Steve Pomerance

I’ve spent weeks trying to decipher the effects of the Proposition HH ballot measure. I’ve read the state Blue Book, much of the legislation and multiple articles (CPR.org has one of the best). Here are my observations to date, though the principles underlying its structure elude me. The stimulus for Prop HH was the rapid increase in property taxes in high-demand areas over the last few years. This bump was mostly due to the shift to remote work stimulated by the pandemic, resulting in people moving to desirable locations, like Colorado’s Front Range and resort areas, thus pushing real estate prices up rapidly. For context, per WalletHub.com, 2019 (pre-pandemic) Colorado was ranked the 11th best state for low-income people in tax burden as a percentage of income, 10th best for middle-income people and 14th best for high-income. Apparently, Colorado was not overtaxing people. In 2023, for overall tax burden, Colorado ranked 24th best state of 50. So, our governments’ taxes are now in th...

This summer’s air quality here in the Denver metro region has been appallingly bad. According to AirNow.gov, almost every day we in Boulder have fairly high levels of pollution. As I write this, both PM 2.5 and PM 10 levels have the warning, “If you are unusually sensitive to ozone, consider reducing your activity level or shorten the amount of time you are active outdoors.” This has been the situation for most days for the last few months. How bad must it be in places like Commerce City? There was a recent Camera story about how Colorado’s Air Quality Control Commission has provided new escape clauses in its rulings, in spite of the 2021 state law (HB21-1266) which supposedly encourages stronger enforcement of existing laws. I looked up the main state law on air quality (CRS 25-7-102, passed in 2019), and, no surprise, it has huge holes in its language:  “To that end, it is the purpose of this article 7 to require the use of all available practical methods which are technologicall...

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...

Boulder city staff’s memo for the City Council this Thursday discusses what should happen to the City’s publicly owned library buildings once the Library District is operational. So it’s clear, the voter approval of the District in the November 2022 election decided nothing with regard to the fate of these library buildings, which include the Main Library (on Canyon, east of 9th Street), the Carnegie Library (on Pine, west of Broadway — which is our library of Boulder history, not the District’s), the new North Boulder branch building (on North Broadway), and the George Reynolds branch (on Table Mesa Drive across from King Soopers). The other two are leased. Our situation is unique in Colorado; no other large library system has made such a District conversion. And library commissioners are appointed, not elected, so the voters have no direct recourse. In the March 15, 2022, study session prior to the November vote that created the Library District, all eight council members present opp...

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...

Sometimes it’s worth digging into past situations so that we can learn and avoid repetitions. For whatever reason, in the last few weeks several caught my eye. Many of you know of the 311 Mapleton project that replaced the old Memorial Hospital buildings with senior housing and facilities and is now under construction. The original “promise” by the developer, in exchange for building only eight permanently affordable units on the huge 311 site, was to develop the Fruehauf property on 33rd Street with over 100 units of affordable housing. There was a big controversy over a possible conflict of interest that one council member had in voting for this, and it barely was passed by the council on a 5-4 vote.  Somehow this commitment regarding the Fruehauf property was never properly documented. As a result, the city was not going to get any affordable units other than what was on the 311 site. But now, according to Boulder staff, the developer has finally decided to give the undeveloped ...

I want to acknowledge Colorado state Representatives Elizabeth Epps (D-Denver) and Bob Marshall (D-Highlands Ranch) for starting a process that may have huge benefits in reducing the polarization of our political processes. Last week, according to The Denver Post, they filed suit against the Colorado House of Representatives and its leaders and caucuses of both parties for violations of the state’s Open Meetings Law. The alleged violations include closed caucus meetings and the use of electronic messaging apps that auto-delete to secretly communicate. Bringing this lawsuit required enormous courage from these first-year representatives. And, critically, they hit on a problem that I think is, in many ways, responsible for the kind of positionality and buzz-word politics that many of us find so appalling.  It appears that when a subset of the legislators decide among themselves behind closed doors what they want to do, their ability to then listen to their constituents who see issues...

The Boulder city council is considering putting the current General Fund 0.15% sales tax, which expires at the end of 2024, on this November’s ballot for renewal. There seems to be a general agreement among council members that they need the money. However, a citizen group gathered enough signatures for a ballot measure dedicating this tax renewal to the arts. The council authorized a survey to be done, allegedly to determine what level of support there is in the community for the renewal as undedicated funds. City staff hired a California firm to design and perform the polling. It was sent out in June via email and text.  I received the text and was concerned that it was spam, because the text just said it was from “the City.” So, I asked, and city staff said it was legitimate. But before I got started, someone read me some of the questions. The questions made it sound like the survey was a “push poll,” an attempt to influence the voters, as I believe occurred some months ago on o...

In the almost 60 years I’ve lived here, Boulder’s housing has always been more expensive than surrounding areas. So various city councils have tried to provide more affordable housing, including imposing “inclusionary housing” requirements (a percentage of new units be affordable, 10% in the mid-1980s, 25% now), having new business development pay “jobs-housing linkage fees” (now $30 per square foot for office space), pushing dense housing developments (the tree-barren Boulder Junction on 30th Street, Liquor Mart site, etc.), allowing some ADUs with rent control, instituting a buy-down program (providing down payment cash in exchange for limiting appreciation), etc. Most councils were realistic and implicitly aware that housing issues were not ultimately “solvable” — that is, Boulder was never going to come close to fully meeting the demand, and so prices and rents were never going to stabilize and be as affordable as in other places. This is doubly so because of CU’s ever-increasing s...