorate when mounting campaigns that in hindsight were doomed. I just point out that the deck was heavily stacked for the proponents of the winners to win and the proponents of the loosers to loose not based on the merits of their campaigns but due to the nature of the electorate.

There is an elitist view that the "off-year" (that there is even such a term as "off-year" I think strengthens my argument) electorates deserve their over-sized influence because they are the dedicated and informed voter.   Those who make that argument sometimes also go as far to say that this electorate has the largest stake in the outcomes ... and with that part of the argument I tend to agree.

However,

This eliteist view is ademocratic and lends itself to elections that are based on misinformation.  We already have a problem where there is a lack of interest in local issues.  As a Juilliard grad and former professional classical musician who now fools around in politics I am perfectly aware that the thing that orchestral concert audiences and off-year election electorates have in common is that they are a wierd minority.  It is also obvious that the downfall of both classical music and local politics is their exclusivity.  I believe that an election is a mirror in which we can look at society and anytime you have participation of less than 100% then your image is distorted by the same percentage of those who did not vote. In 2011 that distortion is about 60%.

The result on the local and national level is government that works well for a small group of people i.e. the simple majority of the minority of people who participate and for everyone else ... well it's a crapshoot.

Sure perhpas the majority of people who don't vote in municipal elections are just so happy with the status-quo that they can't even pause their celebration long enough to cast a ballot to say so. I would believe that if when asked non-voters would say that. Non-voters are very forthcoming in their rationale for not participating in my experience, but I've never heard that complete and utter satisifaction with the status-quo as the reason.

So in an off-year, small conservative electorate a nominal tax increase to fund our public schools went down in flames, the residents of Ft. Collins banished medical marijuana centers from their City and in Boulder the entrenched political establishment had a landslide in the council election.  

Voters in Ft. Collins have simply been duped.  When you have local elections where there are few resources to get good information it is easy to see how opponents of Colorado's medical marijuana program could be convinced that by eliminating medical marijuana centers they would be eliminating medical marijuana in their community. Of course the reality is that while the heavily regulated medical marijuana centers go away, the demand for marijuana won't change at all.  As a result expect to see the re-establishment of the black market for marijuana in Ft. Collins as well as a surge in home grows which are still protected under the state constitution. Not to mention all the driving to Boulder and Denver of Ft. Collins residents to buy legal medical marijuana from licesened centers which is bad for the carbon footprint ... but of course even a climate hawk like myself must surely see the value of sacrificing some vehicle miles traveled for the sake of the children ... who can now go back to buying their marijuana from a local resurgent black market instead of being turned away by licesned centers.

 

Speaking of being a climtate hawk ... as I mentioned before I am one and environmentally concerned Boulder narrowly approved a measure that I believe is actually a step backwards disguised as a step forward in passing a meausure that allows Boulder to form a municipal utility.  As I have said in earlier posts I was not opposed to this because I don't think the City could run a utility.  I opposed it because I don't believe the City ever will run its electric utility.  

 

Morever this is sacrificing the war to win a battle.  Climate change is a global problem and as much as I would love for the world to follow Boulder's example in most things thats simply not reality. In order to effect the greatest change the fastest we need to be working regionally, nationally and globaly instead of pulling up our drawbridge.  Instead of the debate being about renewable energy the debate became about just about everything else ... corporate america, money in elections, conservative vs. liberal ...

Well here is a right-wing conservative heralding the renewable energy portfolio of that evil corporation Xcel energy in a twitter posting yesterday:

 

MarkUdall Mark Udall 

With 55.6% of its energy from #wind, #Colorado's @XcelEnergy is the new world-record holder for most #windpower. bit.ly/sisfHU

17 Nov  Unfavorite  Undo Retweet  Reply

 Retweeted by SLC_CO

 

Oh oops! That's liberal, total climate hawk (but pragmatic enough to understand how solutions actually work) Colorado Senator Mark Udall talking about how the corporation Boulder voters narrowly banished for "not producing enough renewable energy" is the WORLD"S LARGEST PRODUCER OF WIND POWER. 

Look I'm all for reform and punishing those who do the wrong thing, the problem with 2B and 2C was that this was never about the merits of Xcel it was a proxy war about corporate vs. local power.  And I agree with the sentitment however Xcel energy has tremendous regional influence on people's energy use choices.  Unless indiviuals everywhere, not just Boulder start making better choices what we do locally won't much matter.  It would be great if the passage of 2B and 2C start a nationwide move towards micro-generation, smart energy brokerage and increased adoption of renewable energy.

 

But with what capital? What infrastructure?  Xcel energy is a corporation, a large one and the last lesson we should be teaching corporate America is that if you dare be the leader in what we want we will punish you.  My interest is the maximum amount of renewable energy on the grid in the shortest amount of time.  2B and 2C may just yet achieve that goal and I hope that it does and I'm proven wrong. But for now it seems that this idea was not unwise, it was just pennywise.

 

And finally the council election. What is clear is that PLAN/Sierra have the superior ground game and for that they deserve to win the election and they did walking away. I just wonder if this built-in advantage could sustain a larger electorate.  I own that my choices for candidates where not the most-likely Boulder City Council winners and I'm not surprised by the outcome except for one, Dan King.

 

Really? the guy that owns a zero-waste hotel is not environmentally active enough to win a seat on Boulder City Council?  Is the idea of running a business and creating jobs that awful?

The answer is yes if you were to only poll the wierdos like myself who vote in off year elections. Though Boulder debates when viewed from outside the City Limits appear to be the struggle between liberal and liberaller ... If you really wanted to make an analogy that someone outside Boulder could understand, PLAN/Sierra is the organized, disciplined conservative party and "everyone else" is the disorganized progressives who spend so much time trying to determine good policy they forget factor in good politics and as a reuslt simply cannot win an election. This situation is exacerbated by the soft voter suppresion of off-year elections.

I don't think PLAN/Sierra are evil political masterminds nor do I think they are that wrong or wrong that often.  In fact my fist entree into Boulder politics was through PLAN when I met Lisa Morzel and Pat Shanks at a gargage sale, I consider them both friends and I've been to parties at both of their houses.  I shared a flight to New York with Ben Bender once and  we had a great chat. The issue is that I have finally come to determine that PLAN/Sierra fundamentally believe that Boulder's best days are behind it and thefore recommend a back to the future strategy.  It is my view after spending considerable time in both camps that it is the business and recreational community that are the true progressives.  These are the people that are actually proposing and supporting policy that will increase diveristy and livability in our community.  I realize this is counter-intutitve.  I understand that it most places the Chamber of Commerce run everything with a iron-conservative fist.  

But this is Boulder! And Boulder is wierd so it would only make perfect sense that in Boulder it is the Chamber of Commerce that is the progressive group with no political power.

 

What is hearting is that in the weeks leading up to the election this odd situation was starting to be discussed openly. And this discussion seems to be sustained.  I am glad to see so much talk of election reform in the City.  I happen to agree with those who think that even year elections, the election of council in representative districts instead of all at-large and the direct election of the Mayor would result in city leadership that reflects more accuratelly the direction Boulderites would support were they paying attention.  

Reformers in Boulder have one additional challenge.  Life in Boulder is pretty awesome.  Much like the president has had to defend the stimulus package with "it could've been worse" which though true is hard to quantify, Boulder's reformers have to hang their hat on "it could be a lot better"  again true, but hard to quantify.  For this reason I think moving the election to an even year is the most critical reform.  Since it will be nigh impossible to convince the small conservative off-year electorate that reform would be better when its clearly contrary to their interests, the only chance reform has is by chosing an electorate that reform would actually benefit, the larger voting bloc.

Previous attempts at election reform failed because of they tried to convince those who benefit from the status-quo to look past their interest towards the greater good, a fool's errand I don't care where you are.  Politics in Boulder are the same as they are in any small city, those who have the power have no incentive to yeild it others.  Previous election reform measures failed becasue they were on off-year ballots.  The champions of election reform have the best chance in four years next year.  A ballot measure to create representative districts or move municipal elections to even years has it's best shot at passing in 2012.  I would also think that those who oppose such reforms should want to see it on a 2012 ballot as well.  If reform failed on a 2012 ballot that would give the city's political establishment the greatest mandate to stay the course.  

Living outside of Boulder for a few years and coming back gives one some great perspective on the place. Boulder is a great place, but it is far from the sustainable, environmentally responsible, intellectually diverse and embracing community that it could be or one can be lulled into thinking it is if you don't leave town enough.  I believe Boulder can walk its talk and that doing so wouldn't even be that hard but it will require not a revoultion, but something more difficult to achieve, a minor course correction, something that I don't believe that the current political establishment of the city is capable of unfortunately.   

My Grandmother the environmentalist ...

This morning I walked into a room in my 607sq condo and turned on a light.

 

I then turned it off immediately, well maybe not immediately.  

My brain quickly tried to do a cost benefit analysis to determine if since I had already turned the light on and used that energy did it make more sense to just leave it on since I was only going to be in the room breifly or would the amount of wind (austensibly as I pay for 100% wind through the Xcel windsource about a 10% premium on my on average $40 utility bill though in reality the kilowats could be anything but likely some combination of coal and natural gas and if i'm lucky a touch of wind) used by the one compact floursent bulb in my bedroom for the 10 more seconds it was going to take grab a sweater would be less than the energy used to turn it on in the first place, and by leaving it on would I remain consistent with the argument I always gave my grandmother for why a light was on ...

And then the part of my brain that remembers the terror of those foot steps marching towards that room when I was 13 convinced my 33 year old brain that it does not have enough information to make an accurate decision based on facts in the time allotted and therefore the most consistent course of action is to remain afraid of my now deceased grandmother ... and turned the light off.  This took about 5 seconds and if anyone reading this has the skill set to crunch the numbers I'd love to know if I made the most environmentally responsible choice or not.

What I used to tell my grandmother when I was in my teenage years and she would accuse me of "working for ConEd" (the electric utility where I grew up) was that it made more sense to leave the (at the time) incandecent light bulb on while I was practicing clarinet in the basement because the amount of energy used to turn it on far exceeded the amount used to power it all day.  

I have no idea where I picked up that information, I suspect public school, nor did I verify it then or know if it was in fact the truth now.  What I did know is that it sounded reasonable enough and what I needed was an argument against what was in my view an unreasonable outcome -that in order to save $x I should rely solely on natural light ... from a north facing basement window ... in New York, in December to practice.  My Grandmother who was born in 1928 was not only a depression era baby, but black and poor so came from a world that I born in 1978 young enough to have missed the depression and living in a world where black kids went to Juilliard prep could not understand.

Oddly enough I now have the same obsessive compulsion to turn things off when not in use.  This disorder isn't genetic and my granndmother and I though experieincing the same symptoms have very different compulsive diseases. She was frugal (i'd say irratioanlly cheap but thats a debate for another time) and I am a climate hawk. 

I am totally out of touch.  Where most people believe the biggest issues facing the country and the world right now are the economy, soveriegn and private debt crisisis and on-going international military conflicts, if I had my way, we would do nothing whether in Congress, research universities or corporate boardrooms than reform, research, develop and implement new energy policy.  I am a dedicated climate hawk and I firmly believe that addressing energy, not only prevents the worst outcomes of climate change (or at least mitigates them as the avoidance ship may have already sailed) but also addresses all these other problems other people seem to be so hopped up about.

So take this opinion with a grain of salt becasue I am admittedly biased and out of the mainstream ... by a lot.

I have recently read two opinions about the City of Boulder questions 2B and 2C that I found very compelling. There are some who argue against 2B and 2C because they believe the City Council and the City Organization can't handle an electric utitlity.  This is of course a ridiculous argument for 2 reasons.

1.  The council never handles anything, they set policy which is then executed by CIty Manager, think of the Council as the Board of Directors and the City Mangaer as the C.E.O of ...

2. The corporaion that is the City of Boulder. Because that's exactly how it works.  Council sets policy, staff does the work. And whether you agree with the implementation of policy by city staff, they are at least (as opposed to council members who generally are not nor actually need to be) experts in their line of work.  The city would create a new division of the city governement that is the utility, populated with staff who have the technical expertise to do the job.

Distrust for the city is not enough reason to vote no on these measures.

County Commissoner Will Toor  and Blake Jones opine that if at the end we don't end up with a municipal electric utility that our strongest barganing position with Xcel would be with passage of these two measures.  I agree with that premise.  Another way of making the case to those who do not support municipilization or those who actually believe that the best path forward is with Xcel is that sure, it would be better if this wasn't a ballot question at all but that being unavailable, the best place to be for your interests is back at the barganing table with the will of the people as evidenced by the ballot box in imporving the renewable energy side of the ledger.  Again I agree and that is why I have struggled on how to vote on these measures.

Because the 13 year old part of my brain that is afraid of my grandmother has been lobbying my 33 year old brain against doing any math.

Fortunately people who are smarter than me have done the math ... much of which I even understand! And I actually believe that in the best possible outcome a municipal utitlity would have more renewable energy at a comparable if not slighlty lower cost to the ratepayer. And I definitely am convinced of the best barganing position argument.  However these rosy outocmes are still only marginal if everything goes right.  And when was the last time everything went right?

I know there are some earnest and sincere minds behind this municiplization effort but let's not pretend that political strategy is not exactly that. If you can build a coalition between true believers and pragmatic non-believers you can get anything accomplished (see 18th amendment).  Looking at data from both sides its clear that under the best outcome municipliaztion is a slam dunk great idea, this holds true even under average to some worser case scenarios.  

The problem is not the goodness of the outcome it's the likeliness of the outcome.  And the most likely outcome is that even with passage of these measures, in 3 years the City of Boulder will be in a new franchise agreement with Xcel energy that is marginally better than it would have been without this exercise. 

The best case scenario for municipliaztion over a 20 year term is only marginally better than the outcome staying with Xcel.  This is a very expensive barganing chip for very little bang at the end. 

Further we invent a middleman.

I think the future of energy distribution will be micro-generation with macro-brokerage.  That is to say once we figure out micro-generation, storage (i.e. batteries) and distribution (figuring out to allow micro-generators and batteries electric cars to cellphones) to return unused electricity to the grid, the role of an electric "utility" will be to direct traffic.  Utilities will broker energy transfer, maintain distribution infrastructure and compensate producers with revenues generated from energy purchasers -in other words EXACTLY what a City of Boulder Utility would do!

However we are not there yet, and for the foreseable future energy will continue to be a vertically integrated industry (as all the public utilities supporters of this cite are).  And in a vertically intergrated business model the money is made on the production side. If energy wasn't vertically intergrated then renewable energy adoption would be much easier and much faster I agree but that isn't possible until the infrastructure of micro-generation (where we have made tremendous progess) and storage (hear the crickets?) are in place and no amount of money the city can spend can accelerate that research and development (R&D valued in the $billions is out of reach of a City budget that in its entirety is in the $200 millions). A utility that does not produce energy must buy it which turns the traditional revenue center into a cost.  Now some would argue that this is absorbed by a municipal utility not having to pay shareholders or turn a profit , TRUE but unknown if the offest is enough to not have to be satisfied in some part by generating the revenues on the distribution side (i.e. higher rates).   

My interest is adoption of the plan that makes the most sense. The plan that encourages adoption of renewable energy whether directly in micro-generation for those with the means to do it and voluntary susidy of the renewable energy infrastructure to increase supply (read carbon credits or for Xcel customers "windsource") and does so with comparable pricing so that the price premium doesn't scare off adopters. And if the goal is the maximum adoption of the maximum amount of renewable energy by the broadest base, today and after the passage of 2B and 2C that path is with Xcel energy and mandated by ammendment 37.  

And then there are people outside of Boulder's political class.  People who simply want reliable electricity (which we have) at a reasonable price (debateable) who maybe would buy renewable energy if it were cheap enough but they don't care enough when there is a premium.  In Boulder if you use windsource as a guide that amounts to about 88% of ratepayers.  This is Boulder so I suspsect that price is not the only reason for the anemic 12% adoption of windsource but if definitely raises questions in my mind as to whether our residents, the majority of whom will not vote in this election really believe this is an appropriate undertaking for the City. 

I think about what most people are concered with today and temper that with my agenda and conclude that though well intentioned and in some ways the ideal of what I think a utility -public or private SHOULD be and I arrive at the following conclusions:

1. In the most likely scenario the best opportunity to a. continue with the renewable energy people are using today b. increase adoption and c. retain reasonable costs for those who are early adopters is to stay with Xcel energy.

2. The only way to get other communities, but more importantly individuals in other communities to adopt reneawble energy is to work collaboritvely which is easier to do from within a network than without.

3.While I agree that passing these measures would increase our leverage for renewables in an agreement with Xcel so would a large increase of windsource customers as it is the same data point (customers want renewable energy and are willing to pay for it).

4. You don't have to be wrong to be sued.  This one is important, while increasing the amount of windsource participation would send the same message to Xcel it would have a minimal costs to those who want to send the message and no cost to those who do not. Maybe the City won't be on the hook for going concern and stranded costs etc. but only a judge can decide that and it's not going to be free to find out.

IF 2B and 2C pass and we do end up with a municipal utility I will be very happy to have been on the wrong side of history.  I will be the first to point out my own lack of vision and will welcome the resulting increased renewable energy that results because at the end of the day renewable energy adoption is my interest, doesn't matter how we get there.  Knowing Boulder politics I also suspect that 2B and 2C will pass, but I still think the result will only have been an expensive path to a marginally better franchise.

 

However I think the interests of the fastest adoption of renewables by the largest base still lies in a regional effort where we lead by example and as a customer can influence Xcel and it's other customer communities.  As person that incorporates carbon emissions and climate change into more of my relevant behavioral decisions than most people I believe that further pursuit of a municipal utility as planned at this point is exactly like trying to decide whether or not to turn the uneeded light back of ... In so doing you miss the teachable moment where next time you would remember not to turn the light on in the first place (or walk instead of drive or to throw your orange peel out the window instead of into the trash -you know methane in landfills ...).

 

Vote no on 2B and 2C and while you're at it sign up for windsource here

 

Lesson learned ... or rather affirmed

   I take far too many life lessons from popular culture.  Perhaps its because most people's lives are so consumed by pop-culture that lessons from high art and literature seem to be more valid.  And perhaps for the same reason, as a result of a life spent with Mozart, More and Smith that I find the wisdom in Rock, Mewes and Smith.  

    -The particular wisdom to which I refer is of Chris Rock, Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith with whom I'm Sure Wolfgang Mozart, Thomas More and Adam Smith would agree comes from a scene in Dogma in which Chris Rock tries to explain to Jay and Silent Bob why it's better to have ideas than beliefs.  The salient point is that beliefs are to hard to change.  The whole point of belief is that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary it its still true.

As a result of receiving this wisdom I have a very high barrier for beliefs and have very few of them ... though its obvious to anyone that I more than make up for that with ideas which I think are true with a near religious fervor ... which I can then easily abandon when evidence proves me wrong (and hopefully before anyone notices that I was wrong).  

I think it's important to have ideas but I believe its important to be right when the ability to be right is made available -especially when the question is on one of your beliefs.

 

I had the opportunity to test one of my core political beliefs.  After a two year experiment I am relieved to have my belief that local government is way more important than national government confirmed.  My belief in intellectual honesty helped confirm this belief because since I was concerned that my blind faith in my premise may leave me unable to see how wrong it was the evidence had to be overwhelming before I could accept this simple truth:  

In order for Washington D.C. to wipe it's ass it needs to be agreed to by 218 members of the House of Representatives, 60 members of the Senate, signed by the president and found constitutinal by 5 judges. 

 

the result is that well ... well at least you can't smell the swamp anymore ...

 

Though I went to Washington with substantial evidence that what happens at 1777 Broadway has much more impact on the lives of people living in Boulder and the events at 200 East Colfax more relevant to the happines of Coloradan's than the kabuki theater located on First Street NE. It was however the impotence of the federal government that finally opened my eyes to the truth I already knew. 

The drama of Washington has captivated the attentions of American's led into this folly by news media.  If you're job is to sell nationallized marketing campaigns designed by your "sponsors" its only "consistent" that you spend what little time you have left for actual reporting be tailiored to the largest audience (thus capitlizing on redundant costs).  Add to that the consolidation of news media (turns out they weren't wrong about thinking about the bottom line the whole time ...oops!) there is very little coverage of our General Assemblies and City Councils.  

Too bad because if you want the stop lights to work, the water to flow and the trash to go away, its downtown, not D.C. where those decisions are made. But more importantly if you want the stoplights to be solar powered, the water to be floridated  (or not) or the trash to be recylced the only place you actually have a voice is at City Hall.

 

Local government is where good things can happen and bad things end (or vice versa) and FAST! I just got of the phone with someone who had a great idea.  It's an idea already in practice by Boulder County though he was unawre of it but the basis of the call was the feasibility of such an idea being enacted by Congress. Aside from this very idea already being in place here I then explained that with the federal government currently on a continuing resolution through Novemeber.  Which means something (a budget another continuing resolution deal) must be done by then.  Following which there will be the super committee report ... Then it's January of a presidential election year.

 In this context the idea could be to give orphans puppies that bark jesus; a bill introduced now will not see the light of day until the 113th Congress (assuming the person who introduced it is re-elected).  Policy does not move through Congress based on merit alone.  Being a good idea is way less important than say ... keeping the federal government open which seems to be an increasingly diffuclt -though constitutionally mandated task for the 112th Congress.

 

Meanwhile ...

Boulder Voters could vote to create a municipal eletric utility.  Whether you're for it or against one must be impressed with how quickly local governments can move.  Which is why it puzzles me that so few people care about local government.  It's not glamorous, the characters are infreuntly charming or attractive and the prodcution values are clearly done on a modest budget.  But rest assured this is NOT Kabuki theater.  The events that actually shape your daily life, no matter where you live are being decided ... right now! BY YOUR NEIGHBOR! (unless you live in Washington D.C. of course in which case you are actually stuck with Congress, hope that works out for you ...).

 This fall municipal governments across the country will be holding elections for councils, mayors, ballot questions ranging from social issues to taxation.  All of these questions being asked in what folks in politics without a hint or irony call an "odd number year" which many local charters compell or local leaders request, in both cases cynically because odd election years are gauranteed to have the lowest voter turnonout of the four year presidential election cycle.  Thus gauranteeing that the few politically empowered and savvy can have their way with the ballot box with self-limited noise from the plebes  occasinonal voters.  Being an occasional voter (i.e. votes religiously in presidential or even number years) is like being a "Christmas Catholic" and regular voters view occasional voters with the same open-arm comtept that devout believers reserve for their poser bretheren.  

This contempt is so great that our Secretary of State is requiring county clerks to not send ballots to people who didn't vote in 2010.  Christmas voters be damned! Flagrant voter surpression is bad, institutional voter supression worse.

 

As this pertains to Boulder, our Charter mandated voter supression of "odd year elections" which an elected official actually said "is better because people can focus on local issuses without clutter of national issues" will play heavily into the hands of the status-quo.  I would agree with the above statement if it came with the voter turnout of national elections but unfortunately that will not be the case.  And once again the most important decisions that take place in the public sphere with the greatest level of personal impact will be decided by a radical, righteous and entitled minority.  For the sake of intellectual honesty I suppose I would be less offended (or to give them the benefit of the doubt) unable to see this inherent flaw in our so called democracry if I were in the majority of the political minority.  However it is in the minority of the ruling class where the abuses of the ruling class become the most apparent and exacerbating. 

My Clarinet professor at Juilliard once said "the difference between a rich musician and a poor musician is a poor musician needs to practice".  Without going into the myriad implications of this statement about quality of life, work ethic and bandwith which I will let you ponder for yourself, this statement in which I do believe has a political implication as well. Just because an individual has spent a lot of time on an interest does not mean they are right about it. The best government benefits from the collective wisdom of the governend moderated by elected representatives. Having spent years away, I believe Boulder is a fantastic place to live.  Given our status-quo or someone else's future I would choose stagnation everytime.  These however are not the options.

Our options are to embrace the future and remain a vibrant exciting city or wallow in the swamp of stagnation as the world -and our ability to keep our bubble inflated- pass us by.  

I say all that to say this ...  Tired of Congress? Fed up with the Fed? Teach them a lesson, this fall ignore them! and focus your attentions on your local races.  Even if at then end you still don't care about local government (which I say you do at your own peril), nothing will terriffy national lawmakers and the political establishment at all levels more than high voter turnout in an odd number year.  

 

Politicians, like puppies and small children frequently mean well, and try to test boundaries but if you don't want them to go too far you need to make it clear you're actually watching.  Voting in an odd year is to politicians as being called by their full name is to a 5 year old who's hand is moving slowly towards the cookie jar.   

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.