Opinion: Some last-minute ballot comments


At the North Boulder Recreation Center on Wednesday morning, a number of people asked for my opinion on some of the ballot issues. So here goes:
From the big picture perspective, Ballot Item 2A, the renewal of Boulder’s “carbon tax” (aka Climate Action Plan tax aka CAP tax) is critically important. Even though energy efficiency has a huge potential to reduce GHG emissions (some have calculated up to a 30 percent reduction) and to save money at the same time, it is very difficult to make real gains. Many people don’t have the free time to deal with the daunting prospect of doing energy audits, analyzing cost/benefit calculations, deciding on priorities, and hiring and managing contractors. Boulder has been a leader in integrating all these steps so that a business or homeowner can get things done easily and with assurance that they are making the proper choices. Renewing the CAP tax will allow the benefits of all this previous research and development to be realized.
One new approach, that I really like, is putting some of the money out to bid to see what innovative ideas can save the most energy for the fewest dollars. Businesses, property managers, HOAs, and individuals will be stimulated to see what they could accomplish. And it’s likely that everyone that participates will do more than they would otherwise.
The CAP program is also very useful for owners and managers of rental properties that are subject to city energy efficiency standards. It provides funding and technical support to help them meet the city’s goals. This is especially important in student housing, where the rentals are short term, so ordinary financial incentives don’t line up particularly well.
The photos in this week’s Camera of a dried up lake should remind us that one early effect of climate change will likely be more extreme weather. Boulder’s efforts may only address a tiny piece of the needed level of worldwide GHG reductions, but Boulder’s real role is as a leader to point the way for others. So I support 2A.
Amendment 64, the marijuana initiative on the statewide ballot, has created a very interesting debate. There are those who see it as much too detailed for the state constitution. But for me, the issue is much more about getting the Federal government to finally admit that marijuana is not some demonic health threat, and that we’d be better off with it legal and regulated. (If you believe some of what is out there, high fructose corn syrup is a bigger public health hazard!) One of the conversations I heard this week was about an older women who had injured herself, and had been using marijuana without a problem to deal with some symptoms. Then her doctor told her to stop and put her on some prescription drug that created lots of difficulties for her. For me, it’s time to end the war on marijuana.
Amendment S alters a lengthy and extremely detailed section of the state constitution that controls the state’s personnel laws and is supposed to bring them up to date. There is almost universal support among state elected officials, especially governors, to whom it gives considerably more power. But it could open up the door to more patronage and cronyism. For example, it replaces the current requirement for selection using “competitive tests of competence” with “a comparative analysis of candidates based on objective criteria” which can be “numerical or non-numerical.” Almost anything could fit this requirement. It also exempts deputy department heads, chief financial officers, public information officers, legislative liaisons, human resource directors, executive assistants, and senior executive service employees from even this level of “analysis” (subject to approval by the state personnel director, whose apparently is also exempt.) The idea of buddies of someone like Secretary of State Scott Gessler being appointed is frankly terrifying.
With respect to the argument that the marijuana initiative is too detailed for the state constitution, if the legislators want statutory initiatives rather than constitutional amendments, they need to provide more protection — requiring a two-thirds legislative majority to change the statute and some number of years guaranteed without any changes would be a good start. And the legislators should put this on the ballot without tying it to provisions that make constitutional amendments harder. Then it might actually pass.


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

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...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more