This year, 118 of your neighbors carefully filled out extensive written boards and commissions applications. I applied for Landmarks and Planning Boards in 2016 and Planning Board in 2017. As applicants, we made ourselves available for group interviews. Many of us also met one-on-one with City Council members. Council filled vacancies at their March meeting, thanking all of us for applying and being willing to serve our community. All’s well, right?
Wrong. Boards and commissions are meant to be composed of members who represent the community as a whole, not those who represent the views of particular council members or organizations such as pro-growth and density Better Boulder (which does not have nonprofit status and does not reveal who funds it.)
Read More: Hollie Rogin: Boulder’s future: who decides? – Boulder Daily Camera
Former Boulder City Councilman Steve Pomerance had an op-ed piece in the Daily Camera last Sunday that appeared under the headline “Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?” The brief answer to the question is yes, and for the reasons Pomerance marshals. Pomerance’s thesis is that the basic charter amendments, ordinances and resolutions that have protected Boulder’s environment, character and quality of life for half a century are being systematically dismantled.
Read More: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it? Yep – Boulder Weekly
In 1971, five Boulder City Council seats were up for grabs. In a field of 22 candidates, attorney Penfield Tate II became Boulder’s first African-American city council member…The old guard was shocked.
Incumbents Homer Ball, Tom Waugh, Harvey Platts and James Bowers were unseated…
Ballot measures in 1971 included Plan-Boulder County’s controversial grass roots campaign for a 55-foot height limit for new buildings.
Could ’17 be ’71 all over again?
Full Story: Boulder County History: ’71 election unseated incumbents, brought height limit – Boulder Daily Camera
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.
So we’re looking at growth for growth’s sake, maximum profits for developers, and no constraints on the council. This is not the Boulder that so many citizens have put their hearts and souls into, trying to keep this unique place special, that’s for sure.
Full Story: Steve Pomerance: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it? – Boulder Daily Camera
John Gerstle, the former Planning Board chairman, said he was “a bit disappointed” by the City Council’s decision Tuesday not to reappoint him to the board.” But the city goes on,” he said. “And the council was within its full rights to do what it did, so you just have to accept it.”
Gerstle said the council votes Tuesday “did not come as a complete surprise.” He has chaired the board for about one year, and feels he’s presided over “a number of decisions that it was clear the majority of the council disagreed with.”
“Therefore,” he added, “it’s not too surprising when they decide they want to have someone else on the Planning Board.” …
Source: Ex-Planning Board chair responds to controversial Boulder council vote – Boulder Daily Camera
After reading Dinah McKay’s exposé of the theft of the Twin Lakes open space property from us Boulder citizens, “Help save Twin Lakes open space” (Daily Camera, March 12), I have become increasingly angry with our elected officials! It seems to me it’s about time to get rid of those people who supposedly work for us, but refuse to consider our needs and opinions.
Source: Mildred Martindale: Troubled by role of elected officials on Twin Lakes – Boulder Daily Camera
I’ve been laughing about the battle over spending the “soda tax” income that basically says “Hey Suzanne and Matt, please save my children because I can’t say ‘No’ when they want a Dr. Pepper.” However, I will admit that it is the logical next step for kids already protected from ice cream sandwiches. Nuisances like these are really just diversions designed to keep citizens from asking real questions about the vast amount of money flowing through Boulder’s subsidized housing program. This shell game, billed as “affordable,” “compassionate,” “sustainable,” is really more like a Mob operation that funnels money to Boulder Housing Partners (BHP), Boulder Housing Coalition (BHC), and other crony capitalists, all with no success. Even after enough funds have been transferred into these organizations that would make Donald Trump blanch, nothing is “affordable,” traffic is at a standstill, and the town has been divided. The lubrication for this finely-tuned exploitation machine appears to be the cash-in-lieu program, a “compassionate” version of Chicago-style pay-to-play. Since the city attorney appears to be knee-deep in the deal, there is little motivation for him to shed light on this opaque system. And sadly, there are many excellent city employees who get a bad rap while their leaders disrespect them with these kinds of shenanigans. Even though the arrangement is all “legal,” it at least screams out for an independent review that charts out how it works and names the individuals involved.
I naively keep wishing that the Woodward and Bernsteins over at the Daily Camera would spend time investigating the situation, however, I understand they refuse to since their Pulitzer Prize display shelf is already full. Where is the D.A. when you need him? Well, at least citizens can still feel “sustainable,” “vibrant,” and “compassionate” all while being expertly manipulated.
Source: Jeff Schulz: Expert manipulation – Boulder Daily Camera