Opinion: Recent politics – a mixed performance

I just returned from a trip to Bhutan. Religion there is fully integrated with government; the fortresses called dzongs serve both as religious and civil centers. But perhaps because it’s Buddhism, which is nontheistic, it doesn’t come across as oppressive.
That’s unlike the Supreme Court’s recent decision that allows governmental entities to begin their public meetings with openly sectarian prayers. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” But Justice Kennedy wrote in support of this decision, “In the general course, legislative bodies do not engage in impermissible coercion merely by exposing constituents to prayer they would rather not hear and in which they need not participate.” So Kennedy would consider it “permissible coercion” to have a minaret on the Capitol lawn broadcasting calls to prayer on loudspeakers every morning and evening? I don’t think so. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes got it right when he said that your freedom ends where my nose begins. It’s also ironic that some of our governmental bodies open with prayers and then proceeds to act in ways furthest from what anyone would call spiritual. But that fits with the most ubiquitous presence of our trust in God – written on our money.
On the local front, the city rightly rejected the proposed giant “Yes” sign on the public library. The same type of issue came up when I was on the council decades ago. I understand that art experts would like to expand the public’s appreciation of what they consider cutting edge. But I’ve learned that public art is not private art — like religion, it’s not something where ones personal choices or beliefs should be imposed on others without regard to their own preferences.
In the statehouse, the legislature passed SB197, a partially successful attempt to rein in the use of Public Private Partnerships like CDOT imposed on us with the US36/I25 deal. Although SB197 addresses some concerns, it fails to require disclosure of a deal’s final terms prior to signing or to provide legislative veto of these arrangements. Also, SB197 ignores the implications of the Fed’s emerging interest in allowing tolling on existing interstate lanes — any deal requiring the state to compensate “private partners” for lost revenues would kill this equitable and efficient way of increasing needed transportation funding.
Barring a successful special session, the fracking fight will end up with a number of initiatives on the ballot. Just as with the PPPs, I hold Gov. Hickenlooper responsible. Instead of giving in to the drilling industry years ago, Hick could have demanded mandatory best available technology, best practices, full transparency and testing, local control over setbacks, etc., and solved many of the problems up front.
On the municipal utility front, some are complaining that Boulder’s pursuit of municipalization has cost us our undergrounding money. But the real question is — how can Xcel deny undergrounding money to anyone? Colorado statute 40-3-106 unambiguously states, “… a public utility, as to rates, charges, service, or facilities, or in any other respect, shall not make or grant any preference or advantage to a corporation or person or subject a corporation or person to any prejudice or disadvantage.” My bet is that Boulder will eventually get its money, and this lever to induce cities to sign franchises will disappear.
Even the U.S. Forest Service is pushing the legal limits. A federal judge bizarrely ruled that the USFS’s concessionaires may charge for simple access and basic services even though the 2004 Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act prevents the USFS itself from charging for the same things. David Wimert of Longmont, one of the plaintiffs, said in the Denver Post, “The motto of the U.S. Forest Service is caring for the land and serving the people but they threw the people under the bus for more money. The public lands were the heritage of the American people, held in trust by the federal government. That fantasy is truly done.”
In an attempt to rein in some of our political excesses, Colorado’s Initiative 112 is proposing a new voting system that would abolish taxpayer-funded primaries and allow candidates to get on a first round ballot by petition. Initiative 112 would then require preference voting in the general election. Voters would rank their top three choices, and the first candidate getting a majority of votes would win. Among other benefits, 112 would help us escape from the polarizing effect of single party primaries.

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of the new co
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ
Read more