Steve Pomerance

  A completely unnecessary dispute is occurring over the ballot language for the referendum vote on the CU South annexation. The referendum’s committee of petitioners think that the city’s language does not adequately identify exactly what is up for a vote. Thus, a voter who is not familiar with the situation will not know if a YES vote or a NO vote will reject the annexation, or neither. As a result, the petitioners have proposed alternative language to clarify this matter. But most of the city council is defending the staff’s proposed language as necessary and adequate. The staff proposal is, “Should Ordinance 8483 regarding the annexation of CU South, be repealed?” The petitioners’ counterproposal is, “Should Ordinance 8483, which annexes the land known as CU South and sets the terms thereof, be repealed?” The obvious problem with the staff’s language is the word “regarding.” Unless the voter knows that 8483 is the ordinance that actually annexes CU South, he/she would wonder what

  I thought Camera readers would be interested to hear from other former council members about the proposed shift to even-year council elections. I contacted over a dozen former council members with whom I’ve stayed in touch. Eight volunteered to share their thoughts. Below are their comments in alphabetical order. Cindy Carlisle: Boulder’s non-partisan odd-year elections focus candidates and the electorate on an informed discussion of local candidates and issues. Electors aren’t distracted by the noise and money of national campaigns in even years. Citizens concerned about the city’s future and how it’s shaped participate, examining items both mundane (capital improvements) and exotic (Campaign Finance Reform!). Roughly one-third of the city, some 35,000 people, are CU students living here for, generally, four years. Changing local elections from odd to even-numbered years only to attract a transitory population — who can vote now — seems counterproductive to sound governance. K

  I’ve been studying the flood situation again, and it is becoming increasingly clear to me that (1) the proposed “100-year” detention pond for South Boulder Creek will not stop the areas that flooded in 2013 from being inundated again, and (2) the related Annexation Agreement that allows massive development on CU South is full of holes and should be repealed. Let’s be straight about the 2013 flood. Much of Southeast Boulder is a floodplain, created by South Boulder Creek, Viele Channel and other local flows. Given climate change and the resulting stronger storms, even if a storm centers on the Eldorado Springs area and drains into South Boulder Creek, it is a virtual certainty that this “100-year” pond will overtop with some frequency; so the downstream area will be flooded anyway. But if the storm centers a few miles further north over Southwest Boulder, water will come down Viele Channel, completely missing the detention pond. Then the water will do just what it did in 2013 — run