Opinion: Boulder should poll public on key issues

 Why not ask the people?

This all started when I saw the Boulder city staff’s proposal to increase the climate action tax to expand Boulder’s investment in reducing our carbon output. I applaud these efforts, having been involved in renewable energy projects since 1975 when I built my solar home, and in 1982 when I designed Boulder’s solar access ordinance. But why are we not requiring that all new buildings be net-zero in energy use? With all the new technology and the availability of community solar, it’s totally feasible and reasonably economic. If the council is not willing to take that step, why not poll the citizens to see if there is political support?

What also caught my eye was the additional $1.5 million for wildfire prevention efforts. After the Marshall and NCAR fires, this is clearly a very serious issue. So I contacted the city council about the fire risks associated with unhoused people camping on city lands.

The response I got back from one council member was, “No one is allowed to camp on Open Space, or in public spaces in the city. Given the number of reported campsites, it does often take a while to require people to move from any given one, but the camping ban is enforced both within city limits and on Open Space.” But apparently, the current policy is to allow 72 hours to move, likely to another equivalently risky site.

What happens if these campers start a fire that burns both city lands and adjoining houses? It seems to me that such camping creates an immediate, clear and present danger. Interestingly, allowing unnecessarily dangerous situations like this might be considered “willful and wanton” behavior by elected officials, and may void their governmental immunity protection, per CRS 24-10-105. (I found this out in 2012 when the city invited 10,000 people to view the finish of the bike race to the top of Flagstaff right in the middle of the thunderstorm season.)

Both the city and county have taken on the homeless issue quite seriously and some very good work has been done, especially the “housing first” and “coordinated entry” efforts. And it certainly seems appropriate to remove campers to safe locations as fast as possible, rather than handing out notices that just prompt moving to other equally dangerous locations. This council apparently made this decision to not require immediate action.

But why was there no polling done of the citizens to see what priority they feel would be appropriate? As I understand it, about half the unhoused are from elsewhere, apparently attracted by our liberal attitude and many services. So, the more we do, the bigger the problem gets. And it’s legally difficult to restrict services to long-time residents. But let’s at least ask the citizens if they would support the immediate removal of occupants camping in fire-prone places.

A similar situation relates to transportation planning for our arterial streets, and the County’s consideration of a sales tax to fund necessary improvements. I’ve long been a proponent of charging for auto use to pay for road maintenance and improvements. This can be done using tolls, license plate scanning of parked cars, etc. Such direct charges disincentivize the use of cars and can also provide revenue to incentivize people to car-pool, van-pool, bike, etc.

Why haven’t our elected officials asked the people whether they would prefer this approach, which is much more economically efficient? And at the same time, ask people whether they would really use more subsidized buses vs. better bike lanes or other alternatives. Given the number of busses I see that are running almost empty, maybe it’s time to check priorities with the people.

The most obvious failure in asking the public is around the proposed shift to even-year elections. I’ve found no evidence that the city has seriously polled citizens to find out exactly who doesn’t vote in odd-year elections and specifically why. Some have alleged that it’s the lower-income areas in Boulder that don’t vote. But that’s too broad a conclusion, given the 30,000-plus CU students. And more importantly, do people not vote in odd-year elections because they think voting for council doesn’t make any difference? Because they have language difficulties? Or they lack information? Or what? Having these answers would clarify whether shifting to even years makes any sense whatsoever.

Of course, there’s an obvious explanation: The advocates figure that they can convince these potential voters to vote their way. I just hate to think that’s where our politics have gone.

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