Steve Pomerance

In my last Camera piece, I said, “If all it takes is the council similarly claiming something is an ’emergency,’ then the council could pass most anything ‘by emergency’ and avoid public hearings completely.” Well, the council did exactly that at their next opportunity, abusing Charter Section 17 by passing “by emergency” the new rules for council meetings’ start times and schedules. Almost every definition of “emergency” I’ve found requires an event to be “unexpected” or “sudden,” and “demanding immediate attention” to prevent loss of life, property, etc. But the situation with “open comment” has been a mess since the war in Gaza got going. And after well over a year of failed attempts to fix the situation, it is hardly “sudden” or “unexpected.” If it is so serious, why weren’t these new fixes proposed two weeks sooner? Or why not wait one more meeting and get some public input? All this raises the serious question of why the council doe...

On July 1, the City of Boulder filed a motion in the lawsuit brought in early April by Boulder citizens regarding the bonding of the South Boulder Creek flood control dam. The City’s motion claims that the citizens’ lawsuit is “frivolous” and asks them to pay over $46,000 in attorneys’ fees. When I heard about this, I inquired of the city attorney, the mayor and councilmembers. The city attorney only said she “authorized the filing of the motion.” But councilmembers either didn’t respond or refused to even say whether they had discussed this with her. Apparently, no one wants to own what seems a blatant attempt to suppress citizens’ dissent. The fundamental legal issues in the citizens’ original lawsuit are clear, and in my opinion, the exact opposite of “frivolous.” Can the City charge fees based on the “impervious surface area” of people’s lots within the City to pay for this dam, when the floodwater being controlled comes (almost) totally from outside the city? Can the City pass the...