Opinion: Candidates who care, and measures that matter


When I came to Boulder in the ’60s, I was young and blissfully unaware of the huge efforts the current residents were making to keep Boulder a wonderful place, including the Blue Line, that protects our mountain backdrop from development, the 55-foot height limit that protects our views, and the open space program that protects us from sprawl. But eventually I came to realize that the very qualities that make Boulder great, and the kinds of people who care enough to try to preserve them, were what make Boulder such a desirable place to do development. So without carefully managed growth, including growth paying its own way, we would lose those qualities and become just another overcrowded, overpriced, traffic-congested “success” story, like Silicon Valley.
I am supporting candidates that I think will continue this effort to keep Boulder a wonderful place with citizens who truly care about our “commons” — the qualities and amenities that make Boulder unique. Here they are in alphabetical order:
Cindy Carlisle and I served on the council together some decades ago, and she was also a C.U. regent. She is a courageous and smart advocate for keeping Boulder a great place to live. Cindy is a longtime friend who I trust absolutely.
John Gerstle is a former Planning Board member, and is one of the most thoughtful people I know when considering how to address problems, including the impacts of development. John has a long record of bringing people together.
Mirabai Nagle is a Boulder native, businesswoman, and firefighter. She is extremely passionate about maintaining Boulder’s quality of life. And Mirabai has the strength of character to make the right things happen to accomplish this.
Sam Weaver, running for a second term, is highly intelligent, and has a strong interest in renewable energy. Sam has also led a number of efforts to improve our planning processes in ways that takes citizens’ concerns into account.
Mary Young, running for a second term, some years ago was heavily involved with a citizen referendum to stop the spot-zoning of Washington School. So Mary can be counted on to vote the right way, not just what is politically expedient.
PLAN-Boulder County, whose early members were responsible for the Blue Line, height limit, and open space program, is also endorsing these five candidates because they represent the values that have made Boulder so desirable a place to be.
Together4Boulder, a new coalition of a large number of Boulder groups and community leaders, also supports these candidates because they can be counted on to actually listen to the citizens and not just the special interests.


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