Steve Pomerance

What started me off on this topic was an email I got from a friend regarding the Boulder City Council’s discussion of the tipped minimum wage issue at their recent meeting, and in particular the testimony of Rebecca Mitchell, professor at the Leeds School of Business at CU. Prof. Mitchell provided an excellent critique of the city’s work, which, no surprise, supported the city’s proposal that favored the restaurants. But before she finished, her testimony was abruptly cut off after exactly two minutes. Prof. Mitchell said her day job is to “evaluate whether the evidence supports the causal conclusion being drawn.” And she added, “The June 2026 report (done by city staff) does not do so. Instead, it reads as a post-hoc justification for policy direction that appears to already have been chosen.” If I were on the council and considering a decision, and a CU professor took the time to come and testify, I would want to hear all she had to say, ask her questions, and probe the issues she ra...

Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others,” or words to that effect. But there is a wide range of forms of democracy — from what are, in effect, elected dictatorships, to those where direct democracy works in parallel with elected democracy. The Scandinavian countries’ democracies are rated best, along with Switzerland, and almost all have accessible processes for national and/or local initiatives. In Switzerland, citizen initiatives only require 100,000 signatures in a country of almost 9 million — slightly over 1% — and the signature gathering process is relatively simple. Also, Switzerland allows initiative votes up to four times per year. In Boulder, non-charter legislative initiatives require the signatures of 10% of the average number of voters in the last two municipal candidate elections. In 2023, over 33,000 people voted. This will likely increase substantially in 202...

This election, Louisville citizens get two sterling opportunities to help set the direction of their city, courtesy of citizen initiatives. Ballot Measure 300 will help decide what happens in two relatively undeveloped areas, Redtail Ridge and the McCaslin Corridor. It would require at least 30% of any housing be affordable to persons earning at or below 80% of median income.  Thirty percent is stronger than Boulder’s requirement. It also eliminates Boulder’s loophole that allows developers to pay a fee instead, which requires matching funds from external sources (like tax breaks, etc.) to generate enough for the housing to be affordable. So, rather than increasing developer profits, the Louisville measure actually benefits the people who need affordable housing. Ballot Measure 301 expands Louisville’s current set of development impact fees to specifically include library, transportation, parks and trails, open space, recreation, emergency services and municipal buildings (along wi...

I read  Proposition 131  for the first time many weeks ago. The concepts in it were very appealing: open primaries and ranked choice voting (RCV) for candidates. But something didn’t feel right. I understand that no voting system is perfect. But identifiable problems should be fixed. Here are my thoughts on the major ones. Prop 131 creates open primaries by allowing the candidates selected by political parties and qualifying unaffiliated candidates to be listed on a single primary ballot. In June each voter gets a single vote, and the top four vote-getters go on the November ballot. Therefore, there’s no guarantee that a particular party’s candidate will make the general election.  Then in November, voters get to rank these four candidates. Using the standard RCV process, the one with the fewest first-place votes is dropped, and those voters’ second choices become their first choices, and the process is repeated until there’s a winner. ...

The title of this column may sound a bit loaded, but that’s what is being discussed, according to Saturday’s Daily Camera story on some possible 2024 ballot measures that our city council is considering. My first reaction was, “Are you kidding?” The last thing we need is to reward poor performance, allow the council’s discussions to be even more concealed from public view and give them even more power. When I was elected to the council in 1985, council members served as volunteers, with no pay at all. Looking back, it is my observation that almost all of the many people I served with in my 10 years on the council worked very hard, took their council job seriously, sacrificed their free time and worked to include the citizens in the decisions. It was more of a calling than a job. My impression was that most people felt humbled (to some extent, at least) to be granted the power and responsibility that the job creates and demands. A critical improvement was when we created the Council Age...

In response to the City staff memo (that I wrote about on Wednesday), Mayor Pro Tem Mark Wallach made some very strong arguments on the city’s Hotline for keeping the library buildings in City ownership. The Library District trustees then responded with their own memo. So as an addendum to my Wednesday piece in the Camera, here’s a response to the district’s points, which are in quotes. • “Library Districts have every incentive, and are required by law, to maintain library facilities in good condition.” I certainly agree that the district has the resources to maintain the facilities, but what if they don’t perform? What if they choose to spend their money, for example, providing expensive services to various groups, and neglect to adequately maintain and improve the facilities? Is some citizen going to spend their own money taking the library commissioners to court? I doubt it. Neither the law nor the ballot measure seems specific enough to take on public officials. • “Library District...

No, I’m not running. I’m too old, and I’m term-limited besides. But, having listened to many of the council candidates, I think much more emphasis is needed about where Boulder is heading.  Here’s a start: Boulder needs to focus on improving our quality of life, not increasing the quantity of bodies, so that we minimize our impact on climate, natural and agricultural lands, our water supply (which needs a serious risk analysis done ASAP), housing affordability and air quality (and lean hard on the state to finally do its job). Let’s keep Boulder livable. Reducing emissions means net-zero energy use requirements for all new buildings, bringing existing buildings up to current standards, adding PV panels, two-way metering, and micro-grids. Reduce traffic by charging for commuter parking, paying people to car- and vanpool, increasing delivery services, adding protected bike lanes, encouraging e-bikes where they reduce traffic (but not adding to over-use of Open Space), and electrifyin...

Under the system proposed by the City Council and approved by Boulder voters (with no alternatives provided for us to consider), a sitting council member with two years left in their four-year term can run for mayor. That council member only must resign their council seat if they are elected as mayor. So, if they lose, they retain their council seat for two more years, and there are four council vacancies to fill. But if they win, the council candidate that got the fifth-most votes gets the now vacant fifth seat. As a result, the voters have total uncertainty as to how many open seats there will be. Will there be four or five open seats on the council to be filled in the upcoming election? For example, this year, if council member Nicole Speer wins the mayoral race, there will be five open seats, and if she loses, there will be four. But the voters only get four votes, even though there might be five open seats. That makes it very difficult for everyone, including candidates deciding w...

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 ...

  Last Friday, I participated in a debate with former Mayor Sam Weaver about the CU South annexation referendum ballot measure. The Boulder Rotary Club sponsored it at their regular meeting at the Jewish Community Commons. The first thing on the screen, before the debate even started, was the ballot title, “Shall Ordinance 8483, regarding the annexation of CU South, be repealed?” The announcer cleared up the confusion resulting from this oblique wording by explaining to the audience that a “yes” vote supported repealing the annexation itself, and not some peripheral issue. I thought that this was incredibly thoughtful of the Rotary Club. The council should acknowledge having put a confusing title on the ballot and publicly clarify what the ballot measure means at their meetings. A few issues emerged in the debate that I thought deserve some quick comments. The statement that a “500-year” detention pond is “not feasible” is really a statement about CU’s unwillingness to provide ...

  The decisions around how best to protect Boulderites from flood damage and risks are complex, given our location at the base of steep foothills. I was the lead council member in the late ‘80s for Boulder’s first efforts on flood protection and have followed the CU South process closely, so I’m familiar with the issues. And information circulating now is, to a large extent, misleading and biased. First, the flood protection provided by the proposed “100-year” detention pond on South Boulder Creek is inadequate and incomplete. The fundamental problem is that, in a large storm like we had in 2013, water flows into SE Boulder (much of which is a floodplain) from multiple sources — South Boulder Creek (SBC) from Eldorado Canyon, Viele Channel from Viele Lake area near Shanahan Ridge, and multiple local drainages. And we can expect more “atmospheric rivers” as the climate warms. So, some flooding is inevitable. The proposed flood detention “pond” only addresses one source — SBC. Fl...

  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 ...

  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 governanc...

  Why not ask the people? This all started when I saw the Boulder city staff’s proposal to increase the climate action tax to expand Boulder’s investment in reducing our carbon output. I applaud these efforts, having been involved in renewable energy projects since 1975 when I built my solar home, and in 1982 when I designed Boulder’s solar access ordinance. But why are we not requiring that all new buildings be net-zero in energy use? With all the new technology and the availability of community solar, it’s totally feasible and reasonably economic. If the council is not willing to take that step, why not poll the citizens to see if there is political support? What also caught my eye was the additional $1.5 million for wildfire prevention efforts. After the Marshall and NCAR fires, this is clearly a very serious issue. So I contacted the city council about the fire risks associated with unhoused people camping on city lands. The response I got back from one council member was...

  “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,”  Thomas Jefferson once said . Unfortunately, the current notion about shifting our city elections to even years will lead to exactly the opposite. Many people in Boulder invest a lot of time in national and state-level elections. To force them to spread themselves even thinner will just dumb down our local elections. And others don’t get enough information to make informed choices. A perfect example of this dumbing down and information gap was the  strange statement made by Councilmember Matt Benjamin , a member of the so-called progressives, “At the heart, it’s lifting up those that are disenfranchised and don’t vote in odd years.” “Disenfranchise” means “deprive someone of the right to vote.” But every registered voter in Boulder County gets a ballot in both even and odd years. These can be filled out and returned by mail, or deposited in a drop-box, of which there are now ...

How should we elect our mayor? The current Boulder City Council is likely to push for charter changes to shift our city elections to even years, so it makes sense to also rethink the process of electing the mayor that was voted on in 2020. That change necessitated altering councilmembers’ terms to address the shift from nine to eight councilmembers. But it also required indicating how the mayor would be elected. The charter language now specifies, somewhat generically, that “The election shall be conducted by ranked choice (instant runoff) voting.” I suspect that most people voting for the change to direct election of mayor had not thought about what this language really means or what the alternatives are. Besides, it was clear at the time that the proponents of the direct election of mayor had not thought this through; their ballot issue ended up being completely rewritten by the city. Therefore, in my opinion, it makes sense to look at the alternatives as to how this voting wil...