Steve Pomerance

Xcel is a for-profit monopoly that was created in 1998 to take advantage of outmoded, non-competitive, but highly profitable regulated utility systems in multiple states. Xcel wants Boulder to give up its chance for freedom in exchange for a new franchise that effectively locks Boulder to Xcel for 20 years, guarantees nothing of substance in return, and from which the escape terms are so expensive or painful that they could not ever be used. As Camera readers, I suspect you’ve already read about the flaws in Xcel’s proposal. But just to reiterate some important points: Practically everything would have to go through PUC review, and so could easily be stopped. The renewable energy programs offered are either already available or overpriced. And giving Boulder what it doesn’t offer to others would put Xcel at risk in all sorts of ways. Perhaps the biggest flaw is that Boulder could not really enforce the terms. It was clear going into discussions over a year ago that it would be a ...

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...

Because the discussions on this subject are all over the map, I thought it would be useful to summarize what I think would be an appropriate approach. A reasonable goal would be to maintain some level of economic diversity in our community. But that doesn’t mean that everyone who wants to live here and every business that wants to expand here can do so. We have finite resources: our streets, our water supply, our views, and our Open Space are limited in their carrying capacity. Besides, trying to build more market priced housing won’t work. The market has already priced this housing out of range of anyone even somewhat above the area median income . So just adding market rate housing will just add more people with high incomes or net worth, and leave out the middle and lower income folks. Also, the demand is so huge that it cannot be reasonably satisfied: There are over 60,000 workers that commute in every day, and together with their families, they would double Boulder’s pop...

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  Originally electric utilities in the U.S. competed with each other by covering the streets with multiple sets of wires, but this competition lowered prices and cut profits. Then, roughly 100 years ago, these utilities realized that it would be a lot more profitable to not compete but rather to control their regulators. Thus was born the regulated private monopoly structure we now have. As new power plants got bigger, the unit price of electricity dropped, so customers could tolerate these excess profits. (Nonprofit public utilities also emerged as an alternative. Per the American Public Power Association, Colorado now has 31, and all 151 utilities in Nebraska are public.)  Recently, the for-profit private vertically integrated monopoly structure has begun to break up. Large sectors of the country(but not Colorado) now have competitive markets for electricity supply, independent system operators that match...

“The people’s representatives will reach their destination, invested with the highest confidence and unlimited power. They will show great character. They must consider that great responsibility follows inseparably from great power. To their energy, to their courage, and above all to their prudence, they shall owe their success and their glory.”  — Translated from decrees of the French National Convention, May 8, 1793. By now, most council members must have figured out that their notion that the whole council could design co-op legislation from scratch just using public hearings but without adequate problem definition, alternatives analysis, or data collection, was ill conceived. Prudence, as the French advise, would direct the council to own up to the mistake and take a different tack, as I suggest below. I believe it would produce a more satisfactory result in less time, even starting at this late date. Here are some parts: The council needs to consider other alternativ...

I recently read through the latest draft of the co-op ordinance. Unfortunately, it is still a mash-up of ideas that sound good but have significant flaws. And it is still disorganized — general requirements are mixed with specifics, concepts show up in multiple places, and some terms, including “limited equity cooperative,” “certification,” and “privilege,” are undefined. One of the biggest problem areas is the “permanently affordable Group Equity Cooperative” (GEC). I’ll focus there, but it is not the only problem by any means. The ordinance allows up to 12 people to live in a co-op in low-density zones, and up to 15 in higher-density zones. But if the Planning Board so recommends, the city manager can increase the upper limit for a “permanently affordable” co-op like a GEC. The Planning Board must consider impacts, crowding, parking, and the co-op’s “mission,” but there are no actual rules for the board to follow to calculate their recommended number. So no one can challenge the ...

From my perspective, many of the current hot political issues have angles that haven’t been adequately discussed. Here are a few: Amendment 71 is an attempt to make it extremely difficult for any but the most well-funded interest groups to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, much less get it passed. The argument by Colorado’s “We know best” power-brokers is that we need more stability. But in Switzerland, one of the most stable countries in the world, it’s easier to petition to amend their constitution than to amend Colorado’s. A far better fix for Colorado would be to better protect statutory initiatives by only allowing them to be changed with concurrence of two-thirds of both the Senate and the House and consistent with their stated purpose. This would make this type of initiative more attractive and thus limit the use of constitutional amendments, and the Legislature could fix any technical problems discovered after passage. Propositions 107 and 108 support open pri...

Given the controversy around the protest filed over the “Three Term Limit” petition, I thought Camera readers might find it useful to have a brief analysis of the charter amendment process for home rule cities like Boulder. The Boulder City Charter, Section 137, references the Colorado Constitution as the authority on charter amendments. The Constitution (Article XX, Section 9) provides the basics, and empowers the Legislature to set the procedures. These are in the Colorado Revised Statutes (mostly in CRS31-2-201 through 31-2-225). For citizen-initiated charter amendments, the CRS are very specific as to the form of the petitions (the documents that voters sign), including size (8.5″ x 11″), orientation (portrait, not landscape), and that the warning (requiring signers to be registered voters, etc.) must be printed in red on every page. Disassembly, such as removal of staples, is not allowed, to help prevent fraud. CRS 31-2-219 specifies, “Any such petition which fails to confor...

The Boulder City Council is setting up a working group to improve how the “public” participates in its governance. This will be a big undertaking, since the process is flawed from top to bottom. At the highest level, the lack of trust is evident. Citizens are asking, “Do the council and staff really work for us the citizens, or are they in it for themselves? Do they really value what we care about, or do they hold their personal goals and interests paramount?” This should not be an “either/or,” but the current unacknowledged tension makes many citizens feel irrelevant, whether they are testifying at a council meeting, or are invited to participate in a staff-managed process. I certainly have experienced this myself. There is an almost total lack of feedback when testifying at council or emailing the council on substantive issues. And even as an appointee to the city’s working group on impact fees (an area where I’m a relative expert), when I identified significant flaws in the st...

Boulder’s current draft ordinance for co-operative housing units (“co-ops”) has a very long way to go to balance the desires and concerns of the various parties while preserving Boulder’s neighborhoods. There are big problems with trying to allow co-ops to operate in rental units. It is almost impossible to objectively distinguish a co-op from an over-occupied rental. Saying, “I know one when I see one,” the current city mantra, does not provide a bright line for enforcement officers or the courts. Allowing a third party that promotes co-ops to “certify” them is crazy, because they are likely to approve questionable groups just to gain constituents. Requiring the co-op groups to be incorporated will just create a cottage industry to do the paperwork, no doubt funded by landlords interested in higher occupancies and rents, but providing no particular benefit to the neighbors. Finally, allowing rental co-ops will accentuate the conflicts between landlords and neighboring owner-reside...