Steve Pomerance

As many of you know, the city’s 2020 Franchise Agreement with Xcel grants Xcel exclusive rights to deliver electricity in Boulder for 20 years. But Xcel also agreed to give Boulder the right to exit the franchise every five years. This year, 2025, is the first opportunity. The money for undergrounding powerlines, which Xcel denied Boulder during the 10 years we were out of franchise, has been committed for that purpose. So that concern is resolved. And the Legislature finally clarified existing state law guaranteeing equal treatment for all customers to ensure that all Xcel-served areas get undergrounding money, whether in franchise or not. According to all reports I’ve received, the Xcel-Boulder advisory panel, created as part of the 2020 settlement with Xcel, has not produced much of consequence. Thus, there is a significant level of dissatisfaction with what Boulder has gotten, and some enthusiasm for pursuing an alternate path. This dissatisfaction was strongly amplified by Xcel’s ...

I was reading last Sunday’s Camera and came across the City of Boulder’s public meeting schedule. It announced two Saturday events, at 7:00 p.m. on Jan. 25 at the library and at 2:00 p.m. on Feb. 08 at the council chambers. They’re called “You’re Invited to Shape Boulder’s Future Through Storytelling,” and described as follows: “Join the City of Boulder, Boulder County, and Motus Playback Theater … for a dynamic event where your stories help shape the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update through interactive theatrical performance.” The link to the city’s website provided this info: “BOLDER. BOULDER. BETTER. With Motus Playback Theater. Join Motus Playback Theater, Boulder County and the City of Boulder for a fun and engaging event where your vision for Boulder comes to life on stage! Share your story or reflection about what matters most to you, and watch professional actors transform it into a theatrical performance with movement, music and spoken word.” But I found zero info on h...

“Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”  What made me think of this saying was the recent criticism by some Boulder City Council members of Boulder County’s plans for spending its just-passed affordable housing sales tax (actually an extension and repurposing of an expiring tax). The saying is supposed to remind people not to criticize others for flaws that they may also suffer.  Their major criticism is that the County did not give Boulder its share of the total revenues as funds to go into Boulder’s long-running affordable housing programs but instead will be part of the County’s separately run programs. I understand the thinking, but it raises the question about what improvements are needed in Boulder’s own “glass house” housing programs, which, at current rates, will not reach the (inadequate) target of 15% permanently affordable units until the 2060s.  Here are some examples: The inclusionary zoning requirement (the fraction of new housing developmen...

In January, the Boulder City Council will consider making some very significant changes in the zoning for our neighborhoods, potentially leading to building of multiple units on what were single-family zoned lots. Their arguments for such upzoning generally ignore the negative effects, are not particularly strong or logical in my opinion, and do not have neighborhood support. Yet, the process proceeds forward as if on rails. This willingness to proceed irrespective of strong public sentiment against this is, in my view, largely a function of the current council’s approach of minimizing their face-to-face participation with the citizens of Boulder. For example, public participation in meetings is now down to two minutes per person (it used to be three minutes), with the number of speakers limited (it used to be unlimited). But what is far worse is the practice of council members not engaging with citizens who raise legitimate issues. That just dissuades citizens who have important thing...

I’ve suspected for a long time that climate change is making our world population level unsustainable. Reading “Recipe for disaster” in the Nov. 16 issue of New Scientist, a respected British science publication, confirmed that view and lays out the long-term future we face. Our food situation is dire: Climate change has had devastating consequences for farmers around the globe. And efforts to compensate, such as clearing forests to grow more crops, have led to increasing carbon dioxide levels, as well as biodiversity loss.  Pests and pathogens are expected to increase. Glacial melting is reducing water supply in some areas. The Dec. 9 New York Times reported that three-quarters of the Earth’s surface has become “persistently drier” in recent decades. And, although increased CO2 levels have slightly improved plant growth rates, once the global temperature rises to exceed 3 degrees C, that effect will reverse. Our local water supply is at risk. The Denver Post last week reported tha...

On Thanksgiving, it seems appropriate to look back and try to appreciate the good things that have happened, while at the same time looking forward to what might be. When I was in college, my worst skill was writing, and all through my youth, I really disliked listening to people talking politics. Now, I really appreciate that I have mostly gotten past both those blocks and have the chance to write about our local political scene, though I’m still more interested in policy than politics. For example, I appreciate that Boulder now has its own fiber network, and we won’t have to rely on private providers with their own systems for internet. But regarding the recent contract signed to give ALLO-Communications a 20-year lease, I note that, per a person at the Institute for Local Self Reliance, some of the best systems are municipally operated and are right here on the Front Range, in Loveland, Fort Collins, Estes Park. Maybe next time… On a larger scale, I really appreciate the work of...

I received many times the usual number of comments regarding my recent column on the “Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods” survey and the willingness of some council members to ignore what the apparent majority of citizens respondents want. These came to me directly and also via NextDoor. Here are some of them, occasionally with edits for length and style: “Thank you for your editorial/letter about growth in Boulder. I thought I was the only one noticing and concerned about it!!” “The ‘progressives’ who have taken control of Boulder just seem to be developers in disguise.” “Neighborhood densifying: nothing has been said about PARKING — a disaster for those who do not have a driveway to park.” “Why do the ‘progressives’ just want to stuff more and more people (and cars) into Boulder? It just makes no sense.” “Collectively the community survey delivered a statistically significant ‘against’ the proposed changes … two to one not in favor, for instance...

I seldom get angry about political matters, since I generally focus on policies rather than personalities. But the October 17 city council session on the results of their flawed “Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods” survey really got to me. No surprise to me, a substantial majority of the survey respondents did not favor densification of their single-family neighborhoods. After all, people bought into these neighborhoods precisely because of their lack of overcrowding, large amounts of green space and quiet streets. So why would they want to convert to being dense, noisy, traffic-ridden, overdeveloped and overpopulated? This serious lack of support apparently upset the plans of the “progressives” on the council to use the survey results to support their densification goals. So, they responded at the meeting by undercutting the survey, saying that it was not statistically valid. And, strangely, this view was not refuted by...

First, the big shocker: Ballot Question 2C more than triples the pay for the mayor and council members! Beginning in December 2026, pay would go up to 50% of Area Median Income for the mayor and 40% for council members. It wasn’t so long ago that council members were not paid at all. For much of my time on council, we all were volunteers. Council members worked hard to do a good job, just because it was their civic duty. But after pay was added and then increased over the years, in my observation, council’s performance deteriorated. The role of the council used to include unbiased and complete agenda preparation, full and open discussion of issues at council meetings, giving all citizens enough time to say what they needed to, then listening and asking questions, and making decisions based on facts and not just abstract values. Now, the agenda materials are not reviewed by the Council Agenda Committee, which was created expressly for that function....