Opinion: Recent politics – a mixed performance
I just returned from a trip to Bhutan. Religion there is
fully integrated with government; the fortresses called dzongs serve both as
religious and civil centers. But perhaps because it’s Buddhism, which is
nontheistic, it doesn’t come across as oppressive.
That’s unlike the Supreme Court’s recent decision that
allows governmental entities to begin their public meetings with openly
sectarian prayers. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion…” But Justice Kennedy wrote in support
of this decision, “In the general course, legislative bodies do not engage in
impermissible coercion merely by exposing constituents to prayer they would
rather not hear and in which they need not participate.” So Kennedy would
consider it “permissible coercion” to have a minaret on the Capitol lawn
broadcasting calls to prayer on loudspeakers every morning and evening? I don’t
think so. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes got it right when he said
that your freedom ends where my nose begins. It’s also ironic that some of our
governmental bodies open with prayers and then proceeds to act in ways furthest
from what anyone would call spiritual. But that fits with the most ubiquitous
presence of our trust in God – written on our money.
On the local front, the city rightly rejected the
proposed giant “Yes” sign on the public library. The same type of issue came up
when I was on the council decades ago. I understand that art experts would like
to expand the public’s appreciation of what they consider cutting edge. But
I’ve learned that public art is not private art — like religion, it’s not
something where ones personal choices or beliefs should be imposed on others
without regard to their own preferences.
In the statehouse, the legislature passed SB197, a
partially successful attempt to rein in the use of Public Private Partnerships
like CDOT imposed on us with the US36/I25 deal. Although SB197 addresses some
concerns, it fails to require disclosure of a deal’s final terms prior to
signing or to provide legislative veto of these arrangements. Also, SB197
ignores the implications of the Fed’s emerging interest in allowing tolling on
existing interstate lanes — any deal requiring the state to compensate “private
partners” for lost revenues would kill this equitable and efficient way of
increasing needed transportation funding.
Barring
a successful special session, the fracking fight will end up with a number of
initiatives on the ballot. Just as with the PPPs, I hold Gov. Hickenlooper
responsible. Instead of giving in to the drilling industry years ago, Hick
could have demanded mandatory best available technology, best practices, full
transparency and testing, local control over setbacks, etc., and solved many of
the problems up front.
On the municipal utility front, some are complaining
that Boulder’s pursuit of municipalization has cost us our undergrounding
money. But the real question is — how can Xcel deny undergrounding money to
anyone? Colorado statute 40-3-106 unambiguously states, “… a public utility, as
to rates, charges, service, or facilities, or in any other respect, shall not
make or grant any preference or advantage to a corporation or person or subject
a corporation or person to any prejudice or disadvantage.” My bet is that
Boulder will eventually get its money, and this lever to induce cities to sign
franchises will disappear.
Even the U.S. Forest Service is pushing the legal
limits. A federal judge bizarrely ruled that the USFS’s concessionaires may
charge for simple access and basic services even though the 2004 Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act prevents the USFS itself from charging for the same
things. David Wimert of Longmont, one of the plaintiffs, said in the Denver
Post, “The motto of the U.S. Forest Service is caring for the land and serving
the people but they threw the people under the bus for more money. The public
lands were the heritage of the American people, held in trust by the federal
government. That fantasy is truly done.”
In an attempt to rein in some of our political excesses,
Colorado’s Initiative 112 is proposing a new voting system that would abolish
taxpayer-funded primaries and allow candidates to get on a first round ballot
by petition. Initiative 112 would then require preference voting in the general
election. Voters would rank their top three choices, and the first candidate
getting a majority of votes would win. Among other benefits, 112 would help us
escape from the polarizing effect of single party primaries.