Steve Pomerance

Earlier this year, the February 6 city council agenda provided notice for Boulder’s first executive session with the opaque explanation: “pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) for conference with attorneys for the City for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions regarding meeting management and the First Amendment.” This behind-closed-door session was actually about how the council was finally going to wrest control of its meetings back from the protesters, after a year-plus of almost constant disruptions. I’m happy to see this finally happening, though, in my opinion, it did not require instituting executive sessions, which I don’t support because their privacy encourages bad behavior and deal cutting. Colorado statute 24-6-402(4) states that the public notice of an executive session requires “identification of the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive...

Many of you are probably familiar with Lorie Smith, a website designer, who asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block enforcement of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. This Act would have prevented her from refusing to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. Apparently, Ms. Smith’s objection comes from her religious beliefs, and the case is being argued regarding whether her combined First Amendment rights regarding freedom of speech and free exercise of religion are being violated. Rather than jump to a conclusion, I’ve tried to sort out the arguments being made. But the analogies and parallels that I’ve read get increasingly convoluted. Finally, I found a government website called “Constitution Annotated — Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.” Reading through the First Amendment section, it became clear to me that even the most extensive and sophisticated arguments will not resolve such issues. So, I tried to step back from the details and asked myself what the ...

In my almost 40 years in Boulder politics, I have never seen a project create such controversy, and it’s no surprise: CU South is the size of downtown Boulder both in acreage and development potential. The proposed “100-year design” flood detention pond is inadequate given climate change and the limited pond size, which cannot reasonably be expanded once CU develops the nearby area. The deal was negotiated without investigating a land swap with city-owned land north of the city limits. Condemnation of the needed property was apparently not even looked at. And it was done without a proper flood control master plan to evaluate the costs and benefits of projects on Boulder’s many creeks, determine which ones were worth doing, and then prioritize them based on the most benefit (including life/safety) for the least cost. Boulder’s politics have worked best, and created the least conflict, when the processes are open and the citizens can observe and engage as matters proceed. Sometim...

If nothing else, this hopefully got your attention. It may even have conjured up some unusual thoughts or images. And you may have wondered just what I could possibly be up to. This has to do with Boulder’s charter and the bike race that will now end up on Flagstaff, part of Boulder’s open space system. All parts of open space are limited in what activities can occur there, and on Flagstaff the relevant use is “passive recreation.” The city administration is making the following argument relative to Summit Drive (the road from the gate to the Amphitheater), according to the city attorney’s quote in last Wednesday’s Camera, “‘If driving on a road is not passive recreational use, then a road is not open space as contemplated in the charter,’ he said. ‘If council considers that road to be open space under the charter, we probably should consider banning cars, though that would be a significant change from its historic use.'” Driving on a road, or parking in a lot, is not general...