Reprinted from Boulder Weekly, Oct. 2-9. 2003, News
by Joel Warner
In these grueling economic times, new or renewed taxes are about as popular as big words in a Schwarzenegger campaign speech. But many city officials say that two city sales tax issues–Ballot Issues 201 and 202–up for vote this October shouldn’t be terminated like a bad guy in an Ah-nold flick. They say these tax issues are vital to the preservation of our fair city.
Ballot Issue 201 requests that the city’s sales tax of 3.26 percent be upped by 0.15 percent for the next 15 years starting Jan. 1, 2004. If passed, the tax increase would generate about $3.7 million annually for the benefit of Boulder’s open space program.
This is extra funding that open space can’t do without, say officials. With Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks funded primarily through sales tax revenue, the economic downtown has left the city department reeling.
"(Sales tax revenue’s) been dropping like a stone, and by the end of the year it’s likely to cost us $3.3 or 3.4 million," says Michael Patton, director of Open Space and Mountain Parks. "It’s a fantastic battle. We are not keeping up."
Open Space has tightened its belt considerably, having cut about $2 million from its budget this year. The department usually hires 30 to 35 seasonal employees to work on pest management, education, outreach and trail maintenance; this summer they had none. There are now only two rangers to cover all 130 miles of Open Space trails, and one ranger to manage the trailheads and the three and a half tons of trash generated there every week.
Possibly the biggest economic impact has been on Open Space’s acquisition program, vital to its mandate of preserving natural areas around Boulder. There are about 8,000 acres Open Space officials hope to acquire in the future. But with their acquisitions budget shrunk to $1.5 million annually, enough to buy only about 100 acres a year, much of that 8,000 acres will likely be unobtainable.
If passed, Ballot Issue 201 would restore Open Space and Mountain Park’s budget to its 2000 levels, about $18 million. Much of the management and maintenance operation cuts would be restored, and $2.1 million of the tax revenue would be used for land, water and minerals acquisitions.
Some suggest Boulder already owns enough open space and that it should learn to manage better the lands it already owns. But John Spitzer, co-chair of the Ballot Issue 201 campaign, says actively acquiring new open space both protects the local environment and checks irresponsible growth and sprawl–opportunities we may no longer have if we wait till the economy improves.
"The longer we wait, the more expensive it is to do this," says Spitzer. "In addition to that, let’s say we wait till 2010 or 2009. Some of the critical lands that we want are probably not going to be available by then. They’ll be developed and gone forever."
Ballot Issue 202 would not increase Boulder’s sales tax, but instead requests a 20-year renewal of a 0.15 percent sales tax for public safety service set to expire Jan. 1, 2005. Renewed as a general-fund tax, the levy would go primarily towards police, fire and social services.
Ballot Issue 202 would restore about $3 million to Boulder’s budget, which is now weathering $12 million in cuts. The additional revenue would be used to keep the libraries open seven days a week, restore social service programs and bolster public safety funding. If both Ballot Issue 201 and 202 pass, Boulder’s sales tax will be 3.41 percent, higher than Longmont’s 2.95 percent sales tax, but lower than Denver and Englewood’s 3.5 percent tax and Broomfield’s 3.75 percent tax.
"This does not increase our sales tax rate, which is very competitive in the region," says City Councilman Dan Corson. "We will not continue to be a first-class community if our library is not maintained in the manner it has been, if we do not provide a minimum safety net of support for our most needy citizens. There is probably something in this for everybody."
Not everyone on city council is supportive of Ballot Issue 202. Deputy Mayor Tom Eldridge doesn’t like the idea of the city using taxes to cover the economic shortfall.
"I think some of these services should be restored, but I don’t think we need to have this tax to do it. I think we need to make some hard management cuts," says Eldridge. "I think the reduction in revenue is a sign to restructure what we do, which is do more with less."
Eldridge says some high-level municipal positions might have to face the ax to restore city services, instead of relying on taxes. So far, he says, departmental cuts have been made from the bottom, not the top.
Says Eldridge, "Very bluntly, I’d rather see them cut a $100,000 job and keep two $50,000 (jobs)."
Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com
Reprinted from Boulder Weekly, Oct. 2-9. 2003, News
by Pamela White
It’s the most controversial issue to appear on a city election in quite some time. If passed, it will fundamentally alter the way voters choose those who represent them on Boulder’s nine-member City Council.
"It’s the question of the year," says Alisa Lewis, Boulder’s city clerk. "It will be a big change, and a lot of people are wondering whether that’s good or bad."
Ballot Question 2C would change the way city council members and the mayor are elected. Currently, all city council candidates run at-large, competing for all votes. The new council chooses the mayor and deputy mayor from their ranks. City council sets policy and leaves implementation and management of these plans up to the city manager.
Under 2C, Boulder would be divided into six districts. Running for staggered four-year terms, six of eight council members would be elected by district, while two would be elected at-large. The mayor would be chosen by voters through the election process. The question was placed on the ballot through the petition process.
Those who favor the change say that 2C will improve city government by ensuring better representation; by bringing greater diversity to city council through simpler, less expensive campaigns; and by helping voters to better inform themselves by limiting the number of candidates they have to consider when voting.
But opponents of 2C, which include PLAN Boulder County, the League of Women Voters and Sierra Club, say this change is being promoted by people whose primary interest is moving city council further to the right.
"What we’re most afraid of is that special interests will take over," says Sue Anderson, spokeswoman for One Boulder, a coalition opposing 2C. "It would be very easy for special interests to take over a district."
Anderson says that candidates would be able to win elections with fewer than 1,000 votes, making it much easier for people with money and private agendas to become elected.
In addition, Anderson says 2C, which was ostensibly placed on the ballot to increase representation, would actually decrease representation, as people would vote for a maximum of four people–the council member from their district, the two at-large members and the mayor. Currently, each voter gets to vote for all nine members.
"Right now you have a voice in every person on council," she says. "How does having fewer people to turn to increase my chances of being heard?"
Because they must keep voters in their districts happy, city council members elected under a district system might be less inclined to listen to voters outside their districts, she says. In a worst-case scenario, they might defer to one another on issues important to their respective districts and be tempted to make deals with one another for votes.
"When they vote on something, they’re going to have to bring home the bacon," she says.
Those supporting 2C are fed up with what they view as a city council that is too liberal, Anderson says. But Anderson says Boulder tends to vote a fairly balanced council into place, always including conservative and pro-business voices.
"A lot of us want balance on the council," she says. "We want a business voice, and we want to protect the environment. When we vote, we vote a balance."
She sees Ballot Question 2C as attempting to fix a problem that doesn’t exist, putting what has been an efficient, well-functioning system at risk in the meantime.
"If you want to fix council, you vote for a new member," she says. "Several of the people behind this have an ax to grind."
Some of those who helped put 2C on the ballot are involved in Boulder Tomorrow, a conservative political organization that has traditionally been dissatisfied with City Council. Anderson and others who oppose 2C say the measure is likely a product of Boulder Tomorrow.
Former City Councilman Rich Lopez, who is chairman of Citizens for Representative Government (CRG), which is supporting 2C, said the arguments of those who oppose the measure are largely unfounded and designed to scare voters. If 2C passes, it will be easier for average citizens to run for council, says Lopez, as fewer votes and less money will be needed. Candidates will be able to win voter support by walking the streets of their neighborhoods talking one-on-one with residents, he says. And although six council members will be elected by district, the notion that they’ll listen only to people from their own districts is "completely wrong and bordering on foolish."
"When I was a city council member and deputy mayor for Boulder and when I and all my colleagues took the oath, we took an oath to represent all citizens of Boulder," Lopez says. "And to assume or speculate that that would happen is to say that any council member when they take their oath doesn’t pay attention to it or doesn’t live up to it."
He said many other cities, including Louisville, Longmont and Fort Collins have district system for their city councils and have not become mired in petty politics in which neighborhood issues dominate the council. Because there are 32 recognized neighborhoods in Boulder and only six districts, no single neighborhood would be able to hijack council.
"The idea of representation is shared by many cities," he says. "We didn’t try to pattern ourselves after any other city, but we did take a look to see how does it work in some of these other cities. Are there problems? Are there any of these so-called neighborhood pothole politics going on?"
The answer, he says, is no.
He says limiting the number of council members each voter has to select will enable voters who are overwhelmed by having to choose from among so many to become better informed. In elections with many candidates, it’s almost impossible for a busy citizen to develop a meaningful understanding of where candidates stand on important issues.
Lopez says his group discovered a great interest on the part of citizens in electing the mayor. Under the current system, voters are not directly involved in that decision.
"There’s no more than four people–plus the person who says they want to be mayor–that actually vote for the mayor," he says. "Now, Boulder’s a big city. Based on a survey and looking at other cities, everybody wants the ability to elect their own mayor. And that is important for a number of reasons."
The mayor’s role is largely a ceremonial one. He or she chairs city council meetings, attends public functions and has a permanent seat on the city’s agenda committee. Still, Lopez says directly electing a mayor will ensure the mayor has the support of a majority, not of council, but of voters.
"They mayor is always the spokesperson," he says. "That person has to react on behalf of the citizens of Boulder. The citizens want to have a hand in electing that person."
Lopez dismisses allegations that CRG is interested in tipping the balance on council.
"It’s not about liberal. It’s not about conservative. It’s not about Republican. It’s not about Democratic. It’s not about business or the environment. It’s about representation," he says.
And while many believe the city government functions well and are pleased with the city council and its decisions, Lopez says there is room for improvement.
"You have a council that probably has demonstrated a lack of concern for the economy, a lack of understanding of the need to maintain sales tax so we can buy open space," he says. "I think of a council that’s been of one mind, the majority of it has been of one mind. And when you get the tyranny of the majority, other interests are ignored."
He says city council’s decision to speak out on the Iraq war is an example of the majority making a decision that has nothing to do with city governance without consulting the voters.
"They spoke out against it, but they spoke out based on their own personal positions," he says.
While those opposing 2C view changing the current system as tampering with something that works well, Lopez sees things differently
"Boulder’s grown, and it’s time to grow with it," he says. "We don’t have to wait for it to be broken to improve it."
Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com
Reprinted from Boulder Weekly, Oct. 2-9. 2003, News
by Will Toor
Every year, it seems like political campaigns start earlier and earlier. Even though it is only early in October, the city campaign season is already swinging into gear, with interest groups, ballot issue committees and council candidates all getting going. One of the most active efforts this year is an attempt to pass a ballot issue to change the way the city council is elected. This effort was initiated by Boulder Tomorrow, a conservative political group that has historically been unhappy with the moderately liberal Boulder City Council. There are many people whom I admire and respect within Boulder Tomorrow, but I think they are making a big mistake.
The biggest impact of their proposal would be to change from an "at-large" system, where every citizen can vote for all nine city council seats, to a ward system, where a majority of the city council would be elected from small neighborhood districts. Is this a good idea? Probably not. Already, good government groups like the League of Women Voters and some of Boulder’s leading policy organizations, like PLAN Boulder County and the Sierra Club, have come out against the proposal. There are a number of problems with a switch to a ward system.
First, this initiative reduces each individual’s representation on city council. Under the proposal, six of the nine council members will be elected by wards. Since you live in one ward, you get to vote for two at-large seats, plus your ward representative, plus the mayor for a total of four–so you have no say in the election of a majority of council, and you are not a constituent for the majority of council members.
Another problem with the initiative is the small size of the wards. In a typical Boulder council election, about 20,000 people vote. With six wards, that means that each ward will have fewer than 4,000 active voters, and a council member can be elected by only 2,000 people. Elections among groups this small are likely to lead to some real fringe characters getting into office. For a close-to-home example of this, take a look at the Lakewood ward where a city council member was charged with attempting to strangle his campaign treasurer at his victory party. Big cities often have ward systems with wards that are about as big as all of Boulder. In San Francisco a typical ward has 71,000 people.
A third problem is lack of competition. Under our current system, no council member runs unopposed. You always have to run a real campaign and be prepared to defend your record, because you run at large against a significant field of opponents. By comparison, in Broomfield, which has a ward system, it is common for incumbents to run unopposed.
The most basic flaw with the districting initiative, however, is this: Under a ward system, elections too often focus on who can "bring home the bacon" for their little district. As elections turn on parochial neighborhood issues, council members turn their focus away from the city as a whole. The result is that the important city issues get decided largely by the staff rather than the elected council.
Today, Boulder politics are influenced by a thriving, diverse group of environmental, civic, neighborhood and business interests. Under the proposed new approach, the groups that will start having more influence over the city are those that are well-funded and are able to allocate lobbyists to influence city staff on a daily basis–gradually cutting out much of the citizenry. This is an explicit goal of the ballot effort, as was made clear during a debate at the Chamber of Commerce when a campaign spokesman stated that a benefit of the ward system would be decreased electoral influence of volunteer citizen groups like the Sierra Club and PLAN Boulder County.
Governing Magazine documents these problems in their April 2003 cover story. They quote the St. Louis city council president on their ward system, "It creates a sense of parochialism and feudalism. We become the Balkans." Another St. Louis council member states, "I don’t even know how a citywide plan would be embraced (under the St. Louis ward system)." The Governing Magazine article describes Pittsburgh council wards: "You have a group of people who primarily deal with very mundane, housekeeping things in their district." It goes on to state that "the real power lies in the mayor’s office… and with the city’s corporate leadership."
Is this really the future we want for Boulder? It is a big gamble to take with our political system. It might make sense to try it if something were fundamentally broken–but it isn’t. Yes, we have budget problems at city hall today, but so does virtually every government in the country, due to the state of the national economy. Boulder city government is already responding with targeted budget cuts and an invigorated approach to economic redevelopment. Ironically, the same survey that Boulder Tomorrow touts to show public support for wards also confirms previous city surveys which demonstrate that on the fundamental city policy decisions–support for open space, a balanced multimodal transportation system, support for affordable housing–the public supports the city’s current direction by large majorities. And Boulder continues to be one of the most livable communities in the country.
For those who don’t like the city’s decisions, there is an easy solution–vote for candidates whom you do support. But let’s not try to fix what ain’t broken.
Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com