County Building Regs Coming Around Again

The Boulder County Commissioners will be vetting the details to the new residential remodel/construction regulations next month; the Board of Review discussed the topic last night regarding the BuildSmart program. I support the zero waste aspects that will have deconstructed material reused if possible or otherwise recycled somehow. Homes over 3000 sq feet will need to produce 50% of their energy from on-site renewable energy sources; 5000 sq ft homes will need to produce 100% of their energy from renewable sources within a year (See page 5 here). The energy use standards are measured with the HERS standard.

So, is such an energy use/production requirement a de facto moratorium on large homes? I'm starting to change my mind, as builders describe the possibilities with current technology. But there's still a heavy handed and hence inappropriate feeling I get seeing the government require such aspects of home construction. It's the sense that there's a resentment over the size of the home itself, and the energy efficiency is the secondary but ostensibly primary reason for the rules. This is all just perception based on side comments I hear from supporters of the rules. A "Who needs a house that big?! Make 'em pay, then." kind of sentiment.

A public hearing on BuildSmart will be held at 5 p.m. Dec. 18.

I'm Not The Only One Wondering...

I found today's print edition of the Camera's editorial section very interesting, as both attributed and anonymous sources have commented on the issue of whether anonymous blog and other internet postings are helpful or hurtful to public debate.

Given my recent experience with my blog, I found a few articulate defenders of the policy of allowing anonymous posts. I also felt a few people nailed the reasons why on balance such posts are not worthwhile. A few samples:

"I post anonymously because some years ago, in a different online forum, someone took such umbrage at my comments (under my real name) that he figured out where I worked, and attempted to get me in trouble with my employer. None of the accusations he made were true, of course, but I still had to defend myself, take my time, and my supervisor's time, to address his charges. He later gloated that he could make my real life a mess - just because he couldn't successfully debate me online." - moniker: derecho64 .

"EVERYTHING on the INTERNET blogs/comment boards is "anonymous". It's the nature of the media. You'd have to be one deluded fool to believe that just because someone claims to be John Doe online, and asserts that John Doe is their true identity, that said poster really is John Doe." - moniker: Reality_Check.

"Blogging in general is addictive, and anonymity in particular is a crutch. To speak up anonymously is important for those in vulnerable situations such as working for a hostile employer or being targeted by a criminal. Anonymity is the game of the predatory minded when they go sniping — which is to harm someone from a position of cover. But for most, the risk of writing anonymously on a routine basis is to lure oneself into thinking it is done for personal or political “safety.” The ultimate face of anonymity is the hooded jihadist. Few bloggers, named or anonymous, are self disciplined. They give in to the haste that is the hallmark of blogging, and by misstating and then attacking others’ remarks, they put up straw-man arguments that ignite cycles of anger that go round and round. That’s addictive." (Read more by Anne Butterfield, a member of the Camera's editorial advisory Board.)

"The good side of this virtual war of words is stones don’t actually hit bodies. The bad side is that in this virtual world, victims still fall. Heading the list of victims is truth, fairness and civil discourse. Particularly when participants post anonymously but not solely when they do, discourse is much harsher and emotional rather than civil and thoughtful. Rules of decorum in only some places hold off ad hominem attacks, obscenities, lies and the like." (Read more by Shirley Scoville, a member of the Camera's editorial advisory Board.)


The Camera also provides several links to articles about the general topic of the worthiness of anonymity on the internet.


Now it figures with my new blog template I'm having trouble having the comment function re-activated. As I post this I'm going to be working on making this post a "live" debate as in the past with the comments function.

Election Musings

I admit the County's ballot issue returns surprised me - while I supported both 1A (open space) and 1B (transit improvements) the notion that the transit tax extension would grab nearly 70% of the vote to open space's 60% shows a preference for a tax that conventional wisdom holds would never get more than 55 or 60% of the vote. There were 500 more votes cast overall on 1B, meaning people actually cared a little bit more about it one way or the other too.

Similarly, in Lafayette, 72% of the vote supported the credit card financing of road improvements through bonding. 72%!! The roads are apparently the biggest common denominator out there. So how do the bonds get paid back? Sales tax revenue. How do you get more of that? Commercial development. Who shops there? Nearby people with X needs for goods. So why the disconnect in Lafayette - which voted to renew a residential housing permit cap for another 6 years? This is a reduction in potential household shoppers who will help chip in to repay the bonds voters approved. Lafayette doesn't "need" more homes, I suppose. We're a good size now, and the pace of permitted construction is not blistering anyway. But I'm curious to see this support for increased bills and opposition to bill paying mechanisms.

Louisville's development question 2A was more divisive and failed narrowly, I believe the opposition hit the tipping point with Mayor Chuck Sisk's opposition well known. Sisk was re-elected with 81% of the vote, and I bet his clout on 2A helped sway just enough people. The final tally was only about a 200 vote difference with about a 50% turnout. Louisville's Ward 1 vote had an 11 vote difference out of 1683 total votes- a great example of why every vote counts. Ward 3 had only a 64 vote spread.

Longmont passed the tourism tax to tout itself as the hub for day trips elsewhere into the state. A similar tax failed lst year, but they nailed 54% of the vote this time. The out-of-towners-pay-this-tax message resonated with enough people who probable also recognize the need to drive outside Longmont for fun too.

In general, East BoCo feels pretty good about the status quo. New taxes are supported, no major leadership shifts, incumbents hitting high totals, and support for maintenance and open space. Ahh, paradise.

What's that? $100 a barrel? Iran? If only we could just do our thing here without being disturbed...

Goin' For The Transit Tax

You know I support the County's Open Space ballot issue 1A, and I've been reading, asking around and pondering the transit tax (issue 1B) and this weekend I decided to call the County's bluff and vote for the tax extension.

Why describe it that way? The merits of what the money would go towards I found to be somewhat less than compelling. Good ideas on their own, but somehow not hitting me as crucial. In fact the scope of future transit improvements demand a larger-than-Boulder-County regional scope and funding mechanism. However, unlike the Lafayette transit improvement issues which I opposed for fiscal policy reasons, I see the extension of a current tax as being more practical. These projects and improvements will happen as money comes in as opposed to being financed on credit.

That said, the County is taking a step towards tax saturation with this one. In another couple years when some other issue needs more money and people see how much they're already giving the county, this will make any new tax harder to sell. By supporting 1B now I'll be more skeptical of a new tax later. So quite intentionally I'm looking at 1B in a vacuum, accepting the County's rationale that it's needed, and not weighing it against likely future demands. On their own those projects will be "nice to have" while debatably more crucial issues lurk around the corner, below the horizon. I'll play their game - and call their bluff.

The Unclear Definition Of "Smart" Growth

A reader asked me offline if I had seen the flyer in the mail from "The Committee For Smart Growth." I have not, so my comments come from a conceptual point of view:

I love the name (note: sarcasm) - it implies nothing as to the philosophy of the group. Pro or anti? Specific development or general? A predictably self-important labeling by an interest group. Without knowing who is behind it, my guess is an anti-specific-development group of folks.

"Smart" growth to some equals "no more growth now that I'm here and have what I want". I look forward out of general curiosity to see what this flyer portrays as "smart". I'll hold off on any more speculation...

Chugga Chugga Choo Choo!

RTD has approved diesel trains for the Boulder to Longmont leg of the commuter rail that will be implemented withFasTracks over the next 7, 8, however many years. Once again the Camera provides a quote that makes an official look foolish: "If the objective of FasTracks is to minimize the impact to the community, using diesel does not meet that objective," said Judy Montero, a Denver city councilwoman.

What a twisting of rationale that statement is. Has there ever been a statement that FasTrack's objective is to minimize impacts to the community - in any way other than offering non-vehicular options for travel? FasTrack's rationale has nothing to do with reducing noise or other aspects of additional modalities. There's no way Fastracks could ever be presumed to be less impactful on a community compared to the status quo trending of traditional car-dominant transportation. What kind of straw man foolishness is that?

Camera version.

Anyway, I voted for FasTracks with no illusions as to the standard cost overruns, way-too-optimistic timetables and the rest that would be part of any massive government project. In the grand scheme I still feel the capacities for people moving the effort will provide will be worth it, even if we weren't told it will really be $15 instead of $4 billion. No surprise there.

Notwithstanding the train whistles and other "community impacts", what do you think of FasTracks? Does it matter in Superior, Erie and Lafayette, especially?

East BoCo Readers Should Check...

I'm sure you're all on top of this, but it's worth verifying given all of our motivated interest - today is the last day to register to vote in the November election. To check your registration status, visit www.voteboulder.org or call Boulder County's elections office at 303-413-7740.

Are You Registered? More So, Are Elections Secure?

Boulder County Clerk and Recorder Hillary Hall and the Boulder County Elections Division will host an Open House for the public, media and candidates on Tuesday, Oct. 9, from 5-7 p.m. in the County's newly constructed Elections Wing, 1750 33rd St., Boulder. Attendees of the Open House will receive a tour of the facilities and a walk-through of the election process. Visitors will also have an opportunity to ask questions and to meet Elections Coordinator Larry Beer and Chief Deputy Scott Thomas.

Tuesday, Oct. 9, is also the last day to register to vote for the November 6 election. Voters can check their registration status and registered address at www.voteboulder.org.

Given the unresolved concerns around the Lafayette special election on the Lowe's annexation and the various conspiracies I hear in Louisville and Longmont, skeptics may want to attend this tour and see how our democratic processes are safeguarded.

East BoCo Candidate Forums

Here are details to various candidate forums I've found for East Bock:

Louisville:
The League of Women Voters sponsored a forum on Saturday, September 29, it will be televised live on Cable Channel 8, and rebroadcast throughout the weeks leading up to the election.

Lafayette:
The Lafayette Youth Advisory Committee held a forum on Saturday Sept. 29 at Canon Mine Coffee; hopefully they'll be some coverage Wednesday in the Lafayette News.

Council Candidates have been invited to participate in a forum sponsored by the Community Foundation Serving Boulder County and the Human Service Alliance on Friday October 5, 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM at the Lafayette Public Library, 775 West Baseline Road, Lafayette, CO 80026.

On Thursday, October 18 the League of Women Voters will sponsor a Candidates Night at City Hall in the Council Chambers at 6:30 pm. Candidates will have an opportunity to answer questions and share their opinions. This event is open to the public and will also be televised on Government Access Cable Channel 8 and will repeat throughout the weeks leading up to the election.

Longmont:
(From the TimesCall)The Longmont Area Democrats organization is devoting its monthly meeting to a candidates and issues forum from 7 to 9 p.m. Wednesday October 3 at the City Public Works Building, 375 Airport Road.

At 6:30 p.m. Oct. 11, voters can meet St. Vrain Valley school board and Longmont City Council and mayoral candidates at the 2007 Longmont Candidates Forum in the Albert E. James Auditorium at Longmont High School, 1040 Sunset St.

The mayoral and council candidates also have been invited to discuss their views on the Longmont area’s nonprofit organizations, and how local government can support such groups, during a Thursday luncheon sponsored by the Community Foundation Serving Boulder County. That 11:30 a.m.-to-1:30 p.m. Thursday forum will be at the Longmont Museum & Cultural Center’s museum classroom, 400 Quail Road.

What do you think of forums?What is the best format? My dealings with the 22-person/seven seat race in Boulder leads me to believe we need much higher signature thresholds to get on the ballot.

County Tax Overview: Commissioner Will Toor's Comments

Boulder County Commissioner Will Toor submitted the following comments to add to our discussion of County ballot issues 1A and 1B for open space and transit improvements, respectively. Comments?

I have read with interest the exchanges on this blog on county ballot issues 1A and 1B. I would like to provide my perspective on why both issues benefit all of Boulder County, and urge your support for these issues.

On issue 1A:County Question 1A enables Boulder County to continue preserving, improving and maintaining important open lands around the county. It continues an existing l tenth of a cent sales tax, or 10 cents on a $100 purchase. It does not increase taxes above the current rate, it simply carries forward an existing small amount.

The preservation of open lands is vital to sustaining our quality of life in Boulder County. As urban sprawl from Denver encroaches on our way of life, there is much to do in terms of managing growth and protecting wildlife habitat and agriculture. Critical wildlife corridors and significant parcels of land will be available for open space purchase in the immediate future. If 1A passes, we will be able to safeguard these lands for future generations. If not, we'll see more development throughout rural Boulder County.

We live in a region with significant growth pressures. State planners estimate that Colorado's Front Range - from Colorado Springs to Fort Collins - will grow by more than 3 million people in the next 25 years. This rapid growth intensifies the need for preserving our remaining open spaces. Further, Boulder County's economic health is directly linked to how well we protect our environment.

Without the continuation of this tax, Boulder County won't be able to purchase additional open space for many years and will face real limitations on funds needed to build new trails and facilities. Current open space taxes only generate enough revenue to pay for the land that has already been acquired. If 1A passes, Boulder County will be able to buy and preserve key parcels now before they're bought up by developers and while prices are still affordable.

The remaining land that should be preserved includes wildlife habitat in the mountains and plains; urban buffers between communities; working farms and ranches; and trail linkages. These parcels are often adjacent to or surrounded by other open space land. If we fail to conserve these lands, the impact on current open space will be significant.

Question 1A also provides funds for maintaining and improving the land we have. It will help pay for weed management, wetland and riparian area enhancements, trail and facility construction and maintenance, forest management, wildlife habitat improvements, agricultural management and more.

The choice is clear. We can pass 1A and continue to protect our quality of life and our rural lands or we can defeat 1A and risk development and sprawl. We can protect wild places for wildlife or we can allow wild places to sprout new houses and attract widespread development.

Boulder County is known statewide and nationally for our land preservation efforts, for our trails, our preservation of historic structures and our efforts to manage growth. 1A maintains a very small tax that allows us to continue these efforts.

In response to questions that have been raised on this blog: Boulder county currently has only $12 million left for land acquisition. This may sound like a lot, but at current rates of land acquisition this will last less less than one year. 1A will generate $4.2 million annually. Of this, $3.2 million will be bonded, providing $40 million in bonds for land purchase; and $1 million per year will be available for land management and trail construction. Dr Bombays' statements that county open space funds are primarily invested in the Boulder area are incorrect; he may be confusing County open space with City of Boulder open space. Major County open space purchases over the last few years have included large parcels near Lafayette, Superior, Lyons, Longmont, and one major purchase in the foothills west of Boulder (near the Betasso open space).

Boulder County Ballot Issue 1B - .10% Transportation Sales and Use Tax Extension will allow Boulder County to continue to provide better roads, safer pedestrian crossings, an expanded network of regional trails, and continued high quality transit service for Boulder County - all key components of a balanced and well-maintained transportation system that provides residents and visitors safe and convenient travel choices throughout Boulder County.

Voting Yes on ballot issue 1B will not increase the current sales tax rate. 1B continues an existing one-tenth of a cent sales tax to be used for fifteen years towards the construction development, maintenance and operation of our vital transportation system.

In 2001, the citizens of Boulder County voted to fund improvements to the County's transportation system. Most of these improvements have been implemented, including 42 miles of shoulder and intersection improvements to County roads, implementation of popular transit routes, and major roadway construction of the Valmont Road and Airport Road bridges.

As growth in the County continues, there is a continued need to invest in transportation improvements. If we are to sustain the high quality of life that makes Boulder County such a desirable place to live, work and play, we must continue to support our first class transportation system.

For only a penny on every $10 purchase, 1B will help provide for these important projects and services:

* Roadway Reconstruction, Road Safety and Maintenance Projects (over 40% of funds), including ten critical roadway and intersection improvements throughout the County and funding for ongoing maintenance of our roadway system. This funding will also help construct key underpasses and sidewalks in areas that present barriers to walking or biking safely and conveniently to key community destinations.

* Road/Bike Shoulder Projects (25% of funds), including thirteen different roads that require wider shoulders to improve safety for both drivers and bicyclists.

* Transit Projects that support Senior Transportation programs, Eco Pass programs for neighborhoods and businesses, and continued support for important transit routes throughout the county (approximately 16% of funds). Passage of 1B will mean continued support for transit service between Lafayette, Erie, Louisville, Superior, Longmont, Lyons and Boulder, as well as improved connections between communities in the southeast county to the U.S. 36 corridor.

* The completion of our Regional Trails system (15% of funds). This program will complete the final sections of the Coal Creek and Rock Creek Trail system, implement the planned St. Vrain Greenway Trail between Longmont and Lyons, continue work on the Feeder Canal Trail and the UP Rail Trail, and provide Nederland and Lyons with additional trail connections. The trails fund would also pay for the Boulder County sections of the U.S. 36 Bikeway to link Boulder with Superior, Louisville and on to Westminster and Denver.

Lastly, by leveraging these funds with state and federal dollars, we can complete an even greater number of projects than could otherwise be implemented.

You can find Will's biography and contact information on the Boulder County website.

County Taxes On The Ballot

The Boulder County Commissioners have certified ballot titles for two county and two district issues to appear on this fall's ballot. There will be a transit funding and open space funding tax request; Ballot Issue 1A asks for an extension of the .10% sales and use tax for open space until 2030 and Ballot Issue 1B asks for an extension of the .10% sales and use tax for transit improvement projects until 2024.

Vote for the 20-year (appreciation in property values) open space acquisition and maintenance tax please. I'm still reading the transit tax details; no opinion yet.

Official ballot title language and information on the November 6 mail ballot election is available on the Boulder County Clerk & Recorder's Web site at www.voteboulder.org/.

A Whole Realm of County Trends For Debate

Every two years the Community Foundation pulls together and overview of trends in Boulder County, the latest report just came out. You can find plenty of topics in there to seed this blog. Here are reports in the Louisville Times, the version of it by the Camera, Times-Call and Jerry Lewis' editorial in the Boulder County Business Report.

How about these two stats that touch on our open space debate:
84 percent of county housing is priced at more than $200,000 and 65% of Boulder County land is publicly owned. That's not a misprint.

10 percent of local residents do not have health insurance. Nearly 70 percent of the local workforce commutes alone to work. There are aging demographics, a rising disparity between wealthy and poorer residents and only 5% of us regularly use public transportation.

So what should be brought up in each community's Council election debates and forums?

Town Talk Worse Than A Blog?

We all get into it here somewhat, and several of us reveal our true identities, while others create at least some type of running reputation and consistency through their nicknames. In the various Hometown News papers, the "town talk" section is this blog-like printing of various rants that are unattributed and often get personal. I can't quite understand the value beyond sensationalism for such a section, especially one that so dominates the amount of space on the editorial pages.

In today's Lafayette News (this stuff isn't available online) I noticed someone pointing out that "Kerry Bensman is complaining about traffic on Baseline Road backing up for miles in the morning." It goes on from there.

I don't think a newspaper should indulge in printing someone's unattributed comment that specifically identifies another person. At least on this blog, there is a method of challenging people back and forth with comments, defending your point and adding more facts (ideally!) as much as you want. The fly-by nature of Town Talk doesn't even serve the vicarious thrill of debate like we have here. It is just a blast, and move on back into the shadows.

There was also an argument in support of Louisville's ballot issue 2A. It was a solid argument that should be printed with the advocate's name. There was a letter getting into it about the wrongs of assisting illegal immigrants - does the debate advance when the writer is left anonymous?

I know this blog isn't the perfect debate forum, however those of us who have maintained a certain identity consistently make it worthwhile. Where is Spicoli, anyway?

As a side note, I love the police blotter from Erie: "A 26 year old woman reported to Erie police a series of strange events ...which culminated in the woman finding corndogs on her car."

A World of Special Interests

I've become intrigued by the argument over whether visitability is a special interest that raged in the Green Building Meets "Silver" Building post and comments. So I've been researching the term "special interest" and how it is defined and applied. I'm at a loss to find much consistency or clarity in the term; it appears anyone in opposition to an idea can attempt to dismiss said issue as a "special interest".

I think the term is thrown around so often and with such malicious, broad-brush techniques that it has lost any depth of meaning. If you're involved in politics in any way, you'll know the things you like are of course worthy social goals to be pursued for the greatness of the state, blah blah blah. (I know it doesn't always sound like that in your head, but if you listen more closely...) and the things you don't like are the selfish narrow, unethical society-warping and unrealistic ideas of the "special interests".

It is a meaningless term that is insulting on two levels. First, anyone who votes could be labeled as supporting a special interest by someone else. That the term has no deeper context required other than disagreement with an idea makes it sloppy, generic and insulting. Second, the only reason it is used is because that works. That people in general are willing to be swayed by the rest of a political message that throws in the accusation of "special interest" involvement is insulting to me as an intelligent American.

I think if an idea I champion is accused of being a special interest, I'll take it as a compliment. And tell that person I assume there are a few specific ideas they'd like to see implemented and in principal I'll support their right to champion their special interest. However, if I don't see their idea positively affecting enough people, I'll tell them to kindly keep their idea out of the government's hands and drum up their own non-profit or whatever to manifest their idea. And if they want to tax me or regulate my life to manifest their idea, I'll need to believe it affects at least 51% of the residents. If it does and I still don't like it, I'll have to decide if the idea is so awful in the scope of my life that I should move.

Or I'll pick my battles, choose my special interests and debate them with you all, here, late at night, after my Silver Mine Sub shows up at 2:30 AM.

Lafayette Decision Making a Model for Boulder

We went around on this before, and had some more agitated exchanges, but I want to bring it up again because the more well read folks in Boulder are now aware of the Silver Mine Subs issue from a source beyond the (yawn) Camera.

The Boulder Weekly's Wayne Laugesen has highlighted this recent topic as a way to chide Boulder's leadership for their proclivity to take "strange little anonymous complaints seriously and reacting with authority. In doing so, they empower mean-spirited oddballs, turning their silly pet peeves into menacing pit bulls that cause pain."

Wayne's versions of things are often fast and loose with context and he rarely fleshes out all the facts, especially if they would water down his argument. But his point in this week's column is that Boulder's officials could learn from the Lafayette Planning Commission's decision reversing the staff reaction to a noise complaint. He quotes Commissioner Alex Schatz: “A complaint alone is nothing, You need a finding of fact.”

Wayne continues: "Did we hear that correctly? Have we ever before, in modern times, heard a city official question the sanctity and credibility of an anonymous complaint? Not in Boulder, to be certain, but Lafayette apparently hasn’t completed the process of full Boulderization."

Of course the complaint wasn't anonymous; that just makes for a more solid gripe. Read the full smackdown here. Wayne's take is similar to the the point I made in my post - one person's gripe can set into motion huge changes by bureaucrats and officials alike, who take complaints at face value and without contextual analysis as to the scope of the problem. For East BoCoers who like to point at Boulder and make fun, Wayne's article will be a treat. Better yet, recognize when such indulgence of a single complainer happens and a whole new policy is created in your town. And gripe accordingly.

The Impact of Open Space

I'm finding various studies on the impact of open space on property values from around the country. Here is a long article for all you academics out there which looked at the analysis of 20 studies in aggregate - although my reading of it shows the focus is more on "parks" I believe, than large swaths of wilderness/agricultural open spacelike we tend to have here. Proximity, not mere existence, appears to be the driving force behind appreciation. An excerpt:

The premise that parks and open space have a positive impact on property values derives from the observation that people frequently are willing to pay a larger amount of money for a home located close to these types of areas, than they are for a comparable home further away. If this observation is empirically verified, then owners of the enhanced property are likely to pay higher property taxes to governments because of the increase in the property's appraised value.

In effect, this represents a "capitalization" of park land into increased property values for proximate land owners. Conceptually, it is argued that the competitive market will bid up the value of property just equal to the capitalized value of the benefits that property owners perceive they receive from the presence of the park or open space. Economists refer to this approach as "hedonic pricing." It is a means of inferring the value of a non-market resource (a park) from the prices of goods actually traded in the market place (surrounding residential properties).

Here is an analysis on the impact of open space, and another and another. I love the website name of this last one: www.embraceopenspace.org. There are other studies on their website too.

Mayors - Who Should Choose 'Em?

Lafayette should elect a Mayor directly - true?

How about this analysis from the National Civic League:

"In many cities, particularly the larger ones, it is believed that [direct election] increases the potential for mayoral leadership by giving the mayor a city-wide popular support base. This is particularly important when all or most of the council members are elected from districts. A disadvantage of this method is the possibility that the mayor will be at variance with the council majority on some important issues.

"...in many other cities it is felt that local policy leadership can best function through a cohesive team of council members which chooses its leaders as mayor. In those cities, Alternative II, election of the mayor by and from the council, is used and the possibility of conflict between the mayor and the council majority is avoided. However, cities using this method should avoid particular practices which diminish the prospect of effective leadership."

What do citizens gain from direct Mayoral election? In a small town like Lafayette my concern is you don't necessaritly get just a "strong" Mayor, you get someone so grateful and enthused by their election they steer Council on their own path with less consensus. We don't need one person to feel they are any more the voice for the town than another on the Council. They are all elected and are all on the same level; from within that group comes a majority-chosen leader who, as far as I can tell, is pretty ceremonial in that role.

Forever Tax Is History

The County Commissioners decided Tuesday to drop the "forever" tax for open space, and instead ask for a 20-year extension. This was smart - the forever aspect would have brought forth a much more vigorous debate on the impacts and value of open space, one that I believe would have shown a support for maintenance over acquisition.


Instead of taking the chance of losing the all-or-nothing battle, in 2007 the sentiment around open space is still vaguely positive (people don't understand the wider housing affordability impacts it creates) and this is a good time to request an extension before more people truly understand the cost-of-living impacts of a successful open space program.


I think a forever tax for maintenance is compelling. But this wasn't the angle being argued. It will be 20 years before the earmarking of sales tax for County Open Space becomes subject to thorough analysis, at least for purposes of a political campaign.

Longmont Is A Special Island, Says Times Call

Erie's Board of Trustees has voted to chip $7,000 towards the cost of hiring a consultant tasked with identifying and developing methodologies related to regional revenue sharing among Boulder County municipalities. This effort is coordinated by the Boulder County Consortium of Cities, and the Times Call had supportive, cautious endorsement of the program yesterday that revealed the persistent resentment at Boulder's proclivity to champion - and force cooperation - with its ideals.

The editorial ends with the dig on not letting Boulder run the show, but also describes the melting of southeast BoCo communities into each other as being more likely to benefit from revenue sharing than Longmont ever could. Longmont is "relatively isolated from other cities in Boulder County" and anyway, more revenue isn't worth it if Boulder's telling us what to do.

The seeds of discontent are already being sown...

By the way, Broomfield's been asked to join in and hasn't answered yet.

Open Space Trade-Offs

So I support Open Space taxes, always have. M post on the impact on housing affordability in the wake of a staunch OS program has led me to be aware of another trade-off being exposed on the County level. County transportation staff have told HOAs in unincorporated Boulder County they need to take over their maintenance expenses, according to this letter by Greg Klinkel in the Camera:

Wake up, residents of unincorporated Boulder County! Although the county may own your streets and sidewalks, they want you to pay for their maintenance through special assessments in addition to the property-tax dollars they collect for that purpose.

That's right. When the county accepted subdivisions such as Gunbarrel and Heatherwood, they accepted the responsibility to maintain the streets of those neighborhoods. In fact, the county owns those streets, and it is the county's responsibility to maintain them.

A representative of the Boulder County Transportation Department recently attended my homeowners association meeting to give us the message that the county would not pay to maintain their streets in our subdivision. They want us to form a Local Improvement District for this purpose, the costs of which would be borne primarily by "special assessments" to the residents. How special! By the way, this is the county's plan for all such residential subdivisions, not just Gunbarrel and Heatherwood.

Read the rest in the Camera.