The sparring over this fall's local ballot items officially begins today, now that the city and county have locked-in on their measures. But whether the city's daily will remain a neutral observer, or try to pick winners, is open to question, based on a read of today's Gazette.

Dave Philips (apparently filling in for regular city beat reporter Daniel Chacon) stumbles out the starting gate in his story about the TOPS tax tweak, telling readers that voters rejected an identical measure "in April," which some might assume was April 2010, even though that vote was taken in April 2009 -- the sort of small detail that can leave inattentive readers with major misperceptions. This version also has a significant modification, in that it will sunset in just two years, as opposed to five, so it isn't, strictly speaking, the same proposal. But the sunset provision does get a mention further down in this otherwise solid story.

It's legitimate to ask, as Barry Noreen does in his column, whether it's too early to ask again. I wrestled with that myself. But the last TOPS tax adjustment was sought a year and a half ago, as Philips should have made clear, not earlier this year. A lot has happened in the meantime, highlighting the city's struggle to keep up with park maintenance. The margin of rejection in 2009 was very slim, as I recall, indicating that the voters were pretty evenly split on whether this minor change to the funding formula made sense.

If the proposal had taken a major thumping in 2009, I would probably have taken a pass this time around. But that vote's narrow margin, combined with the more obvious need, along with the addition of a two-year sunset, won my support for a second try.

Barry calls this a "raid on the TOPS cookie jar," but "raid" is an overstatement. It would allow up to 15 percent of TOPS dollars to be re-directed toward the upkeep of existing parks, up from 6 percent, amounting to just about $500,000 each year. Everyone acknowledges that this doesn't come close to solving the long term problem, which is that we have a larger park system than we can afford (partly as a result of the fact that most TOPS money goes for flashy new acquisitions, rather than boring old maintenance). Trying to address that problem with TOPS funds would indeed constitute a "raid." This is a modest readjustment, in response to a legitimate need.

This is more akin to removing one cookie from a very large jar, in order to keep your hungry kid from starving while you scrounge enough to pay for a full load of groceries. Once voters understand that, I think they might just vote "yes."

As someone who made all the wrong career choices, I never have to worry about the problem of owning a second home, and especially not one in Aspen. Even owning a "first home" is challenge enough for me. As such, I wasn't until now aware that second-home owners in Colorado don't have the right to vote on property tax increases, like the rest of us do. TABOR protections just don't apply to them. But that would change, apparently, if Amendment 60 is approved by voters.

The possibility that out-of-towners would get the right to vote on property tax increases has Aspen officials deeply concerned. The town's permanent residents, who pretty much have their way on most matters, since 61 percent of Aspen's homes are vacation hideaways, worry that extending TABOR protections to part-timers will mean relinquishing power over tax policy. A local minority would no longer rule supreme over the absent majority.

As today's Aspen Times explains:

Second-home owners in Pitkin County have long been concerned that they are being taxed without representation because they are forced to pay for mill levies and tax increases that are approved by full-time residents.

At the same time, many second-home owners do not reap a large amount of public services from entities such as the Aspen School District and others which receive that tax revenue.

But the city has said that allowing part-time residents to vote would be a bane on those public services. With a new voting population that likely would oppose tax increases, it could be harder to pass fees for special programs.

Amendment 60, which would also impose several stringent limits on the government's ability to implement new special district fees and taxes, echoes a 1992 Constitutional amendment that placed broad tax caps on state governments and required that voters approve all proposed tax increases.

I've always wondered why such nutty things go on in affluent enclaves like Aspen. One obvious explanation is that a minority of taxpayers is making all the taxing and spending decisions, on which a majority of taxpayers must remain silent. It's always easier to get a little crazy when most of the cost of that craziness gets foisted-off on someone else. The part-timers are wealthy people, who may be able to shrug-off the regulatory or tax burdens imposed on them in their absence. But that doesn't make it right.

Even wealthy out-of-towners should have a say on what property taxes they pay. Anything else is taxation without representation.

Colorado Springs is the focus of yet another media profile, this time in Governing Magazine. Based on a quick skim, the story seems slightly more balanced, and less reflexively judgmental, than some that preceded it.

It includes the usual litany of service cuts, and dutifully regurgitates the claim that locals are "virulently" anti-tax (even though I gave the reporter four recent examples of residents voting themselves tax increases). The photographer had to go searching for an alarming cover image, which he found in a crumbling section of curb somewhere -- something you can find in any American city if you look hard enough. But the story, in a modest improvement over earlier renditions, also makes a point of saying that the sky doesn't seem to be falling in Colorado Springs, much to the dismay of the Chicken Little League. It also explains how the city's active non-profit sector, and strong tradition of volunteerism and philanthropy, are helping it weather the storm. That helps round-out what has too often been a simplistic, distorted, one-dimensional portrait of the city.

The rest of the world seems fascinated by the fact that most Springs residents aren't panicking over the budget situation, but are stepping-up, with creativity and a can-do spirit, to help see the city through the fiscal downturn. The magazine dubs this "do-it-yourself government," picking up on a quote I gave the reporter, but that's not such a bad thing, is it, in a country founded on the idea that government should stick to the basics and leave most of the rest to the people?

"Sould Colorado ski areas require helmets on kids?" asks The Denver Post in a headline this morning -- a question that undoubtedly had a number of legislators salivating. But the body of the story makes the answer self-evident.

No need, really, since most boarders and skiers, and most responsible parents of same, already opt for a helmet,without the need for a government mandate. Some resorts now require them, which is their right as a private enterprise. And most slope veterans have enough common sense, or have had enough brushes with high-speed disaster, to understand that the minor inconvenience of donning a helmet is worth the added safety benefits.

Reports the Post:

"No legislation is under consideration here, but helmets already are virtually ubiquitous on the state's younger skiers.

"To me, this is the law catching up to where people already are. Very few kids don't have helmets these days," said Rob Katz, chief executive of Vail Resorts, which supported the California bill and operates the Heavenly ski area in the state. His company, with four ski areas in Colorado, would support similar rules here.

The state's largest ski operators — Vail Resorts, Aspen Skiing and Intrawest — already require kids in ski school to wear helmets. Many resorts also require their employees to wear them while working on the slopes. Even more mandate helmets for terrain-park riders."

A minority of folks won't have the good sense to make the smart choice, just as a minority won't confine itself to designated trails and insists on bending or breaking other rules. As it is on the slopes, so it is in society at large. For the most part, these poor choices fall heaviest on those who make them. The people who consistently make poor choices get weeded-out over time, as Darwinism does its thing. There's no end to government interventions, and to government expansion, if we take on the impossible task of reversing that process. That slope is steeper than any we have in Colorado.

Sometimes, it's better to just let nature -- and natural selection -- take its course.

Council colleague Bernie Herpin is balking at the potential $14,000 cost of an EDC audit (money that's already part of the City Auditor's budget), but it seems like a reasonable expenditure to me, given the millions -- yes, millions -- in public funds EDC has received in recent years. I now have an official tally of EDC's public support since 2002, when it began receiving money from Colorado Springs Utilities, and it totals close to $2.3 million dollars -- $2,289,000 to be precise.

General fund support totals $355,000 since 2005. CSU has chipped-in a total of $1,934,000 since 2002. That sum may not impress a few colleagues on City Council, but it's a significant amount, which easily justifies the cost of exercising a little oversight. Oversight would be worth exercising even if the dollar figures were smaller, in my view. You take the public money, you get the public scrutiny: that this idea seems so novel to some folks explains part of the problem at City Hall. Before we agree to continue funding EDC at current levels, isn't it prudent to take a closer look at what we're getting for the money?

With so much focus on the naysayers, it's worth remembering that a majority on this City Council supported the audit -- including strong backers of EDC, who have fewer reservations than I do about the city's involvement in economic development activities. Thus, it can't all be chalked up to some alleged dislike I have for the EDC.

How many "flaws" does it take to add-up to "fraud"?

I think the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- which shares a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in the category, "Best Use of Pseudo-Science and Scare Tactics in Pursuit of the Regulatory Superstate" -- crossed that threshold years ago. And the latest review of IPCC practices confirms it, if you read between the lines. Yet rather than call a fraud a fraud, the mainstream media and political elites continue to coddle and apologize-for this discredited organization, which has been the leading voice for a discredited scientific cult.

The IPCC doesn't need reform or "improvement": it needs to be scrapped -- much like the organization that spawned it.

Memorial Health System CEO Dr. Larry McEvoy on Wednesday will present his vision for the enterprise's future to the Citizens’ Commission on Ownership and Governance of Memorial Health System. No one will be shocked if he expresses a preference for a stand alone, non-profit model. It doesn't take a seasoned tea leaf-reader to see where this has been heading, even though voters will have the final say on any status change.

How timely, then, is the appearance of two news stories -- in The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal -- touching on related topics. One theme permeating both pieces is how incredibly challenging, complicated and risky the industry is becoming, for both for-profit and non-profit hospitals -- uncertainty that's only been increased by the passage of ObamaCare. The WSJ's Health Blog summarizes the situation facing publicly-owned hospitals as follows:

"For public hospitals, the conditions couldn’t be much worse: Local governments have less tax revenue coming in because of hard economic times, and more patients lack health-insurance coverage. Meantime costs keep rising, and many hospitals have debt to service. And looking forward to the next several years, all hospitals will be prodded by health-care overhaul legislation to make investments in electronic medical records and other health IT systems, and to better coordinate increasingly complex care. That’s tough to do without economies of scale.

As a result, many governments are selling or forging partnerships with for-profit entities to offload their public hospitals, reports the WSJ. The story quotes James Burgdorfer, a partner with investment banker Juniper Advisory, as saying most public systems wouldn’t be around in two decades because health-care is too complex for local politicians. “By the nature of their small size, their independence and their political entanglements, they are poorly equipped to survive,” he tells the WSJ."

While some experts remain bullish on the industry's future, despite ObamaCare, they predict a period of instability, and a potentially major shake-out, before profitability returns. I'm still open to the non-profit option, depending on the details, but I don't believe, as noted here before, that an asset this valuable should simply be deeded over to a separate entity without full compensation to the city.

My first preference, given the thunderheads we see on the horizon, is selling-off the system, and getting the city out of this incredibly volatile business, while the sun is shining and the getting is good. It's been a reasonably good run for both the city and Memorial. Both have benefited from the arrangement. But the run is about to become an obstacle course, peppered with pitfalls, snares and barriers to profitability. I'm still willing to entertain other scenarios. But my gut tells me it's time to hand-off this baton to the private sector.

I may be a little biased on the subject, having "earned" a few "D"s back in the day, but I can't help suspect that the push to banish the "D" from school report cards represents yet another attempt to water-down standards, all in the name of inflating GPAs and boosting student self-esteem. The fact that it's under consideration in the warm-and-fuzzy Boulder Valley only deepens my suspicions.

The "D" isn't the meaningless grade critics say it is, in my opinion. Just as there needs to be an interim step between excellent (A) and average (C), it's necessary to have a way station between average (C) and abysmal (F). A "D" reminds a student that he or she is flirting with failure, while preventing the complete parental meltdown that accompanies an "F" or an "E." Thus, the "D" has probably helped motivate some students to do better, while preventing child abuse in households -- like the one in which I grew up -- where an "E" would call down a lot more fire and brimstone.

It's the yellow light of the academic world, which you blow through at great risk; a sort of intellectual Purgatory, where redemption is still possible. And given the contemporary educator's reluctance to flunk students, for fear of shattering their fragile self-esteem, doing away with the "D" most likely will push borderline cases into the "C" category, so "average" will also lose its meaning. More grade inflation would seem the inevitable result.

The educrat's fondness for tinkering with the tried and true, and eagerness to embrace new fads, is symptomatic of a "system" in disarray and decay, which, instead of raising the bar high and insisting that students make the grade, keeps searching for gimmicky new ways to fake progress and evade accountability.

When we Americans talk about the civil rights movement, most of us understandably think first of the fight for racial equality -- of places like Selma and Montgomery, of Bull Connor and Rosa Parks. But the fight for civil rights, more broadly viewed, is also a fight for property rights, since an individual can't really be said to be free and have "rights" if she isn't even secure in her person or possessions or property.

It's ironic, therefore, that the latest battleground in the fight for property rights is Montgomery, Alabama, a city so closely associated in the American psyche with the civil rights movement. As the linked story explains, the city has found a clever way around recent eminent domain reforms by simply demolishing properties it judges a "nuisance." No compensation is due the victims: they actually have to pay to have their property, and property rights, trashed. Many of these "nuisance" properties happen to be in poorer, blacker, parts of town, meaning that this abuse of power falls heaviest on minorities -- which is historically the case with eminent domain abuse. A rally and workshop are being organized in Montgomery, with a helping hand from the property rights defenders at The Institute for Justice. If we can't be there in person, we should be there in spirit.

Until more Americans begin to see that property rights and civil rights are one and the same, that they're indivisible, they'll have a one-dimensional understanding of both concepts and continue to turn a blind eye to the fundamental injustice inherent in all property rights violations, no matter how small.

What oh what will happen to those adorable little pikas when global warming melts away the Rocky Mountain tundra? If you've been losing sleep over that question, sleep better tonight. Despite frequent scare stories about the dramatic changes coming to Colorado's high country if Al Gore is correct -- of ski resorts closing, of flora and fauna struggling, of snow-capped peaks melting like ice cream cones in an oven -- the promised apocalypse just isn't unfolding according to plan, according to this report in last week's Durango Herald. Actual temperature readings show a very modest trend toward warming -- nothing like the runaway train alarmists predict:

"VAIL - Climatologists are about to establish a "new normal" for temperature trends in Colorado.

And, believe it or not, it looks a lot like the old normal, said Colorado State Climatologist Nolan Doesken.

"What I was surprised about when I looked at these new quote-unquote normals is they really haven't changed very much," Doesken said Thursday in a presentation to the Colorado Water Congress.

Climatologists calibrate normal temperatures every 10 years, based temperatures over the last 30 years. So by the end of this year, the "normal" data will kick out the 1970s and introduce the warm 2000s.

Temperatures at a weather station in Mesa Verde National Park are on track to rise 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit in the new period - in line with most of the rest of the state, according to Doesken's data about the last 29 years.

But compared to the 1951 to 1980 period, temperatures at the Mesa Verde station have fallen 1.3 degrees. Most of the other weather stations in Colorado show slight temperature increases over the same time frames.

Doesken knows his numbers don't match up with the perception of a rapidly warming planet. He watches data gathered at weather stations, while projections of global warming are made through computer models that attempt to predict the future, he said.

Despite the models of warmer future weather, he has not seen drastic warming so far in Colorado.

"You've got to be thinking beyond that to plan for the future, but the current data are showing pretty small changes so far. But it leans in the warm direction," Doesken said in an interview."

So great is the pressure to ride the alarmist bandwagon that even credible researchers, when confronting hard contradictory evidence, are reluctant to voice skepticism about what the climate cartel, using computer models, is saying. Temperatures in Colorado are actually considerably cooler that they were in the 30 year span between 1950 and 1980, as the story points out, and they show only a minor trend warm-ward, yet the state climatologist can't quite bring himself to concede that the world might not be coming to an end after all.

You really get a sense of the mania that's afoot when scientists are more inclined to believe suped-up supercomputer simulations than what's right in front of their faces.

I’ve had a bit of blogger’s block the last few days, even though a lot of interesting stuff has happened, so here are my short takes on the latest news, as a way of catching up.

Report: County Commissioners Put Medical Pot Ban on Ballot. Response: Better the county than the city. Maybe it can afford the extra legal bills and prolonged headaches this will bring. It’s clearly a betrayal of those who opened businesses in the county, lured by its initially-reasonable, pro-regulation approach, only to have the rug pulled out from under them when the politicos began playing to the prohibitionists. Sheriff Maketa understands the implications of a dispensary ban: “I hate to hear myself say this, but it could create a bigger problem and more unintended consequences,” he warned commissioners, all to no avail. It will be interesting to see how this turns out: the city can now sit back and learn from the county’s mistakes, without incurring the potential lawsuits and legal bills. Meanwhile, we now see that self-proclaimed “conservatives” are every bit as eager to whittle-away at constitutional rights, and just as willing to act like overbearing nannies, as liberals are.

Report: “Springs and Feds Reach Water Deal Key to Pipeline.” Response: While the agreed-upon water storage rate could always have been a lower, I think Colorado Springs Utilities came away with a reasonably good deal, thanks to hard bargaining and a refusal to be rolled by the Bureau of Reclamation. The bureau, on the other hand, came off looking arrogant, arbitrary and politically-motivated. All Fry-Ark project participants should be troubled by the bureau's sudden shift from a cost-based fee structure to a nebulous new “market-based” approach, which was never satisfactorily justified or explained. Beware a federal bureaucrat evoking “markets” – it’s only a concept that applies in the competitive sector of the economy. One more hurdle cleared – many more still to go. Kudos to CSU’s hard-nosed negotiating team. Their efforts saved ratepayers tens of millions of dollars.

Report: “GOP senate candidate Buck sought earmarks for Weld County”. Response: Here, embodied in one man, is the confusion Americans have on the issue of earmarks. On one level, most Americans understand that congressional earmarking is an abuse of power, a misuse of money and one driving force behind runaway deficits – all of which is true. But when we’re the beneficiaries, or it’s our member of Congress pilfering from the pork barrel, we take a much more sanguine view, tending to think of these windfalls as critically important federal expenditures or manna from Heaven. Until Americans begin to battle earmarking at home by insisting that any federal funds that flow their way come through the proper channels, and begin punishing politicians who engage in such plunder, we’ll see no decisive victory in the war against pork-barrel politics. Buck is no less a hypocrite than the rest of us, if we rail against earmarks on one hand while happily taking the ill-gotten handout with the other. The more we ask of goverment, the more it takes from us, in order to satisfy the request. If we could all just stop asking for so much, maybe it would stop taking so much.

Report: “Valvata snails no longer need federal protection” Response: Actually, Utah valvata snails never needed federal protection, so the headline is misleading. And that’s why this seemingly-silly story has more serious implications. The snail's listing as a protected species was done under false pretenses, based on slipshod, immature science. There are many more valvata snails than proponents of the listing claimed. And this is not an isolated case of regulatory malpractice. Many species have been placed on the list prematurely or erroneously, because many listing decisions aren't made based on the science, but in response to lawsuits from green extremists. What’s the big deal, you say? Mistakes happen. But such mistakes can impose huge costs, and have real impacts, given the regulatory power of the ESA. Though it was never threatened, the snail was used to derail many major water projects along the Snake River. It was the reason a lot of dams weren’t approved by the federal government. That's just what greens hoped for when they got the animal listed. Now the snail can slink back into obscurity, where it belongs. It has served its purpose for the monkey-wrench gang.

Former Rocky columnist Peter Blake, writing for Face the State, has a must-read column today about the behind-the-scenes collaborations between industry and utility regulators that resulted in HB-1365, a "green energy" measure that benefits natural gas companies and Xcel Energy, all at the expense of beleaguered ratepayers. What you have, in effect, is supposedly-independent regulators at the Public Utilities Commission helping to write an industry-friendly law that they will later be called on to implement. I'm not sure whether that's a criminal conspiracy, but it's incestuous, unethical and improper, as Blake point out.

"If the commissioners haven’t profited personally from the bill, Xcel and the natural gas industry have. The bill promotes what economists call rent-seeking - using the government to increase market share instead of competitively bidding in the open market."

Yet no calls have been heard for the chief conspirator, PUC Chairman Ron Binz, to resign.

It's the sordid last chapter, one hopes, in that scam called the "new energy economy" -- unless John Hickenlooper plans on taking up where Bill Ritter left off.

There are multiple silver linings in Colorado's not having made the final cut in Barack Obama's Dash for the Cash, the administration's crude attempt to spur school reform by bribing states with borrowed money. The most obvious of these, as any 6th grader knows, is that federal money comes with federal strings attached, and, heaven knows, we don't need any more of those. Some extra cash would sure come in handy, but we in the states might have more extra cash, to spend on the things we think are important, like education, if it wasn't being hauled off by the truckload to Washington, to pay for the things Washington says are important.

There's something tawdry about the spectacle of Washington bribing states to do what is right for students. Shouldn't we be doing these things, irrespective of whether someone places a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Reform is its own reward, if it produces better results for young Coloradans. We can still aspire to win this particular race, and do it for the right reasons, without the need for a handout we'll ultimate be paying for.

If I said the sky is blue, Jan Martin would say it is purple. If I had proposed at yesterday’s informal City Council meeting that we boost the Economic Development Corporation’s annual funding allotment to $1 million, she would have called for a funding cutoff, thinking that I must be up to something sneaky. Naturally, therefore, she objected when I asked for an independent city audit of EDC, nudging the city in the direction of a little more transparency and accountability.

But a majority on council showed more interest in exercising a little oversight, so the first-ever independent audit may well go forward, pending an assessment of costs by the City Auditor. Those supporting the audit, just for the record, were Scott Hente, Tom Gallagher, Lionel Rivera and Randy Purvis. The Vice Mayor was absent. I didn't get any indication of where Darryl Glenn stood.

EDC President Mike Kazmierski, who only a few months ago declared his willingness to be audited at a meeting between his board and City Council, seemed perturbed by the additional scrutiny, chalking-up my interest in the subject to a limited government outlook. Guilty as charged, Mike. I have mixed feelings about what direct role government should play in economic development. But support for the audit came from councilors who consistently have supported funding for EDC, and who don’t have any philosophical objections to public funding for economic development, so this can’t all be chalked-up to ideology.

The sort of answers I’m looking for can’t be found in the annual reports EDC produces, indicating that they keep their books straight. What I’m asking for would help verify where the dollars go, what they are used for, and what internal controls are in place to ensure that they aren’t being used for things they shouldn’t be. But what I’m asking for is more akin to a performance audit, which asks what kind of return taxpayers and ratepayers are getting for their money. That doesn’t seem like an extreme proposal, given the city's fiscal situation.

Some (like Martin) seem dismissive of the dollars that are involved, pointing to last year’s general fund EDC expenditures. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. EDC (though I don’t have exact figures at my fingertips) has cumulatively received well over a million dollars in public funding in recent years, if you count not just taxpayer dollars but the ratepayer dollars that flow through Colorado Springs Utilities. Never checking up on where those dollars are going, and what sort of return on investment they are producing, would be a breach of our oversight role and fiduciary responsibility, in my view.

Words like “transparency,” “accountability” and “oversight” are all the rage these days, especially among politicians. But they just become meaningless political slogans if you never put them into practice.

Here's a classic case of the media seeing the glass half empty.

High tech toys are complicating life for those poor park rangers, according to The New York Times. But how many lives have been saved, and dangerous situations averted, by having one of these toys handy when it's needed? The story doesn't say. Purists want to purge technology from our parks. They fight the construction of cell phone towers and other modern amenities, claiming that they have no place in such primitive and "pristine" settings. But these technologies can also save lives. Park rangers don't travel into the backcountry without some means of communications; why should park visitors?

Stupidity, inexperience and watching too many adventure shows lead some park visitors into trouble, not technology. Technology can help those who do get into trouble survive.

The social engineers who run Boulder have come up with a clever new way to encourage environmentally-correct lifestyle choices: residents are being asked to leave their cars at home and find alternative means of transport on certain days, based on the color of their vehicles:

"Boulder to use car colors to discourage driving

Got a blue car? The city of Boulder wants you to consider commuting sans car on Mondays.

Red car? Take a break from driving on Wednesdays. White? Thursday is your designated day of the week to leave your vehicle at home.

On Labor Day weekend, the city plans to launch a campaign to encourage residents to "do their 14.3 percent" to cut down on the number of cars on the road -- reducing air pollution, cutting carbon and road rage -- by making a commitment to go car-free on the day of the week that's correlated to your vehicle's color. Those that stick to their car-less commitments can win prizes from the campaign's sponsors.

"We want to attract people to something other than driving for one day a week or more in a fun easy way," said Cris Jones, a transportation planner with the city's GO Boulder program.

Participation in the program -- called Driven to Drive Less -- will be voluntary, and so is the day that participants choose to take a break from being behind the wheel. (There's no penalty for red-car-owning participants who commit to being car fee on the white-car day.)

The connection to car colors -- and the program's whimsical Web site, driventodriveless.com -- is part of an intentional drive by the campaign's designer, Sukle Advertising, to give a light-hearted feel to the car-cutting movement."

But the problem with such "voluntary" efforts is that they have a troubling tendency to become mandatory if the public refuses to respond to the initial, milder attempt at conditioning. "Light-hearted" can turn heavy-handed if the social engineers don't get the results they want, using good-natured cajoling or peer group pressure. And even this purely "voluntary" approach is creepily coercive in a politically-correct bastion like Boulder.

Just imagine the social stigma that you would suffer, and the shame you would feel, and the looks of opprobrium you would get, for driving your blue SUV to the office on a Monday, or pulling into Starbucks on Wednesday in your red sports car (unless it's a Tesla Roadster, of course.). This city-sponsored bifurcation of drivers into two camps -- those who supposedly care about saving the planet and those who don't -- might even encourage episodes of road rage, as those who decline to conform become targets of verbal abuse, shaming or worse from the eco-authoritarians in their midst. Sounds like a way not of uniting people, around a common goal, but of dividing them, based on nothing more than the color of the car they drive.

Most such exercises in social conditioning have a darker side. If the social engineers can't get the results they want using a carrot, sooner or later they reach for the stick.

At today's informal council meeting I'll be seeking majority support for a city audit of the Economic Development Corporation. This private organization has cumulatively received a lot of taxpayer and ratepayer money over the years, which makes up a sizable portion of its budget, but it has never, as far as I know, been subjected to an independent audit by the city. While I have no reason to suspect that this money is being misused, or being put to questionable purposes, I think any recipient of this much public money should be open to periodic review, given our obligation to ensure that these funds are spent in an appropriate, cost-effective manner.

The EDC produces an annual report, confirming that the books are in order and indicating where it spends its money, broadly-speaking. But that doesn't go deep enough for me. I would want the audit to address the following questions.

What specifically is public money used for?

Do controls exist to ensure it goes where it should?

Do these uses conform with the uses outlined in annual funding requests from EDC?

Are the EDC's return-on-investment projections and figures accurate?

How many jobs are actually created using those funds?

And, are the jobs credited to EDC actually the result of EDC activities?

Not too long from now, we'll be weighing new funding requests from EDC, at both the city and the utility. I can't in good conscience support those requests until we have a better understanding of how these funds are being used. EDC President Mike Kazmierski at a recent meeting made a point of saying that he would welcome such an audit. I can't imagine, under these circumstances, why we wouldn't ask the auditor to do one. We'll see today whether a majority of my colleagues agree.

Momentum seems to be building for a crackdown on for-profit universities and trade schools that allegedly foist large debt loads off on students, for credentials that don't always translate into higher earning potential in the job market, leading to higher-than-average default rates. The Pueblo Chieftain has a story on the issue today. But there seems to be a double standard, and perhaps a bit of hypocrisy and opportunism, behind such criticism, given that non-profit schools are only a little less guilty of the same things.

I agree with those who see a "student loan bubble" building to the breaking point, driven by the upward spiraling cost of higher education, easy (government-backed) credit, and the continued willingness of young people to gamble that a college credential will make paying off that debt relatively painless. But singling out for-profit schools for vilification, when the entire system is guilty of the same thing, seems unfair.

It also conveniently sidesteps the real problem, which is the unrestrained increase in tuition, resulting from a stubborn refusal of most schools to control costs and deliver a better product for less money. Such reforms aren't necessary as long as government-backed credit is easily and widely available, and students are willing to keep shouldering more of it. Normal market forces, which push private sector players to deliver a better product for lower cost, simply don't apply in higher education, thanks largely to the student debt industry.

Politicians are afraid to bring the hammer down on these big, bloated, bureaucratic institutions, and they're reluctant to demand across-the board reform, for fear of appearing "anti-education." So they're content to single out for-profit schools as the problem, when "the system" is to blame.

P.S. The always-astute Vince Carroll has a column in today's Denver Post on a related matter, the largely-taboo topic of professorial productivity.

The Denver Post's Dan Haley has a great line in today's column about Betsy Markey's inconsistency on the question of federal bailouts: "If the 2008 election was about change," writes Haley, "this election is about the change that's left in your pocket."

Wish I'd written that one.

My only quibble with The Gazette’s coverage of my efforts to keep the Ring the Peak Trail alive, by seeking a second opinion on the trail’s alleged impacts on bighorn sheep, is that the story refers to a Forest Service report on this subject as a “study.” It isn’t a study, but an opinion, offered up by an agency that has become far too eager to say “no” to things based on bureaucratic whim. That a majority on the utility board is willing to meekly take “no” for an answer, and not seek an independent second opinion, out of an evident fear of angering the big, bad U.S. Forest Service, is unfortunate, given the incredible recreational draw this trail could be.

The utility spent an estimated $440,000 ratepayer dollars studying the impacts of opening the South Slope. $250,000 of those dollars went to an environmental consulting firm that simply rubber-stamped the “opinion” offered by the Forest Service, effectively derailing a major justification for opening the area. When the Service said “no,” no one at CSU or on the board dared question the decision. Stakeholder groups like Friends of the Peak were also convinced to rethink the concept, because when the federal “experts” say you’ll be harming the mountain, that carries weight.

I guess I’m less enamored with federal expertise, and less prone to bow before federal agencies, taking their word as gospel.

A board majority takes the view that anything the agency says must be true, and valid, though the agency is routinely challenged, and successfully overturned, on a host of decisions. CSU brass and a majority on the board evidently fear that challenging the Forest Service will get it mad at us, which is backward thinking, since this is a government agency that’s supposed to work for us, not some petulant giant handing down dictates. Such challenges aren’t an affront to the agency, but a legitimate part of the public process. Successful challenges to Forest Service decisions are made every week. All that it takes is a little courage, and the willingness to take a closer, more critical look at the science.

I can understand why CSU wouldn’t want to revisit the issue. Having a bona fide bighorn sheep expert, working for a modest sum, potentially debunk one key finding of the $250,000 consulting firm, might be embarrassing. CSU’s eagerness to go along with the “no” only reinforces perceptions that the utility is opening the area grudgingly. But why my colleagues wouldn’t approve a small additional expenditure to seek a second opinion is mysterious, given how much has already been spent on studying the South Slope and the popularity of the Ring the Peak concept.

It’s like a football team grinding out a long drive to the opponent’s five yard line, then punting.

This board approves hundreds of thousands of ratepayer dollars annually for some rather abstract “economic development” activities – and it will be asked to do so again when we begin work on next year’s budget -- but here it had an opportunity to help clear the way for something tangible, like Ring the Peak, by spending a relative pittance, and it suddenly gets stingy. Talk about penny wise, pound foolish.

Who "won" last night's debate on medical marijuana? Watch the video and judge for yourself. Maybe a few minds were changed -- or at least opened -- but most viewers probably came away thinking their "side" won. That's generally the way these things go. The May/Waller team can arguably claim a "win" of sorts, for not being laughed out of the room, given that all they had in their arsenal was flimsy anecdotal evidence, out-of-context statistics and pretzel logic. Trying to argue for the roundabout, piece-by-piece dismantlement if a right written into the state Constitution a decade ago, without acknowledging that this is the cynical game you're playing, is a challenge, even for a pair of lawyers. But they did reasonably well, under the circumstances.

Thanks to the Gazette, KOAA-TV and The Penrose Library for hosting it.

Local readers may want to tune in Wednesday evening to KOAA-TV, or come down to the Penrose Library and sit in on the fun, as Tom Gallagher and I debate Dan May and Mark Waller on local medical marijuana issues. For more details, follow this link. Submit your questions in advance by clicking through the story.

The debate, as I see it, is between those who want to move forward, dealing realistically and constructively with the rights granted medical marijuana patients by Colorado voters a decade ago, and those who want to move backward, and undermine the will of the voters, because these new rights make them feel uncomfortable. Look on as the voices of reason square-off against nanny-con -- that's short for nanny conservative -- reactionaries.

Should be fun, but also informative. Hope you tune in.

Colorado Springs isn't the only Arkansas Valley water provider pursuing long-term storage contracts in Pueblo Reservoir, as today's Pueblo Chieftain points out. Salida and Poncha Springs, though smaller players, also are interested in negotiating contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

Not sure about you, but I'm just dying to see what the Bureau proposes that these other entities pay, seeing that it opened negotiations with Colorado Springs with a shocking demand for $75 per acre-foot. That's what the Bureau, breaking with long tradition of using a cost-of-service model for assessing fees, calls a market-based rate. Whether it applies equally to all entities in the valley, or was just cooked-up with Colorado Springs in mind, will become evident once these other negotiations begin in earnest. The "market" is the market, after all.

The market-based rate is tethered to nothing tangible -- it's just an exorbitantly-high number the agency's water czars, working behind closed doors, tossed out for the fun of it, to see what the suckers will pay. If the agency tries soaking Salida and Poncha Springs for the same amount, at least we'll know it's being consistent. If it starts negotiations with different numbers, there's obviously a double standard at work. That will confirm suspicions that games are being played.

A recent State Debt Map produced by CNN -- link -- shows a strong correlation between so-called Blue States, which are dominated by Democrats, and the mounting debt these states are taking on. There are a few anomalies, but the connections seem obvious enough. Colorado is technically a Red State, at the moment, but deficit spending and borrowing here are curtailed by law.

Maybe we should reverse the Blue State/Red State designation, given the propensity of Blue States to bleed red ink.

I took a mild swipe at Mayor Rivera a few posts back, for some televised remarks he made, which seemed a tad premature, about restoring cuts to the police and fire departments, even though that debate is months away. But I should have noted -- as The Gazette does today -- that he acquitted himself very well otherwise, and helped put the city's budget situation in the context that seems to be lacking from so much of the national media coverage this city receives.

The mayor seems to understand that all the negativity, defeatism and self-flagellation that followed last fall's defeat of 2-C -- and all the gloomsaying and doomsaying that was used (unsuccessfully) to sell the tax hike -- wasn't doing the city any favors. The bitter, hang-dog attitude started at the top, with the then-city manager, and trickled down through the ranks like a slow poison. Many civic leaders echoed the negativity. This wasn't just demoralizing, and a big, boring turn-off to regular residents, who have a much more boot-straps attitude. It also handed ammunition to media outsiders who wanted to take cheap shots at this city, in order to score political points. They were only too happy to tap into that woe-is-us rhetoric in order to lend support to their simplistic and silly storyline, about the supposed dangers of being a fiscally-conservative city.

The mayor has taken his share of lumps while standing up for the city, whether it was trying to put our homeless situation in context or explaining why we won't officially endorse another make-work "jobs bill" being pushed by the White House. But he clearly isn't content to stand by and see this city become a punching bag. And I appreciate the effort he's making to change the narrative, by highlighting the positive and extolling our hidden strengths.

I'm not arguing that we can "spin" our way out of a fiscal crunch. But the first step toward improving the outcome is changing the attitude.

Following a move to a posh new arena in Brooklyn, the NBA's New Jersey Nets just announced that they will change the team's name. The most fitting new name I've seen proposed is The Brooklyn Bulldozers -- since the land the arena sits on was stolen through eminent domain. The Brooklyn Bandits wouldn't be bad, either. I also kind of like the New York Land-Grabbers.

Or the team could be re-named The Brooklyn Oligarchs, denoting its ownership by Russian tycoon Mikhail Prokhorov, who made his fortune the ex-Soviet way, by leveraging an incestuous relationship with government, but learned that the same sort of corrupt, crony-capitalism also exists in the United States, if you are rich enough to own a basketball team and can buy enough influence in the Big Apple.

All this talk about “strong mayor” may have Lionel Rivera getting a little carried away, since any decision on whether to hire new cops and firefighters -- a possibility he floated in a national television interview -- will be made collectively, by City Council, when we get down to the real work of budget-balancing. Such decisions won’t be made, can’t be made, until we see the actual numbers and have a chance to debate the trade-offs.

Public safety certainly is a priority, but it’s not the only priority. The up-tick in sales tax revenues and the decision to spend the PILT may have some on Council thinking that the worst is behind us and we can just go back to doing things as we always have. But I’m more guarded in my assessment. Raising expectations like this, when such decisions are months away, will only make our budget work more difficult and contentious.

Not that the mayor asked me, before he began making such announcements on national TV.

The U.S. Forest Service can't even responsibly manage the hundreds of millions of acres in its vast inventory, as anyone knows who has driven through Colorado, or read about the similar devastation sweeping across much of the West. It seems a joke, therefore, to read that the agency is also taking an interest in helping private landowners manage their lands.

If this were merely an effort by the feds to encourage private conservation, I would applaud. Too much emphasis is placed on government-centered conservation (which is an abject failure, as the forest health crisis demonstrates), to the neglect of private-sector alternatives, which frequently have shown better results. But nothing is innocent where the federal government is concerned.

The deeper agenda is to get taxpayers to "incentivize" -- meaning subsidize -- private conservation efforts (even more than already takes place, through conservation easement tax benefits and the Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program). With federal money comes federal strings, meaning federal control. This threatens to corrupt, and co-opt, the whole idea of private conservation.

Although the feds tout their credentials as preservationists and "protectors", facts "on the ground" tell a more damning story -- one of massive mismanagement of public resources, resulting in a perfect storm of wildfire, disease, insect infestation and benign neglect. Most private forests and lands are much better cared for than publicly-owned counterparts, because a private owner's personal interest and (yes) profit motive generally make him or her a better steward of the resource than red tape-bound bureaucrats going through the motions.

Public land managers have precious little to lecture private owners about. They would do better to focus on getting their act together.

Those who believe they're going to "clean up" the medical marijuana "problem" in this area by banning dispensaries are mistaken on at least two counts.

A dispensary ban, if it's ruled constitutional -- and definitively settling that issue could take several years of costly litigation -- may lower MMJ's visibility, by pushing it out of storefronts. But a dispensary ban won't stop the use or distribution of medical marijuana, or end the demand for medical marijuana. That won't happen without repealing Amendment 20. A ban will simply change the distribution model -- most likely leading to the proliferation of smaller operations, run out of residential areas. The challenge of monitoring, regulating, taxing and controlling MMJ thus becomes vastly more complicated, more costly, more fraught with civil liberties pitfalls.

By trying to end one "problem," using a blunt object, ban backers will multiply the "problem" ten-fold. Instead of MMJ distribution points operating in the open, growing and distribution will shift into neighborhoods, and back into the shadows, bringing MMJ into our literal or proverbial backyards. Aurora's experience after the city instituted a ban makes this clear. And when this "problem" blows up in their faces, ban backers can't cop-out by blaming "the law of unintended consequences." Not only have they been warned, repeatedly, that this will happen. Not only can they look to Aurora as an object lesson. But anyone who thinks the matter through in a rational way would see what's ahead.

The second delusion prohibitionists labor under is that a ban will settle things, and restore order, quickly. They imagine that the genie will passively go back in the bottle, without putting up a fight for its rights. But the lawsuit brought this week against the town of Westminster, in response to its ban, is just a preview of things to come if the city or county take this approach. The fact that a majority of voters may back a ban (though I doubt they will) won't make it constitutional, contrary to local superstition. Months and perhaps years will pass while this issue is adjudicated.

And existing shops will likely continue to operate, under a judge's order, while the cases progress. Imagine the injustice involved in instituting a ban -- in shutting shops down, putting people out of work, depriving patients of their medication providers and killing-off so many vibrant small businesses -- only to later learn that the ban was unconstitutional. No competent judge (or reasonable person) would stand by and see all this damage done, while the constitutional questions remain unsettled. So a ban, even if it passes, will not magically make the shops go away. Politicians who hold out such promises are misleading the public.

The legal arguments for a dispensary ban were never very strong, but they were undermined considerably by muddle-headed legislators (led by some from El Paso County) who, as typical politicos, wanted to have it both ways. HB-1284, the "fix" that made matters worse, legitimized the dispensary model with one hand, while allowing local governments to ban them with the other, mailing out an engraved invitation to the sorts of legal challenges we're seeing in Westminster. If dispensaries are allowed, they must be constitutional. And if they are constitutional, banning them, even by a vote, would be unconstitutional.

Logic doesn't always apply to the law, I know (or to legislating), but the case for a dispensary ban appears to have been undermined by some of the same politicos who are now pushing them. Their inability to craft a coherent, logically-consistent solution not only invites unnecessary lawsuits, but it lessens the chance that bans will hold up. They made a mess and now want the courts to clean up. They wrote a bill designed to invite litigation. But it's the taxpayers who will foot the legal bills, and who have to live with prolonged uncertainty, as the Gordian knot is untangled.

Wouldn't it be better, smarter, for the city and county to jointly move ahead with regulating and taxing dispensaries, and avoid getting directly swept up in the lawsuits that loom, while patiently waiting to see how the court cases play out? If a court battle is looming -- and it is -- why not let other communities endure the headaches and foot the legal bills? Wouldn't it be sensible to give local controls and the regulations in HB-1284 a chance to work, before resorting to a knee-jerk "solution" like a ban? Can we really afford, in a lousy economy, to turn thumbs down on the business activity, jobs and tax revenue these legal enterprises generate?

If, a year or two from now, dispensary bans have been ruled constitutional, and if the regulate and tax approach has been a bust, the path to a ban remains open -- and we'll actually know whether it will hold up. I don't believe the moral fiber of Colorado Springs will be irreparably frayed in the meantime. Moving precipitously now, without fully thinking through the consequences, will only make matters worse.

Previous posts on this topic can be found here and here and here.

Recent polls showed that perpetually-disgruntled, chronically-underappreciated federal workers are feeling much better about their jobs these days. Wonder why.

Does the Tea Party movement have political muscle?

The question's been asked many times by reporters and pundits, applying an unusual degree of skepticism, even for the media. Most were dismissive of the movement from the start, giving it snide or scant coverage. And when it refused to just fade away, as per their expectations and desires, they did their best to relegate it to the lunatic fringe by highlighting oddball participants or hinting at racist tendencies. But still the Tea Party rolls on, crushing media naysayers in its path, and demonstrating, without a doubt, that it's one of the most potent (and truly grassroots) political movements of recent times.

I hope the results of yesterday's election -- which had Tea Party picks Dan Maes and Ken Buck surging to wins over establishment Republicans -- will finally put to rest the question of whether the Tea Party has "pull." At least in Colorado, it's officially a force to be reckoned with, which should be as alarming for Reaganfeller Republicans -- those who talk like Ronald Reagan but think and vote like Nelson Rockefeller -- as it is for liberal Democrats.

Whether the Party has enough horsepower to carry its candidates to wins in the general election remains to be seen. And it's true that Maes's razor thin win over Scott McInnis undoubtedly was helped by the latter's glaring ethics problems. But these caveats can't detract from this clear moment of promise for the Tea Party movement in Colorado. Reporters and columnists who continue to discount or dismiss it, do so at the peril of ending up with even more egg on their faces.

Party on, patriots.

Ninety blessed days have passed since the end of the 2010 legislative session, but we still aren't out of the woods yet. Far from it, in fact. Tuesday, August 10, exactly three months after the gavel came down, the 165 largely unnecessary, mostly trivial and sometimes silly new laws approved last session become law. It's hard to see how the state is measurably better off as a result. Actually, since few if any of the new laws actually expand freedom, and most restrict it in one way or another, we're probably less better off than we were when the session began.

I defy doubters of that statement to highlight 3 pieces of legislation, approved last session, that Colorado could not live without, excluding the budget. I further challenge them to name 3 bills that actually translate into an expansion of freedom, as opposed to a restriction on freedom. I'm not sure more relaxed beer-drinking rules at the State Fair counts as a major coup.

What to do about this is uncertain. As long as reporters, pundits and certain segments of the general public continue to measure a session's success according to raw output, labeling less active sessions as a "failure" to "get things done," legislators will continue to crank out new laws like widgets, assembly line-style. Wouldn't it be miraculous (and good for the state) if an entire session passed without a single bill approved, except for a balanced budget? The state wouldn't suffer in the least. On the contrary, it probably would benefit from the cease fire.

Maybe we inadvertently encourage the annual deluge of new laws, new commandments, by calling our legislators "lawmakers." This sounds like something from biblical times, as if they're doing the Lord's work, handing down laws from a burning bush. But God was content to hand down just 10 commandments. Americans today have 10,000 commandments (probably more, in fact) to follow, thanks to the factory-like mass production of make-work legislation. Ignored is Churchill's dictum that the surest way to undermine respect for the law is to have too many laws.

Let's begin calling our legislators law-manufacturers, or law generators, or just plain old "regulators," since that more accurately describes how they function. Instead of applauding them for the new laws they write, we should cheer them for the old laws they erase.

Watching the near-death experience of the Cesar Chavez schools has been painful for this long-time charter school advocate.

Once respect and emulated, the schools were brought low, and in real danger of closing, due to a pattern of arrogance and mismanagement at the top. The episode raised questions about whether the increasingly-popular alternative schools aren't perhaps a little too removed from oversight, making them vulnerable to management problems or abuses. It threatened to give the movement a black eye. But the fact that the schools have been born again, and will be open this fall under new management, shows that charter schools have a remarkable ability to correct themselves, and redeem themselves, even when something goes terribly wrong. I wish the same could be said for conventional public schools.

Conventional schools can linger on death's doorstep for decades, plagued by lousy management and lackluster performance, while hardly drawing notice. But if a charter school falters, even for a moment, the wolves are almost immediately at the door, condemning a model that has far more successes than failures. But the Chavez schools had too strong a history of success, and too firm a base of parental support, to simply lock the doors when adversity struck.

Let's hope that the schools, and the students they serve, continue to flourish under new management. Cesar Chavez schools can still serve not just as a model for excellence, but as an example of how charters can recover, and come out even stronger, after weathering a storm.

Most media professionals tread very carefully in the days immediately before a vote, cognizant of the last-minute impact their reporting or commentary can have on the outcome. The Gazette, at least when I was working there, was reluctant to run any late-breaking "blockbusters," for fear of appearing to tamper with election results. The rule wasn't carved in stone, but it was followed fairly consistently. I assume it's still followed.

A good example of why such rules make sense occurred Friday, when The New York Times, which prides itself on being a paragon of journalistic professionalism, ran a piece alleging financial malfeasance by the Denver public school system during Sen. Michael Bennet's tenure. The story couldn't have been better designed, or better timed, to tilt the primary in favor of challenger Andrew Romanoff.

Romanoff immediately turned the story into potentially fatal anti-Bennet campaign ads -- though the Times ran a correction and clarification yesterday that raised significant questions about the story's integrity. The story had a major factual error, which blows its premise to pieces. And it also seems that a primary source on the story is a Romanoff partisan, which wasn't noted in the story and ought to have raised caution flags for a competent reporter (and that reporter's editors). But you can bet Romanoff won't be running a new batch of ads carrying the clarification.

The damning ads can't be recalled, and the damage they might have done Bennet can't be undone. If Bennet loses, his supporters will quite correctly blame biased and irresponsible reporting by the Times. And it will be another black eye for an industry that doesn't need one.

This report, recounting injuries sustained by HOT team member M.J. Thomson after being assaulted by a homeless camper, is a reminder of the dangers team members faced (and continue to face) when policing the no man's land down by the river. Many of the homeless are harmless, but the prevalence of mental illness, substance abuse and antisocial behavior in this population of people presents unique challenges, and sometimes real dangers, for this specialized squad of cops. The fact that they made a tough assignment look relatively easy is a tribute to their patience, humanity and diplomacy.

Heal up soon, M.J.. Your work is really appreciated.

As I predicted many blogs ago, federal judge Donald Molloy -- the go-to guy for eco-extremists looking for a friendly court -- on Friday ordered that reintroduced gray wolves be returned to the endangered species list, ruling that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could not delist the animals in two states (Idaho and Montana) while keeping them listed in another (Wyoming).

It's a major disappointment for states were the animals had been delisted, in recognition of their numbers having far exceeded recovery goals (and far exceeding what can reasonably be maintained in the more heavily-populated "new West"). A few of these states, having assumed management responsibility, last year instituted controlled hunts, in order to keep populations (which have been growing 20 percent a year) in check. But wildlife advocates aren't willing to acknowledge the effort's success. They don't trust states to manage the packs. And they hate using hunts as control mechanisms.

All they needed in order to monkey-wrench the process, and get their way, is the help of a robed dictator with green leanings and a lifetime appointment, who makes policy from a federal courthouse in Missoula. Molloy has always been their boy. And he delivered the goods again Friday.

The ruling may have a silver lining for Colorado, however, since we are operating under a similar "split decision" involving the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. It remains a listed species in this state, but has been removed from federal protections in Wyoming, following a controversy involving its legitimacy as a subspecies. That means Colorado continues to live with the regulatory consequences of the listing, while Wyoming is liberated territory, even though there's no genetic difference between mice in Colorado and mice in Wyoming.

“The Endangered Species Act does not allow the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list only part of a ‘species’ as endangered …” Molloy wrote in his ruling. “Accordingly, the rule delisting the gray wolf must be set aside because, though it may be a pragmatic solution to a difficult biological issue, it is not a legal one.” And that would seem to demand a second look at the Preble's ruling.

It's possible that any second look at the case would land Wyoming mice back on the list, given the agency's determination to justify, rather than rectify, its mistakes. But it's also possible -- if disinterested and sound science is applied -- that a delisting would occur in both states. I continue to have doubts about the mouse's legitimacy as a subspecies. Some experts believe that they're much numerous than listing advocates say they are.

Challenging the Preble's mouse "split decision," based on this ruling, would at least require another review of the questionable science underpinning the listing. And if it's heard by a judge with more objectivity and common sense than Donald Molloy, we just might stand a chance of success.

Law prof Glenn Harlan Reynolds has a thought-provoking piece in Sunday's Washington Examiner about the predicted popping of what he describes as a higher education "bubble." It serves as a timely bookend to a blog I did several days ago, "First Degree Fraud?," touching on the same topic. The present course higher ed is on is unsustainable, as the professor points out. A major "correction" is coming. It's time to start thinking about what the next paradigm will be.

Here's a tease:

"Assume that I’m right, and that higher education - both undergraduate and graduate, and including professional education like the law schools in which I teach - is heading for a major correction. What will that mean? What should people do?

Well, advice number one - good for pretty much all bubbles, in fact - is this: Don’t go into debt. In bubbles, people borrow heavily because they expect the value of what they’re borrowing against to increase.

In a booming market, it makes sense to buy a house you can’t quite afford, because it will increase in value enough to make the debt seem trivial, or at least manageable - so long as the market continues to boom.

But there’s a catch. Once the boom is over, of course, all that debt is still there, but the return thereon is much diminished. And since the boom is based on expectations, things can go south with amazing speed, once those expectations start to shift.

Right now, people are still borrowing heavily to pay the steadily increasing tuitions levied by higher education. But that borrowing is based on the expectation that students will earn enough to pay off their loans with a portion of the extra income their educations generate. Once people doubt that, the bubble will burst.

So my advice to students faced with choosing colleges (and graduate schools, and law schools) this coming year is simple: Don’t go to colleges or schools that will require you to borrow a lot of money to attend. There’s a good chance you’ll find yourself deep in debt to no purpose. And maybe you should rethink college entirely."

Private for-profit colleges are in the political crosshairs of late, after a Government Accountability Office investigation revealed the higher-than-average student loan default rates and hard sell recruiting tactics found at some of the schools. Congressional hearings featured dramatic, hidden camera footage of college recruiters overselling the benefits of a degree while under-emphasizing the need to repay student loans. I'm not sure when GAO's stuffy old bean counters decided to go all cloak and dagger on us. And no one bothered to ask the auditing office how much footage it shot before it got the damning stuff. But hey -- anything to add a little drama to a congressional hearing. If it can't be replayed on YouTube, it really didn't happen, right?

This generated a lot of coverage and finger-wagging commentary -- one opportunistic opinionator at the AJC even turned it into a lesson on the perils of school vouchers. Headline-writers were nearly unanimous in calling it "fraud." Pavlovian politicians saw the revelations as another opportunity for reflex-regulating.

But if some for-profits really are guilty of fraud -- of luring unwary students into shouldering massive debt loads, in pursuit of a degree that has an uncertain value in the job market -- many not-for-profit schools are only a little less guilty of the same. Student loan default rates at for-profits are double what they are at non-profits. But for-profit schools probably cater to a different demographic -- to poor and working class people who are looking for a leg up, but don't have the time or luxury to spend four years attending toga parties, with a few classes thrown in. Going to school for these folks is more of a gamble, so their failure rates, and default rates, are bound to be higher.

I'm not excusing defaults, just noting that they're higher than they ought to be at both kinds of institutions. Is this all the result of shady recruiting practices and over-promising? Or could some of the blame lay with the easy availability of government-backed credit, or a higher education system (both public and private) that costs more and more for degrees that often mean less and less in the job market?

Anything you want to condemn one group of schools for, the other group is guilty of, if only to a lesser extent. Singling out for-profits for vilification is hypocritical, since these same problems exist system-wide, in varying degrees. It's like writing speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

It's true that nobody in CU's admissions office has to hard-sell prospects: kids are falling all over themselves to get in. But there's an element of misleading marketing at these schools, too, in that they often promise much more than they deliver, in terms of education and long-term earnability, while enticing the unwary into taking on debt that future earnings might not sustain. If certain for-profits are guilty of "fraud," certain non-profits must be as well. It's the entire system that needs reform, not just part of it.

Drive around the city, really looking at what goes on here, and you'll soon see that local government provides only a small portion of the social safety net help available. You may drive by the Myron Stratton Home, or a Peak Vista Community Health Center clinic, or the Marian House soup kitchen, or the Care and Share Food Bank, with only a vague awareness of what they do. And there are probably several dozen such organizations, the names of which I could rattle off, that make up what I call the "do-it-ourselves sector."

Add to this impressive list of entities the TLC Pharmacy, which is profiled in this Gazette story. It's the inspiration of of Marcella Ruch, who created and ran Mission Medical Clinic (another great "do-it-ourselves sector" organization) and recently won the Civic Innovator of the Year Award for these and other efforts. Every community has such entities, I'm sure. But ours seems to have them in extraordinary numbers. It's the hidden strength of the city, as I've pointed out before, that often gets overshadowed by all the focus on city government.

A lot of credit for the happy resolution of last winter's homeless camps crisis goes to the Colorado Springs Police Department’s Homeless Outreach Team, or HOT team, which patiently and humanely patrolled the camps, frequently in freezing and nasty conditions, rendering assistance, maintaining order and giving campers a gentle nudge in the direction of shelter and help when necessary.

That work has now gained the team international recognition, according to The Gazette; they're finalists for the Herman Goldstein Award, which the paper describes as "an internationally recognized honor bestowed by the Center for Problem Oriented Policing to agencies that successfully deal with complex crime or safety issues." Few social safety net issues are as "complex" to deal with as homelessness, and the patience, compassion and professionalism team members showed in dealing with a trying situation was really admirable (as I saw first-hand on several occasions, and through all my dealings with the HOT team). Chief Myers and senior leaders in the department deserve credit for seeing the need for the team, selecting the right officers for it, and putting the resources behind it.

Whether or not our team takes home top prize, I know the public appreciates the role they played in pulling this city through the long HOT winter we just endured. Congratulations, team, on this well-deserved honor.

An editorial in today's Casper Star Tribune attempts to reason with the anti-drilling groups that keep protesting just about every energy lease the federal government puts up for auction in Wyoming, despite efforts by Barack Obama's new, green-leaning BLM to curb such conflicts by capitulating in advance. Thousands of acres of potential energy leases have been removed from auction by BLM, in order to placate anti-drilling zealots. But zealots, almost by definition, won't be placated. That's why the barrage of protests and lawsuits continues apace, despite the fact that environmental groups have an ally in the White House.

Reasoning with these groups is a waste of ink, and a waste of breath, because they aren't reasonable people. If BLM preemptively removes 100 parcels from auction, the no-drilling gang will demand the removal of 200 more. For every one "environmentally sensitive" area that's made off-limits, two more will be identified. This is what happens when the job of "protester" becomes a full-time, well-paid profession, which depends for its survival on perpetual conflict, manufactured anxiety and a steady stream of headline-grabbing litigation.

The goal here isn't to confine drilling to less-sensitive areas, because every natural area is sensitive in the eyes of Earth-worshippers. The goal is to ban or severely restrict all drilling, everywhere, forcing this energy-dependent society to change its (allegedly) evil and wasteful ways. Creating energy scarcity and economic stagnation will force us to live in more environmentally-correct ways. Nothing less than social and economic revolution will satisfy eco-authoritarians.

Tim Leigh is back, according to his latest Market Report, and in the hunt for an at-large City Council seat. But at least one statement in his announcement raised flags for me. In addition to talking-up his commitment to job growth and neighborhoods -- who on Council doesn't support both? -- Tim says he wants to be a candidate not "of the people," but of city employees. Here's the relevant passage (italics added) from his announcement:

"I’m still committed to the city employees & staff and plan to be their political advocate. Right now, they have no voice. And, no, they’re not the problem, their missing leadership is. But, as their advocate, I’ll expect them to respond in kind with excellence, team work and an attitude of partnership with the private sector. Look the enemy’s not us, it is the global economy."

Glad to see a nice write-up on our community center partnership efforts in today's Gazette. I know there were doubters when I first floated the concept, and critics of the Westside Center partnership when it was announced, but it seems that some of that initial skepticism is being replaced with a sense of renewed optimism, now that we've demonstrated some success. Work on finding partners for the remaining community centers, and possibly more pools, continues. Not a week goes by that 2 or 3 meetings aren't held, as various partnership permutations are explored. And I believe we will finish strong and have something really good to show for it.

The American Spectator has a thorough write-up on the recently-released FBI dossier on Howard Zinn, whose textbook, "A People's History of the United States," was widely used in many schools and undoubtedly left a lasting impression (the wrong impression, in many cases) on many a malleable young mind. That Zinn appears to have been an active member of the Communist Party, or, at the very least, a fellow traveler and "agent of influence, shouldn't have disqualified him as a writer of books, in my opinion. In a truly free country, even communists have the right to teach, write and propagandize to their heart's content. And academia is full of people like Zinn. Singling him out as an aberration is sort of silly. I'm sure his fans will use release of the files to paint Zinn as the victim of anti-Red hysteria and witch-hunting.

The really damning element of the Zinn saga isn't that he wrote books, but that these became textbooks, which were warmly and uncritically received by the public school establishment. That so many school administrators so enthusiastically inflicted his hard left interpretation of American history, which highlighted all the warts while downplaying the virtues, on so many young people, without blinking an eye, suggests that they shared his dark and distorted view of the American experiment -- that his view conformed with their own.

Then some wonder why so many kids coming out of public schools, if they know any history at all, need so much deprogramming.

I'm a long way from my high school years, to say the least, but I still feel a tinge of real excitement, even if vicariously, for the students who will be attending the new, improved, "innovative" Wasson High School this fall. They'll be part of a hopeful experiment in public education, which grants Wasson charter school-like freedoms to experiment and innovate. The Gazette had a nice write-up on this yesterday, in case you missed it.

The change-over has the teachers' union on edge, naturally. A uniform and stagnant mediocrity is much more their style than a vibrant and dynamic meritocracy. But whether students and parents buy into the new concept, and whether it produces real improvements in a school that was languishing, should be the only real measure of success or failure. It's just a shame -- and a symptom of public education's chronic malaise -- that Wasson had to jump through so many hoops to win a "School of Innovation" designation. If the system were working as it should be, every American school would be a school of innovation.

The days are running short and Colorado Governor Bill Ritter is still searching for the "legacy" for which his tenure will be known. Sure, sure, we've all heard the legend of the "new energy economy," which, if it exists at all, was built on the grave of an "old energy economy" Ritter effectively helped cripple. But there might still be a chance, a hope, for something more.

The announcement of Bill Ritter's "New bicycle-racing economy" is expected tomorrow. Lance Armstrong will reportedly be there, to help get the initiative off to a fast start. And maybe there are even some synergies to be had between the "new energy economy" and "new bicycle-racing economy."

Perhaps tiny micro-generators can be attached to the wheels of each bicycle, which feed, through osmosis, into a Nano Lithium X Battery stored in a chase vehicle (a hydrogen-powered hybrid, of course). That could produce enough electricity to power every snowcone maker at the Colorado State Fair on opening day.

Imagine the jobs this will create. Imagine the greenhouse gases that will be reduced. Imagine the "legacy" this will leave. Then imagine cows jumping over the moon.

As a strong supporter of property rights -- including intellectual property rights -- I won't republish in its entirety John Hazlehurst's typically-astute profile of mayoral hopefuls in The Colorado Springs Business Journal. And linking to the story is pointless, since it's subscribers-only content. I urge you to support local media by subscribing, since I know all too well, as one who has labored in these vineyards, that good content doesn't come free. But don't despair if you can't. If you simply must see the story, but simply don't have the ability to subscribe, a version can be found on Dolan Media Company Site.

I'm trying not to take it personally, but I'm the last potential candidate to be profiled. But John puts my chances at 4 to 1, which isn't bad. Here's what John wrote:

"Sean Paige

Present job: appointed to City Council last year to fill the district seat vacated by Jerry Heimlicher.

Bio: Worked for 14 years in Washington at the intersection of conservative politics, journalism and public policy, including a stint as press secretary for the 1996 presidential campaign of Ambassador Alan Keyes. He came to Colorado Springs in 2002 to replace Dan Njegomir as the Gazette’s editorial page editor, serving in that position until 2007. He now serves as executive director of two Colorado Springs policy groups, the Limited Government Forum and Local Liberty Action. He’s the editor of Local Liberty Online.org, a website which, he says, “is focused on the fight for freedom in America’s backyard.”

Political views: Libertarian with a capital “L.”

In the race or not: A very strong maybe. “I won’t enter the race if there’s someone running who represents the ideas and policies that I’ve been advocating,” he said, making it clear that such a candidate has yet to appear.

Strengths/weaknesses: Paige is smart, articulate and fiercely effective in debate. In a council dominated by dispirited veterans, he’s been a highly visible newcomer. His Libertarian beliefs may be attractive to many voters, but others may find them extreme and eccentric.

Campaign theme: “I don’t think people care what the power brokers say,” Paige said.

Odds: 4-1

I actually worked for Alan Keyes when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 1992, just to correct the record. Symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder stemming from that debacle prompted me to decline invitations to work on his presidential campaigns. Also, I would call myself a small "L" libertarian, since I have never been involved in the Libertarian Party, I do not take things to absurd lengths and I chafe at dogmatic thinking of all types, even when it's on the political right. But other than that, I have no complaints with John's analysis. And if he judges Dave Munger the front-runner (as the top choice of the crybaby contingent), I'm actually encouraged.

The Pueblo Chieftain seems genuinely pleased about the possibility of a new helicopter aviation battalion coming to Fort Carson, which would bring 2,000 more soldiers to the base. But what really has the paper gushing is the possibility that this influx of new soldiers will lead to the opening of Gate 19, which is located west of the Tomahawk Truck Stop on Interstate 25. Why is that important? Because, explains the Chieftain, "Pueblo business leaders have been campaigning for opening Gate 19 because it would make it easier for Fort Carson personnel to live in Pueblo and commute back and forth."

More troops will be good for Southern Colorado's economy. Pueblo wants to skim off as much of that gravy as it can. Opening Gate 19 will make that easier. But why the Army would want to do any special favors for Pueblo is a mystery, given the beating it has taken at the hands of the Pueblo Chieftain over the proposed expansion of the Pinon Canyon training site.

The paper is enthusiastic about base growth if it sees some direct financial benefit for Pueblo. Yet its editorial page consistently lends support to those who are working to block base expansion at Pinon Canyon (which might even be more necessary with the influx of new soldiers and equipment) and restrict training on the existing site. The paper also tends support to those who portray the Army as a land-grabbing villain, and it applauds when U.S. Rep. John Salazar cuts off federal funding to even study the expansion issue.

Hypocrisy would be too kind a word for the Chieftain's two-faced position on this issue. More troops at Fort Carson are welcome, in its opinion, if Pueblo can benefit. But the paper consistently opposes any efforts the Army has made to provide additional training space for the new troops it must accommodate.

Don't you wish we could get the same level of candor from incoming government officials as we do from outgoing government officials?

Peter Orszag, who until today was management and budget director for Barack Obama, tried to put a positive spin on things as he heads for the exits, but he acknowledged in a farewell speech that public perceptions about a sinfully wasteful federal government aren't without some basis in fact. He pointed to the $180 million that the feds paid-out to dead people over the last 3 years as just one example of what he was talking about. "I wish I was kidding," he told the audience.

We taxpayers wish he was kidding too.

The best commentary I can offer on this story would have to come in the form of an image:

The Denver Post's Vincent Carroll should win some sort of journalism award for his series of columns -- here's the latest -- exposing the incestuous, three-way relationship between Xcel Energy, the Ritter Administration and the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Spawned of this unholy trinity was a “green energy” bill passed in the last session, HB-1365, which puts the screws to Xcel customers in order to bankroll an unnecessary technology shift for the company, from coal-fired to natural gas-fired plants. This was also a huge gift to natural gas companies, while potentially putting coal producers on the ropes.

It all gives off a strong whiff of conspiracy -- an impression reinforced by the reluctance of key players to document the behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing. Carroll already has written several columns (including this one) about how Xcel and the PUC are using a new two-tiered rate structure to gouge electricity users with what Mike Rosen has dubbed the "air conditioning tax," in the name of encouraging energy efficiency. Now he’s taking a closer look at the coal-to-gas deal – and doing the public a huge service by staying on the scent.

Cloakroom collaborations between businesses and politicians aren't exactly new, or newsworthy. But what makes the PUC's behind-the-scenes involvement so troubling is the organization’s critical role in implementing legislation that it secretly helped craft. PUC Chairman Ron Binz, a social engineer with a strong green streak, told Carroll the PUC became involved in bill-crafting very late in the process. But any involvement is too much involvement, in my opinion.

The PUC is supposed to serve as an impartial and independent regulatory and rate-setting entity that primarily looks out for the public interest. It shouldn’t be a backroom deal-maker, or involved in drafting legislation it will later have to implement. The collaboration between Ritter, Xcel and the PUC (private environmental groups were also involved) ought to be investigated (and not just by one intrepid columnist), and implementation of the law should be suspended, if that’s possible, until the public knows everything that happened behind the scenes.

A friend from Boulder calls them "Hysteric Preservation Boards" instead of Historic Preservation Boards, having witnessed the property rights abuses that can occur when these groups are granted too much power over the lives of people living in such districts. And just how petty things can get is indicated by the following snippet from The Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel, having to do with one historic preservation controversy in Boca Raton. :

"The bass got a pass from all but one member of the Boca Raton Historic Preservation Board present for the meeting last week.

A stuffed fish hanging over the garage in one of the city's tonier neighborhoods was discussed as a possible "inappropriate alteration" at the July 20 meeting. But the arguments that the homeowner holds titles in the sport, and the neighborhood encourages such "quirkiness," held sway, especially since several board members live there. No further action is expected."

The owner of the trophy fish is off the hook, so to speak, so some might say that it's no big deal. But the fact that this sort of nit-picky thing even came before the board, and the fact that one member refused to give the stuffed bass a pass, is proof enough of how off the deep end this movement has gone in some places.

A less lighter-side look at the misuses and abuses of historic preservation districts can be found in this story from a suburban Washington, D.C. newspaper, about how historic preservation rationales are coldly being used to deny the property rights of a couple whose elderly parents perished in a house fire. Three years have passed since the tragedy, but a demolition permit for the gutted old house still won't be granted -- until the couple agrees not to subdivide the land.

The best safeguard against such problems, in my opinion, is making participation in such districts strictly voluntary, not mandatory, and by using carrots rather than sticks, cooperation rather than coercion, to achieve historic preservation aims. Preserving America's traditional respect for property rights is even more important than preserving charming old structures, in my opinion. The problem with the movement, as it has evolved, is that it places too much emphasis on the ladder, and not enough on the former. It's all about maintaining outward appearances, while the foundation is falling into disrepair.

With modern attention spans whittled down to a nubbins, by a hyperactive mass media that bombards one with fragments of ideas and information, leaving little pause for genuine reflection, I almost hesitate to recommend Angelo Codevilla's long but important "think piece" in The American Spectator about America's "new ruling class" and its close connection to, and affinity for, gargantuan government. A widening chasm between a government-oriented elite and an individual-oriented citizenry has the potential to spark a second American Revolution, argues Codevilla; hopefully, of the peaceful kind.

Here's an appetizer . . .

"Our ruling class's agenda is power for itself. While it stakes its claim through intellectual-moral pretense, it holds power by one of the oldest and most prosaic of means: patronage and promises thereof. Like left-wing parties always and everywhere, it is a "machine," that is, based on providing tangible rewards to its members. Such parties often provide rank-and-file activists with modest livelihoods and enhance mightily the upper levels' wealth. Because this is so, whatever else such parties might accomplish, they must feed the machine by transferring money or jobs or privileges -- civic as well as economic -- to the party's clients, directly or indirectly. This, incidentally, is close to Aristotle's view of democracy. Hence our ruling class's standard approach to any and all matters, its solution to any and all problems, is to increase the power of the government -- meaning of those who run it, meaning themselves, to profit those who pay with political support for privileged jobs, contracts, etc. Hence more power for the ruling class has been our ruling class's solution not just for economic downturns and social ills but also for hurricanes and tornadoes, global cooling and global warming. A priori, one might wonder whether enriching and empowering individuals of a certain kind can make Americans kinder and gentler, much less control the weather. But there can be no doubt that such power and money makes Americans ever more dependent on those who wield it."

. . . but I highly recommend sitting down for an hour and leisurely enjoying the entire meal. It's not the intellectual junk food we've grown addicted to, so it might tax your patience. But the time would be well spent.

Washington Posties finally got on the Arlington National Cemetery scandal today, playing it as a scoop, even though it had been unfolding for several decades right beneath their noses, with nary a word. Other publications began writing about a chronic pattern of mismanagement at the storied facility about a year ago, but one intrepid reporter had the real scoop back in 1998, when he was writing for The Washington Times.

That nothing was done about problems that dated back 20 years, and that were known about, documented and reported on more than 12 years ago, is the scandal within the scandal. And it shows just how impossible it is to really change the way the federal bureaucracy works -- or doesn't work, as the case may be.

That The Post didn't pick up on the story for 20 years, when it was occurring in its backyard, shows how inured the city's self-styled watchdogs can be to the chronic bureaucratic bumbling that swirls all around them, like a cesspool. That's the other scandal within the scandal.

Watching the self-destruction of Colorado Republicans is partly dreadful, partly fascinating, but almost impossible to ignore -- much like the way one feels when sneaking a peek while passing a car wreck. If there was any chance of the GOP mounting a respectable challenge to John Hickenlooper, that chance officially dies today, with Tom "the human torpedo" Tancredo's entry into the race. That officially turns this from fiasco into debacle; Republicans won't just get beaten, they'll be bludgeoned.

I'm a registered "unaffiliated" with long-time Republican leanings and connections. It thus pains me to see the party on the verge of blowing a golden opportunity here in Colorado, through a combination of incompetence, character flaws, a paper-thin bench and -- in Tancredo's case -- pure opportunism and ego-gratification. But the party still has a lot of soul-searching and re-thinking to do, in my opinion, before it's ready to return to a long-term leadership role. All it will have to offer, otherwise, is Obama Lite.

The party should benefit in the short-run from the anti-Obama backlash (Colorado aside). But being something other than Obama isn't an agenda on which the party can build a lasting platform and political coalition. A few Republicans can actually articulate a consistent limited government, pro-freedom vision for the country. Fewer still can do it credibly. But most are staking their fortunes on the growing public revulsion to the Obama agenda. And that won't be good enough to sustain itself, or get the country moving in a better direction, even if the party does make short-term gains.

Republicans need to wander a little more in the wilderness, in my opinion, and undergo a sincere rediscovery of their roots, before they'll be able to offer a consistent, coherent and compelling alternative to Obamanism.

Roads and bridges are crumbling all along the interstate highway system, from what we've been told, and the trust fund used to maintain them is almost tapped-out. Yet the feds -- meaning you and me -- annually fund $12 million in "free" roadside assistance for motorists in New Jersey.

Is this a country with its priorities in order, or what?

This country would be much better off if Americans, whenever they hear or see the word "free," mentally replace it with the phrase "taxpayer-funded." That would help remind them that everything government gives away to someone, it takes from someone else. I have less discretionary income, with which I might buy a membership at AAA, so motorists in New Jersey don't have to bother. That's how "the government racket" works.

I've blogged before about how stupid almost everything labeled "smart" can be. Smart cars, smart growth, smart transit, smart this, smart that: it's all just shrewd salesmanship for lousy ideas. More evidence of this can be found in this report in today's Boulder Daily Camera, which details how massive cost overruns on Xcel Energy's much-hyped "SmartGridCity" experiment will be passed along to the company's non-Boulder customers, in the form of higher energy bills. Whether they'll think this faddish "green energy" gimmick is so "smart" is doubtful, once they see the additional charges show up for something one Boulder-area critic correctly calls a "boondoggle."

If it were really looking out for the public interest, The Colorado Public Utilities Commission would tell Xcel to eat the additional costs. But this PUC is firmly in the hands of social eco-engineers like Chairman Ron Binz, who wants to use the board's ratesetting authority to encourage Coloradans to live more energy-efficient, environmentally-correct lifestyles -- even if that drives their utility bills through the roof. The PUC may grumble a bit, but at the end of the day it will probably give Xcel the relief it seeks.

In this case, Xcel's interests and the PUC's ideology are aligned, which means Xcel customers will get the shaft. But it's all for their own good, and the good of the planet, so they shouldn't complain. Right?

There is no Law of Unintended Consequences. There's only a Law of Unanticipated Consequences, which comes into play when short-sighted policymakers and people don't make the effort to carefully think through what they're doing. The city of Aurora is feeling the cruel lash of that law right now.

Aurora instituted a ban on medical marijuana dispensaries in December 2009, and its City Council recently voted to put a dispensary ban on the ballot this fall. But that hasn't kept MMJ out of the city. One unanticipated result of these anti-dispensary moves -- something that will be repeated in Colorado Springs if we follow Aurora down Reactionary Road -- is that the activity has shifted away from commercial and industrial zones and into residential neighborhoods, greatly complicating the work of monitoring or regulating it.

Aurora's efforts to keep MMJ out of sight have backfired, by driving it into the shadows. The city can't ban residential grows, as it has tried to ban dispensaries, without getting sued for violating the Amendment 20 rights of patients and providers. So that's where the activity went, once a dispensary ban was imposed. It scattered into smaller, more obscure locations, in residential areas. It's surprising that city leaders are so surprised by this, since it could easily have been anticipated (and avoided).

It doesn't look like a dispensary ban will make it onto the ballot in Colorado Springs. And I'm doubtful folks would approve one, given that a majority of El Paso County voters backed Amendment 20 more than a decade ago. But Aurora's present will be our future if we go that route. All we have to do is learn from its mistakes.

Someday, maybe every state, county and even city will have its own subspecies of jumping mouse under federal protection. That's the way we're heading since professional environmentalists learned the trick of slicing animal species into smaller and smaller subsegments, for the purpose of disguising the fact that many allegedly "endangered species" are not really rare at all. Separately listing more subspecies and "distinct population segments" also multiplies the reach and impact of the all-powerful Endangered Species Act. Plus, it gives these lawsuit-happy groups something to do with themselves, and helps keep their names in the news.

Most readers already know about the mythical creature known as the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, which some claim, based on dubious science, is a subspecies of a larger species of jumping mice, which are plentiful in number. They may also recall how the Preble's mouse, even after its authenticity as a subspecies was challenged, became two new subspecies, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that mice in Wyoming could be removed from the list, while identical mice in Colorado would remain listed.

One dubious subspecies thus became two, by federal edict: you now have the Wyoming Preble's meadow jumping mouse, that isn't deemed worthy of protection, and a Colorado Preble's meadow jumping mouse, which remains on the list. The feds are still working through the regulatory implications, and a lawsuit is underway.

Reports indicate that Wyoming Preble's meadow jumping mice have been flooding into Colorado en masse ever since, seeking safe haven. Smuggling rings have sprung up, that charge exorbitant rates to sneak refugees across the Colorado state line. This has created consternation in Colorado's jumping mice colonies, where over-crowding, gang rivalries and competition for jobs have sparked conflict.

It was probably one of the most absurd rulings in ESA history, which is really saying something, but that's not the end of it. Now groups are pushing for a separate listing for a creature they call the "New Mexico jumping mouse," which undoubtedly is identical to its jumping mouse kin in Colorado and Wyoming.

That this is all a massive waste of precious taxpayer dollars, as well as a clear deviation from the original intent of the ESA, matters not to the zealots. Their aim is tying-up "development," in all its manifestation, derailing energy and water projects, and controlling land use decisions on as much public and private land as they can, by any means necessary. If they have to create fictitious animal species in order to advance that agenda, so be it.

To fanatics, the ends always justify the means.

Colorado Springs has gotten a lot of media attention in recent months about its budget situation, only some of which has focused on the real story -- which is the interesting and creative ways we're dealing with it. But there are plenty of American cities in much worse situations -- like Newark, for instance, where the mayor is having to balance the budget on the backsides of city employees, by cutting the city's toilet paper budget. Then there's the case of Maywood, California, which just learned that life goes on, pretty much as normal, even after you eliminate every city job and contract out the fundamentals.

Neither is a model I want this city to emulate (especially Newark, which has relatively high taxes and no TABOR controls but is still strapped for cash), though I do believe we could be bidding-out many more city services. Council not long ago approved a list of services that we think the city could or should be studying for outsourcing opportunities (a rather significant action that received no media coverage), so we're moving in that direction (even if a little slower than I would prefer). But some on Council removed snow plowing from the list, effectively declaring that an inherently governmental function, comparable to police or fire protection.

I strongly disagreed with that, and I said so, because I happen to believe snow plowing probably could be done well, and cost-effectively, by the private sector, if the government decided to get out of the business. One colleague argued that it was pointless to bid out this work because there was no snow-plowing industry in Colorado Springs to respond. I pointed out that a snow plowing industry might materialize in Colorado Springs, but only if the government didn't insist on performing this function.

When Government encroaches into private sector activities, the private sector naturally recedes. When one sphere expands, the other contracts. But if government retreats, and stops doing things it shouldn't be doing or can't do as efficiently, the private sector will step forward to fill that void. I was explaining this yesterday to a reporter from Governing Magazine, who was in town to do a story on how we're adapting to our budget situation. One of the reasons that we have such a strong non-governmental sector in Colorado Springs, I explained, using the resolution of last winter's homeless crisis as an example of how we deal with such problems, is that this city government has a tradition of not encroaching too far into social safety net work. Much of that is left to the strong churches, charities and non-profits in town.

The solution to the homeless situation didn't thus depend on city action alone, but on a combination of actions, involving the public and the private sectors, with the latter taking the lead. That's the way we do things in Colorado Springs. And it's a model I think more cities will have to follow, I told the reporter, as they grapple with their own budget challenges. We have an advantage in such situations because we kept government under control to begin with, so the non-governmental sector hasn't atrophied. It has the strength and resources and will to step in when government recedes. That's an under-appreciated strength of this city, that even many residents don't recognize.

Here's another example of what I'm talking about. If the government runs community centers, why would other, private entities take on that role? But if government can no longer afford to run community centers, and invites private entities to come in and partner on those functions, what we're discovering in Colorado Springs is that the private realm will respond. Is this new paradigm sustainable? -- that's what the reporter wanted to know. I told him I thought it was, but couldn't really say with certainty until we give it a try.

The same goes for snow plowing. As long as the government insists on doing the plowing, it's unlikely that a private alternative, or a better model for doing this work, will materialize. Why would it? But we really can't test this until we try it, by competing a sub-portion of the plowing work to the private sector. Now is the time to plan a small-scale demonstration project for the winter ahead, not when the leaves have fallen and snow is blowing over Pikes Peak. And starting at next week's informal City Council meeting, I'll be urging Interim City Manager Steve Cox and my colleagues to at least give this a try.

They say nature abhors a vacuum. But politics abhors one even more. That’s why, when the Gazette’s Daniel Chacon called me yesterday afternoon to confirm rumors that I was mulling a run for mayor, prompted by the appearance of a Facebook page touting my candidacy, I didn’t say “no.”

First, no one should panic: All this means is that it's under active consideration. Nothing is official. Nothing may become official. But a number of people have been asking me about it, and urging me to seriously considerate it, given that the field at this point is relatively wide open and largely devoid of substance. At the very least, maybe I can help generate ideas, interest, debate -- and a little more “buzz” about a Council contest that has huge implications for the city. I see my role much as I saw it when I put in for Jerry Heimlicher’s seat – as someone who can help make this more than a popularity contest based on vague platitudes or empty platforms (like restoring “civility” to public discourse). Here’s what I told Chacon:

Paige, who was appointed to fill a vacant council seat after former Councilman Jerry Heimlicher resigned, said it was “fun and flattering” that people would ask him to run.

“Yes, I would consider it,” he said. “I’m sure my candidacy would scare the hell out of the establishment in the city, but that’s not such a bad thing in my view.”

Paige said he’s going to wait and see who else decides to run.

But the two people who have made their candidacy official — defense contractor Buddy Gilmore and Dave Munger, president of the Council of Neighbors and Organizations — are not “going to bring the sort of ideas and substance to the race that I would like to see,” Paige said.

“If somebody better comes out of the woodwork that I think will bring leadership that is in lockstep with local values, then I’m happy to defer to someone else,” he said.

“But right now, I don’t see anybody who has stepped forward that I think will bring that kind of leadership,” Paige added. “If the city has been lacking something, it’s been leadership that is in tune with local values. It often seems like some of the leaders have been out of sync with what the general populace wants.”

So off we go. Where this will end up, nobody knows.

Will I take the next step, and make it official? That all depends. It depends on who else steps forward to run, and what kind of ideas they bring with them. It depends on whether the vision I have for the city – which most regular readers already understand, but which I'll be presenting more explicitly as time goes on – captures the public’s interest and imagination. It depends on what kind of feedback I receive from people I respect.

In the meantime, I intend to go about my work as a City Councilman just as I did before. I really enjoy the challenges involved, and the opportunity for learning the job presents. It happened through serendipity, but I take the responsibility seriously, as I think I've demonstrated since being appointed. I'll continue to balance my responsibilities as an elected official with my passion for writing, blogging, educating and provoking. I'm a "politician" by accident, not design. And I don't intend to water-down my opinions or persona in order to "play the game."

But understand this: I don’t intend to turn this blog, or this website, into a vehicle for touting my potential campaign. It has a much more important function, and will remain what it’s been from the beginning: A reminder to people that the fight for freedom begins in their own backyard, at the local level. What happens in Washington is important, obviously -- and God knows it can't (and won't) be ignored. What happens at the Statehouse in Denver is important as well. But there are threats to liberty, property, prosperity and opportunity much closer to home that also demand our attention, if we want to keep living, and keep protecting, the American dream. Raising that awareness is what this site, and this blog, is all about.

One observer of the negotiations between CSU and the Bureau of Reclamation over a long-term water storage contract in Pueblo Reservoir told me that he actually felt kind of sorry for Bureau negotiators, despite the fact that they're trying to stick it to Colorado Springs. They can produce no data-based justification for the charges they're proposing, because those charges are obviously based on the whims of people higher up the federal food chain. That leaves Bureau negotiators looking a little like clueless bobbleheads, when pressed to explain themselves. During breaks in the talks, they furiously work the phones, says my source, consulting with the string-pullers elsewhere. Lacking any clear methodology, all they have to fall back on is the argumentum ad verecundiam, an appeal to authority. "We have the power to charge whatever rates we want," is their only real argument, "and we want to charge you an outrageously-inflated sum."

But the Bureau has a handy negotiating ally in the editorial page of the Pueblo Chieftain, which is egging-on the agency's efforts to overcharge CSU water customers. When the Bureau runs out of flimsy rationales and indefensible positions, The Chieftain is there to supply new ones. Today the paper argues, for instance, that Springs water users should be willing to pay much more for storage in Pueblo Reservoir, and that we should be happy to subsidize construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit (please consult my earlier posts on this issue if you don't know what I'm talking about), because the AVC was envisioned at part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project at its inception, while the SDS project was not.

We should pay more, according to this argument, because SDS wasn't anticipated back in the early 1960s, when the project got started. Here's The Chieftain:

"THERE’S NO comparison between Colorado Springs’ Southern Delivery System and the long-awaited Arkansas Valley Conduit, particularly in how much each should pay for use of Lake Pueblo and other Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities.

Foremost, the Arkansas Valley Conduit has been authorized from the beginning by the Fryingpan-Arkansas Act of 1962 and, thus, is an original Fry-Ark Project. (So is Colorado Springs’ existing Fountain Valley Pipeline, built in the 1970s.)

Conversely, SDS is a new project never authorized nor envisioned by Fry-Ark. It cannot lay claim to the same consideration as the Ark Valley Conduit."

Some Machiavellian Republicans I know imagine the following scenario playing out.

A wounded Scott McInnis limps to a primary victory over the not-ready-for-prime time Dan Maes.

McInnis graciously steps aside, for his own good and the party's, leaving the door open to a mystery candidate, other than Dan Maes.

Mystery candidate carries the banner forward for the GOP, giving John Hickenlooper the scare of his life.

The critical question, obviously, is who that mystery candidate could or should be. Names are flying around, but few seem plausible or palatable, demonstrating how shallow the Republican bench is. But then, this afternoon, a name surfaced that actually excited me, in a blog post by the Denver Post's Lynn Bartels. That name is Mark Hillman: farmer, thinker, former state senator -- and someone who really would match-up well against Hickenlooper if the party gets behind him.

Bartels' blog does a good job of explaining Hillman's credentials and appeal, so I won't repeat it. He's likable, smart, accomplished -- and he exudes integrity. His is the first name floated as mystery candidate that really has potential, in my view. If the Republicans are going to attempt a post-primary bait-and-switch, he would be their smartest choice (assuming he would agree to do it).

But I wouldn't want Hillman betting his farm on Republicans making the smart choice.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke yesterday told The Denver Post that the Obama administration should be emulating Colorado's "new energy economy," the phantom accomplishment that outgoing governor Bill Ritter touts as his legacy. But I think this White House already has the formula down pat.

The NEE being pushed by Ritter and Obama isn't an "economy" at all, in the true sense of the word, because it makes no market sense. It's a government invention, which sits precariously on the three-legged stool of subsidies, mandates and delusional rhetoric. Remove the mandates or the subsidies -- stop the government interventions -- and the entire endeavor topples over. It can't survive in "the real energy economy." The NEE is just Obamanomics, applied to the energy sector.

It's all a massive waste of public resources, as energy writer Robert Bryce explains in two truth-telling books, "Gusher of Lies" and (just recently) "Energy Hungry." I highly recommend both to anyone seeking energy policy sobriety, along with "The Bottomless Well" by Peter Huber and Mark Mills.

The Commerce Secretary makes an even bigger clown of himself by touting China as a green energy paragon. China is investing money in "green energy" technology, as the Post points out -- but that's mainly for export to the U.S. and other countries that have gullibly jumped aboard the NEE bandwagon. It's also for show, an act of "greenwashing," designed to blunt international criticism of China's massive carbon footprint. China -- which just eclipsed the U.S. as the world's top energy consumer -- predominantly is powered by coal, oil and other conventional fossil fuels. And it's scouring the globe to secure additional supplies, because, unlike the U.S., it doesn't take its own energy security for granted.

Here's a dose of reality, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal:

"The Obama administration has emphasized cooperation in its energy diplomacy with Beijing, promoting joint projects on natural-gas exploration and the development of new technologies.

But behind the scenes, experts say China is seeking resources—and energy leverage—around the world. Over the past year alone Chinese state-owned companies have signed major deals to extract or export oil, gas, coal, uranium and other key natural resources from Canada, Venezuela, Iraq, Australia, Turkmenistan and South Africa.

"China's main mission is to protect and fuel its growing economy," says Karen Harbert, head of the Institute for 21st Century Energy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "And to do that, China is engaged in a concerted campaign to grab conventional energy resources around the world."

In November, for the first time, China outpaced the U.S. as the largest buyer of Saudi crude oil. Earlier this year, two Chinese warships made a port call in Abu Dhabi, the oil-rich capital of the United Arab Emirates, the first visit by the modern Chinese navy to the Persian Gulf."

China's capitalists are savvy enough to want to cash-in on the green energy fads happening elsewhere. They know the value of good PR. But China's actual energy portfolio is as old school as it gets. China isn't trusting its economic fortunes to niche "solutions" like windmills and solar farms. And you can bet it's more than happy to see its chief economic rivals, especially the U.S., squandering resources and wasting time by doubling-down on a losing hand.

China intends to eat our lunch, economically-speaking. And the U.S. seems content to invite China to the table, by shunning a reality-based energy policy.

Is there an echo in here?

Following hot on the heels of the Scott McInnis plagiarism flap, Face the State is asking whether Bill Ritter appropriated language from a fellow governor, Oregon's Ted Kulongoski, in a piece written to mark Veterans Day 2008. The passages are strikingly similar. But it's no big deal, really. Ritter can always use the "The McInnis defense" -- it's all the staff's fault -- or execute the "McInnis maneuver," which is to bravely soldier on as if nothing had happened.

The incidents highlight one unsavory little secret of the political world, however, which is that too few politicians do their own writing or word-smithing or -- in some cases -- thinking. Most of that is delegated to hired hands. How much of this is necessary, and how much is appropriate, is an open question. It's probably unrealistic to expect that our busiest politicians can do all their own writing. And there are plenty of able leaders who could use a good speech-writer. But there are also risks when politicians become too dependent on "brains for hire," the least of which is that your ghost-writer will turn out to be a plagiarist.

The fingerprints of rogue or freelancing staff frequently show up on the phonebook-thick bills Congress cranks out. Political aides are pretty much the only people who really write the bills, or read them, and it's easy for items to be inserted without the knowledge or approval of the boss. Senator Michael Bennet recently learned how rogue even low-level staff can go, when an intern was caught trying to exchange senatorial face time for campaign donations. And such problems only multiply as the congressional staff infection grows.

I'm not making excuses for the politicians, mind you. It's a failure on their part if they rely too heavily on staff and staff runs amok. A solution seems obvious: Slashing the number of political staff not only would make the hired help more manageable, and the boss more hands-on, but it might also slow the pace of law-making and lead to better-made laws. It would also offer politicos fewer opportunities to pass the buck down the chain of command when controversy erupts.

Referendum C, a five-year timeout from TABOR refunds that was sold by backers as a miracle cure for all that ails Colorado, quietly rode off into the sunset last week, with little fanfare or commentary. But Todd Hollenbeck, who occasionally writes for LLO and is working this summer at The Independence Institute, had a good piece on the origins and impact of C in Friday's Denver Daily News. Give it a read when you get a minute.

Obviously, Ref. C wasn't the fiscal cure-all it was supposed to be. The money that was supposed to flow to bridge and roadway work didn't, mainly because voters failed to approve a companion measure, Ref. D, that tied the money to something tangible. Funds being fungible, it's hard to say today where the Ref. C windfall went. But as I said at the time, in a non-endorsement endorsement I wrote for The Gazette (it may have been the only time in my 5 years at the paper that I was in conflict with the publisher on an editorial position), it was only a band-aid, that bought time for the state to address more fundamental fiscal and constitutional problems. Five years have passed, but those bedrock problems persist. Is anyone really surprised?

What would Abraham Lincoln say about ongoing efforts to repeal Amendment 20 in piecemeal fashion, through the local medical marijuana dispensary bans sanctioned by H.B. 1284? Hard to say with certainly. But Lincoln had the following to say about the prohibitionist impulse generally, which might give pause to those pushing a ban in the city:

“Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species if intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.”

It's certainly no vacation for taxpayers when the imperial president takes time for a little R & R, given the obscenely regal manner in which the First Family travels. But this is the first report I've seen of the First Pet flying solo, in a separate jet:

"Arriving in a small jet before the Obamas was the first dog, Bo, a Portuguese water dog given as a present by the late U.S. Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass."

Don't know about you, but reading that sentence made me want to woof.

When the puppy does the trick, the puppy gets a treat. The training of most politicians is no different.

Third District Rep. John Salazar last week went out and made his annual show of cutting-off funding for any study of Pinon Canyon expansion, declaring that it will never happen while he's in Congress. And for performing this annual trick he gets a treat: a nice pat on the head from the editorial page of The Pueblo Chieftain, whose guiding philosophy on this and all other issues is that if it can benefit Colorado Springs, it must be bad.

Atta boy, Fido. Now lay down and roll over.

I wasn't able to attend the two rounds of negotiations that took place this week between Colorado Springs Utilities and the Bureau of Reclamation, over a long-term water storage contract in Pueblo Reservoir. But from what I gather from published reports (Chieftain and Gazette), it seems as though CSU negotiated hard. And well it should, given the hundreds of millions of ratepayer dollars that are at stake if we allow the Bureau to roll us on this one.

I appreciate the fact that CSU is holding the line, by insisting that the Bureau produce some sort of justification, some sort of methodology, for how it arrived at its outrageous opening price of $75 per acre-foot (when the Pueblo Board of Water Works pays just a little over $17 for storing its water in the same reservoir). The agency still arrogantly refuses to explain itself -- making it obvious that there's nothing backing up the number but the whim of certain people inside the Department of Interior. That one of those people might be Ken Salazar was strongly hinted-at in the opening round of negotiations, when a loose-lipped Bureau official explained that the secretary had broad discretion to set rates.

This week's sessions reportedly got heated. I like that. Federal officials apparently don't like to be challenged, and asked to explain themselves, by uppity local yokels. And I think CSU, for its part, is finally getting sick of the shakedown attempts it has suffered all through the SDS process. From the Chieftain:

"Early on, sparks flew as Colorado Springs repeatedly asked Reclamation to justify its proposed rate for storage, while Reclamation held to using a “negotiated market” approach as opposed to cost of service.

“This is disgusting,” said David Robbins, Colorado Springs attorney during an angry moment. “You shouldn’t be able to argue that you’re being nice to us when you’re charging us $75 for storage, when Aurora has a contract for $43. . . . If you think you’re going to sit here and have a pleasant conversation while you insult us, you’re wrong.”

At issue (as the Chieftain story explained) is whether the Bureau bases its charges on "cost of service" -- which is the only equitable and rational way to do it -- or a "negotiated market" approach, which frees the Bureau to charge different rates to different entities, depending on what it thinks it can squeeze out of them. All previous contracts have been negotiated under the cost of service method, which is based on measureables. It's only with The Springs that the Bureau adopted this unfair and unsound new approach, which is based on whim.

As the perceived "rich people" of the Arkansas Valley, maybe Bureau brass figured it would be easy picking our pockets -- hell, we might not even notice a few hundred million dollars in overcharges. And that's insulting, as Robbins pointed out. We've played the nice guy so often, in trying to work with "neighbors" on SDS, that some people seem to think we're chumps. But we aren't complete chumps, as the Bureau is learning.

I urge CSU to keep fighting like a cougar to get these rates down where they belong.

Government has infinite patience because it is virtually immortal. It has an almost bottomless well of resources to draw from, as long as taxpayers are willing to be milked like cows. It can and will exercise excessive power, if left unchecked.

Human beings, on the other hand, are mortal. Human beings get worn down. Human beings lose heart. Human beings, unless they are as rich as Bill Gates, have limited resources with which to fight government when government threatens. That's why, in the battle between the state and the individual, the state has huge advantages. The American system was designed to give the individual a fighting chance against the state. But the system frequently fails -- as it failed Tom McGee, who succumbed this week and sold his house to Manitou, after fighting a nearly 20 year-effort by the town to oust him from his property.

Besides Steve Beisel, McGee might be the most disliked man in Manitou. He's disliked because, like Steve Beisel, he owns a piece of property, in a “viewshed,” that the city covets. And Manitou – that charming little mountain town with Maoist tendencies, as one friend describes it -- will stop at nothing to get what it wants from these men, by cutting-off utilities and driveway access to McGee's property and restricting access to Beisel's. Beisel refuses to knuckle-under -- hang in there, Steve! But McGee, apparently worn down by the struggle, is waiving the white flag.

The Pinon Canyon training site continues to serve as a political pinata for certain Colorado politicos, even though any serious talk about expansion ended years ago under a deluge of demagoguery.

"I'm not going to allow the expansion of Pinon Canyon as long as I am in Congress," Rep. John Salazar boasted in today's Pueblo Chieftain, after some military-related subcommittee on which he sits banned any funding for even studying the issue. Salazar bragged about "unanimous" support for the ban in the House. But that unanimous support was for a huge, pork-laden military spending bill, of which the ban constituted a single line that no one read.

"This is an encouraging win in our larger battle for private property rights in Southeast Colorado," added 4th District Rep. Betsy Markey, who has also been demagoguing the issue to death. What impact this might have on "our larger battle" for Iraq and Afghanistan, of military readiness suffers as a result, Markey didn't say.

Critics began by saying no expansion using eminent domain. Now they oppose any expansion, period, even if it can be done without eminent domain. The goal posts are on wheels, as I've pointed out before. The issue is being exploited by Salazar, Markey and others to literally scare-up support.

I ran across a quote today I thought would make a good pop quiz.

So, who said the following?

“I believe we should be providing the best quality government in the most efficient manner. The cornerstones for good government are engaged citizen feedback, dedicated customer service and continuous improvement. It is not the role of government to solve every challenge. The role of government is to create a collaborative environment and to provide the resources to facilitate solutions that spring from the community itself.”

Was it:

A.) Ronald Reagan?

B.) Calvin Coolidge?

C.) Barack Obama?

D.) Barry Goldwater?

Actually, it was none of the above.

The quote comes from yesterday's State of the City speech by Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (which may be his last such speech if Republicans can't get their act together), though it could easily be confused with something that Reagan or Goldwater might have said. Hickenlooper is no conservative. Not by a long shot. But his use of such rhetoric (and it may be empty rhetoric, to be sure) increases the chance that he can sell himself as a centrist between now and election day.

The first two sentences are boilerplate for most politicians, at least since the Reagan era, but it's the second two that really grab me, since they pretty well describe the approach we've traditionally taken in Colorado Springs -- a model we've been relying on even more during this fiscal crisis:

"It is not the role of government to solve every challenge. The role of government is to create a collaborative environment and to provide the resources to facilitate solutions that spring from the community itself.”

The leftist in Hickenlooper betrays himself, just a bit, when he asserts that it's the city's function to "provide the resources to facilitate solutions," since that still gives government a too-central role in true, community-based solutions, in my opinion. These efforts should rely, to the greatest extent possible, on private funding sources. Had I been giving the speech, or writing it for the mayor, I would have made the following changes:

"It is not the role of government to solve every challenge. The role of government is to create a collaborative environment that facilitates solutions that spring from the community itself.”

That's the way we've been doing things in Colorado Springs for years. It's the secret strength that will help this city through these challenging times. If Mayor Hickenlooper really wants to turn that Reaganesque rhetoric into action, and see how it works in practice, we should come on down. We'd be happy to show him around.

The Pentagon hasn't requested funding for any C-17 cargo planes since 2007. But still they keep coming. Each year, military officials beg Congress to stop adding new C-17s to the inventory. But still they keep coming.

And why would Congress keep buying airplanes for the Pentagon that the Pentagon doesn't want? Because continued production of the pig with wings means federal dollars flowing, and federally-funded jobs going, to certain states and congressional districts. It's pork, in a word -- another example of what happens when federal funds are distributed based on political pecking order, rather than a methodical setting of national priorities.

From a report on today's GovExec.com website:

"The Pentagon's heightened efforts this year to end C-17 production follows a recent study of the military's airlift requirements, which found that the Air Force's fleet of 223 C-17s and 111 larger C-5 Galaxy aircraft provides about 10 percent more lift than the department requires.

Neither the House-passed fiscal 2011 defense authorization bill nor the Senate Armed Services Committee's version includes funding for more C-17s.

But appropriators have long favored buying more of the Boeing-built cargo planes, and may attempt to add more to the fiscal 2011 defense spending bill despite strong warning by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that he would recommend President Obama veto any legislation that keeps the procurement program alive.

The Pentagon last sought money to buy a C-17 in its fiscal 2007 budget request to complete its planned purchase of 180 of the aircraft. Since then, Congress has added roughly $9 billion to spending bills to buy another 43 planes, whose production employs 30,000 people in 43 states."

Call it "pork." Call it "economic stimulus." Call it anything you want. But what it's really all about is job security for congressional appropriators.

Pueblo Chieftain Publisher Bob Rawlings is by all accounts a decent guy, if you're on his good side. And as a former editorial page editor, I sometimes marvel at (and even grudgingly admire) the way he uses his newspaper to wield power in the steel city. But I also suspect that there's a little Richard Nixon in Bob Rawlings: I mean the darker, brooding "tricky Dick," who spent his White House days nursing grudges and drawing up enemies lists. It was that darker side of Nixon that finally got the better of him, forever tainting a political career that was otherwise laudable.

Rawlings has his own enemies list, as anyone who regularly reads The Chieftain knows -- a line-up of villains that the old water warrior uses to spread his paranoia throughout Pueblo and the lower Arkansas Valley. Colorado Springs sits atop the list, obviously, but we have company. Today, for instance, the enemy is the "intruder" Aurora, which is a frequent foil. The paper recently began painting a target on the Woodmoor Water and Sanitation District -- here's one example -- for daring to secure water rights and water infrastructure in the Arkansas Valley.

This, according to the Chieftain's simplistic and hypocritical moralizing (hypocritical, because Pueblo has acquired its water rights the very same way), constitutes a malicious effort to "dry up" and destroy the Arkansas Valley. Rawlings paints all water-seekers (except Pueblo) as "raiders" and thieves, who must be stopped, even though every water right bought or sold in the valley is a free exchange between willing parties. The Chieftain accompanies many of its water-related stories and editorials with the embedded logo, reading "saving our water."

But this fundamentally misrepresents reality. It isn't the Chieftain's water, or Pueblo's water, to be "saved." "Our water" doesn't exist. It's the property of water right holders. And if those holders choose to sell that right, or lease the water temporarily, that's their affair. The Chieftain's claim to that water, on behalf of some nebulous collective called "our," and its efforts to impede such transactions, actually threaten to water-down and undermine the whole concept of water rights.

Many farmers and ranchers and other water holders in the valley, far from feeling protected by The Chieftain, undoubtedly resent the the paper's paternalistic attitudes, and they oppose its attempts to monkey-wrench a true water market in the valley. These individuals can decide for themselves what to do with their water. And selling or leasing is an honorable choice, which The Chieftain would respect if it were a true defender of water rights.

It's hard to calculate how much the paper's propaganda has cost CSU ratepayers over the years. But those costs are substantial, easily rising into the millions of dollars. Words may seem harmless enough, but they influence events by providing fuel to anti-Springs attitudes and obstructionists. Does anyone believe Pueblo DA Bill Thiebaut would have brought his frivolous Fountain Creek water lawsuit -- which cost CSU ratepayers more than $1 million to defend -- if the DA wasn't sure he'd get a pat on the head from Rawlings?

CSU recently took heat for spending more than $700,000 on a Denver public relations firm, for help on communications related to the SDS project. But perhaps such expenditures wouldn't be necessary if CSU weren't constantly having to correct, and counter, the steady stream of misinformation and vilification that flows from The Chieftain. It's not easy keeping up with it all, as any regular reader learns. Countering the poison atmosphere generated by the paper is a major, constant and costly challenge.

The Gazette wrote-up the water storage contract dispute over the weekend and did a decent job of it. Two important elements were missing, however; any serious discussion of methodology and motive.

A spokesperson for the Bureau of Reclamation insists that there's a rational basis for the $75 per acre-foot (plus a 3 percent annual increase for inflation) the agency wants to charge Colorado Springs for storing and conveying water, in a system El Paso County residents largely pay for. But I've yet to see it. “Reclamation determines the market rate as the basis for the negotiation process," a bureau spokesperson told The Gazette. But that doesn't explain how the agency came up with the $75 figure as a "market rate" -- especially when Pueblo pays a little more than $17 per acre-foot to store water in the same reservoir.

The "market rate" charged to Pueblo, in a contract negotiated ten years ago, was $17 and change. What can possibly explain a four-fold jump in the "market rate" since then? Has the "market" for water storage really changed that much, and has the cost of operating the Fry-Ark project really risen so sharply, in so little time? Has there been a four-fold increase in the number of Fry-Ark project participants? Has there been a four-fold increase in the cost of operating the reservoir? Has there been a four-fold increase in the demand for storage? All in just ten short years? If so, the Bureau needs to show proof and make its case.

The lack of explanation only fuels suspicions that this is an arbitrary (and apparently punitive) number, pulled from thin air -- which just isn't acceptable to those of us who have to pay the bill. It's a $200 million ticket item for CSU water customers. The Bureau must be crazy to think we wouldn't challenge it.

So much for methodology -- or the lack thereof. Also absent from The Gazette's story was an examination of motive. What could possibly motivate the Bureau to jack-up its rates? After all, it's not as if the millions of additional dollars siphoned from Colorado Springs will fatten the paychecks of agency officials. I've already explored the most likely motive in earlier posts -- here and here -- so I won't repeat myself. It appears that Colorado Springs is being set-up as a patsy, to help subsidize construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a $300 million pipeline connecting Pueblo Reservoir to towns out east.

Why that's our obligation is a mystery, since none of those towns has offered to help pay for SDS, last time I checked. But I guess Colorado Springs is seen as such an easy mark by our "neighbors" to the south that they can't resist one more attempt to squeeze this city -- the milk cow of the Arkansas Valley -- for every dollar. Paying such shakedowns is one reason the cost of SDS has soared. And I think we've paid enough, thank you.

As the Gazette points out, El Paso County already pays more than its share for the Fry-Ark project . . .

"From 1959 through 2007, El Paso County residents have contributed about $68 million in property taxes to the conservancy district, which uses the money to repay the federal government for construction of the Fry-Ark components and to maintain and operate the facilities. By contrast, Pueblo County has contributed about $18 million to the conservancy district, and communities east and west of Pueblo have contributed another $11.5 million."

. . . and it's time that our neighbors to the south pick up the slack. Those who directly benefit from the AVC, and those who promote it in Pueblo, should be willing to pay for the AVC. If they aren't willing to pay, the project doesn't really make "market" sense and shouldn't be built. But let's be clear: it's not the responsibility of Colorado Springs.

The idea of turning Memorial Health System into a stand alone non-profit seems popular with citizen commission members, if this report is accurate -- and that's not so surprising, given that there was talk of this being the most likely outcome, the outcome certain city and hospital insiders wanted, even before this process began. Just shows that the rumor mill isn't always an unreliable source of information.

A non-profit model may have merit, depending on the devilish details. But anyone who believes the public will support simply "gifting" this incredibly valuable asset to a non-profit, without full compensation to the city, must be sniffing glue. Non-compensation is a non-starter with this member of City Council.

You know you're officially a "policy wonk" when you begin seeing economic lessons in the LeBron James team-jumping story.

Who really cares whether he plays basketball in Miami, Cleveland or some other city?

Aren't the tax policy implications the really important point?

Say what you will about the Obama Administration's attempt to preempt the state of Arizona on immigration enforcement -- and I intend to say little on the subject, beyond making this point, since it would only add to the cacophony -- but the conflict raises serious constitutional issues that most Americans don't think about on a daily basis.

Can states elect to take federal immigration law into their own hands? Can Washington stop a state from doing so? These are questions Americans have been wrestled with, in one form or another, since the founding. And this is an opportunity to debate these issues anew, and to learn more about The Constitution. That's a silver lining of sorts, if you need one.

I hate to use such a cliché but this really might be a "teaching moment" -- assuming the screeching doesn't drown out the teaching.

It's the kind of fawning media treatment any politician would die for -- in any normal election year. But it might just be the kiss of death for Sen. Michael Bennet, given the angry, anti-Washington mood that prevails.

I'm talking about the swooning coverage Bennet recently received not from one, but from two Washington Post columnists; first Dana Milbank, now Richard Cohen. True, Milbank's piece was as much an attack on Andrew Romanoff as a valentine to Bennet (Milbank seems to be holding some grudge against Romanoff, dating back to their days as Yalies, sniff, sniff). But no matter. Given the distance most members of Congress are trying to put between themselves and the Potomac River, having columnists at the capital city's company paper singing your praises might as well be a funeral dirge.

What fun campaign ads a smart challenger could turn this into. Let's call the following spot "Love Affair":

Voice over:

"Michael Bennet wants you to think he's a Washington outsider. But for an outsider, Michael Bennet sure has a lot of fans at the ultimate insider newspaper, The Washington Post. One liberal Post writer calls Michael Bennet "one of the good guys." Another says he's "the perfect senatorial candidate." If the liberal Washington Post thinks so highly of Michael Bennet, how much of a Washington outsider can Bennet be? If the liberal media elite want to keep Michael Bennet in Washington, isn't that one more reason why we in Colorado shouldn't?"

Not bad for an old political hand, if I may say so. I'll sell any Bennet rival the rights for $45.00 and a lotto ticket.

But here's the point: If Michael Bennet really is friendly with folks at The Washington Post, he ought to call them up and tell them to knock it off. Any more damning praise from that newspaper will be the kiss of death for his political career.

Shake-off that mid-Summer siesta, Colorado Springs! It's time to talk issues again.

The Feast for Thought Summertime Speaker Series offers a strong lineup of events in the weeks to come, which will keep you thinking, keep you debating, keep you on the cutting edge of ideas and issues, right through this traditional down-time.

First, on Friday, July 23, “Plunder” Author Steven Greenhut will explain how over-paid and over-pensioned public employees have driven government in California to the brink of fiscal disaster, in a speech called, “Are Public Employees a New Privileged Class?” Learn more about this event by visiting the registration site: http://events.SignUp4.net/Greenhut

Next, on Thursday, August 5, the godfather of free-market environmentalism, Terry Anderson, will explain why the protection of property rights and a thriving market economy are critical to preserving our precious nature resources. Anderson roundly debunks the notion that growing government is the only way to go green. Learn more about this event by visiting the registration site: http://events.SignUp4.net/PERC2010

Then, on Wednesday, August 18, Father Robert Sirico, president of The Acton Institute, will speak on the topic, “Does Social Justice Require Socialism?” By blending the ideas of Adam Smith with the teachings of Christ, Sirico beautifully articulates not just the material advantages of capitalism, but its moral virtues as well. Learn more about this event by visiting the registration site: http://events.SignUp4.net/Sirico

Food for Thought gatherings are designed to offer attendees something to chew on, and these events would certainly seem to qualify. More than just a great speaker and delicious meal, they’re opportunities to meet and mingle with people who have an appetite for new ideas. All events are held at the Cheyenne Mountain Resort. Prices may vary, so please check the registration sites for those details.

Some days I still miss the Rocky Mountain News. And I really miss it when the only Denver daily left standing -- which can afford to be substandard, I suppose -- for the second time botches the Colorado Springs budget story. When I think of the Rocky I think of Rocky columnist Peter Blake, who retired before the rush for the lifeboats began. Blake wasn't big on pyrotechnics; substance always came before style in his columns. But no one wrote about Colorado politics with more acumen, and less of an ax to grind, than Blake.

But I'm writing as if Blake is dead or something -- which he isn't. In fact, Blake is back, and writing a weekly column for another familiar media name that's making a comeback, the pioneering new media site Face the State. The best of the "old media" meets the best of the "new media": seems like a winning combo to me. Give both a look when you get the chance.

Why keep picking on Boulder?

First of all, I do it because it's fun. But highlighting the regulatory hijinks that take place in that college town of liberal renown also serves a second, didactic purpose -- by reminding Springs residents of all that can go wrong, badly wrong, when local government grows beyond its proper place.

Boulder is to Colorado what California is to the country: a place sensible people can point to, illustrating the dangers of runaway government. Neither place was created that way: each arrived there incrementally, step-by-step, one policy choice at a time. Avoiding a similar fate requires avoiding similar choices. Only by recognizing their folly can we avert our own.

But I digress.

Today's can-you-believe-what-Boulder-is-doing story, culled from this report in the Boulder Camera, involves a new building code the city is adopting, as part of its so-called "SmartRegs" regime. The new mandates ("smart" in name only) will force every landlord in the city to make expensive energy efficiency upgrades to their rental properties, which may help "save the planet" but won't do any favors for small businesses or low- to middle-income renters. Any economic illiterate can predict the likely outcome: higher housing costs; higher rents; fewer landlords (which means fewer rental units); more housing scarcity; a greater shortage of affordable housing. And why even talk about the property rights implications? This is Boulder.

But it's the building code changes I'm focusing on today, not the DumbRegs. The city is scrapping its old, locally-tailored building code for the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code, a one-size-fits-all, privately-written code that is copyrighted, which leads to the following complications (italics added for emphasis):

"Another aspect of SmartRegs seeks to replace most of the city's existing housing code with the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code.

The new code would make mostly technical changes, but city officials on Tuesday acknowledged that an "unintended consequence" of the proposal is that it's copyrighted. That means the code isn't widely available to the public and the city can't post it online.

Kirk Moors, a city senior planner, said the city recently took steps to make a copy of the code available for public review at the main library downtown.

He said the benefits of streamlining and updating Boulder's housing code by replacing it with the International Property Maintenance Code "outweighs this public-access issue."

But isn't "public access" critical if Boulder expects residents to read, consult, understand and comply with the intricate new codes? Making the new rules more or less secret, by forcing residents to consult a single hard copy, kept at the Public Library, seems like an engraved invitation to misunderstanding, frustration, conflict and code violations. And please Note: Imposing new hassles on property owners is justified in the name of reducing hassles, and work, for city bureaucrats -- more evidence of so-called "public servants" acting more like the masters.

But there's remarkably little public outcry, demonstrating how inured residents can become to command and control government. Boulderite Tim Rohrer offered a more detailed critique of the code changes in yesterday's Camera, so not everyone in Boulder is passive, compliant and thoroughly conditioned. But voices of dissent are as rare as registered Republicans.

The outcry that would arise if the Springs' City Council attempted something similar would be overwhelming -- they would be storming City Hall. But that's a healthy sign that local folks still have their heads squarely screwed-on, and that they continue to understand the appropriate functions of government.

This week's installment of "Hoff & Leigh's Weekend Market Report," which in recent months doubled as an always-interesting chronicle of Tim Leigh's mayoral candidacy, indicates that Tim has decided to put those aspirations aside for the moment (though he leaves the door open to a council run). That's a loss.

I'm not sure his "big vision" for Colorado Springs mirrors mine, nor should it, but what really impressed me about Tim was the sincere effort he made to get a nuts-and-bolts understanding of the city, which is much more complicated than it appears from the bleacher seats. He paid visits to many of the key people in the city and its enterprises, asking questions and gleaning insights. He even went up and met with officials in Fort Collins, to learn more about that city's outcome-based budgeting system.

This was Tim's way of conceding that he didn't have all the answers in advance, which is an admirable streak of modesty for a would-be politico. And perhaps it was that in-depth research, and understanding, that convinced him that it really wasn't possible to be the kind of mayor he aspired to be, while also running a successful local business.

The cool thing about Colorado Springs, though -- echoing a point I made here not long ago -- is that we don't define leadership in strictly political terms. The fabric of the community is only partially held together by government; equally important, if not more important, are the charities, non-profits, churches, civic associations and businesses (like Tim's) that cumulatively constitute the real strength of a city. Tim Leigh (or any other person) can have a huge impact on the city without ever garnering a single vote, simply by staying engaged, remaining active and showing leadership where one can -- by continuing to run a successful local business, for instance.

In that sense, Tim already has demonstrated a lot of leadership. I admire the fearlessness with which he took the plunge and the diligence with which he did his homework.

"Western Skies," a program produced by KRCC, the PBS affiliate at Colorado College, has taken an in-depth look at the budget challenges facing Colorado Springs. One segment features a roundtable discussion on city budget issues including me, Jan Martin and Gazette Columnist Barry Noreen. It was an hour-long discussion, edited down for the sake of brevity, so I'm not sure what stayed and what went. An un-edited version is available for those with longer attention spans.

No surprise that Barry spends most of his time blaming TABOR for all the city's fiscal ills. More surprising, and interesting, is the hostility Martin shows toward the work of the City Committee -- especially since she signed the letter that led to its creation. Not sure how to account for her apparent change of heart, since the effort only recently began gaining traction. She seems to think it's part of a dark conspiracy -- one with "my fingerprints all over it," as she says at one point, as if it's some sort of criminal undertaking.

I'm proud of the part I played in getting the effort launched, and I plan to stay as engaged as I can in its work, because I believe it's an interesting experiment in private-public collaboration that will bear fruit over time. It's hard to understand Jan's attitude, even before a single recommendation is made. I assume the rest of my colleagues remain open-minded.

As someone who voted in support of creating a new Human Relations Commission in Colorado Springs, while registering some concerns about whether it will become a force for unity or divisiveness, I'm watching what Pueblo's commission is doing with some trepidation. I hope our HRC will confine itself to resolving conflicts on a human scale, at the local level, not try to push City Council into making broad political statements on controversies far beyond the city limits, as we see in Pueblo.

There's enough potential for conflict close to home, without searching for it elsewhere. If this is the sort of posturing our HRC plans to go in for -- and I'm assuming it's not -- I'm already having doubts.

"It’s only fair for SDS to pay fees that will help finance construction of the long-awaited Arkansas Valley Conduit to take drinking water to farm communities east of Pueblo," The Chieftain says today -- the most explicit explanation yet for why The Bureau of Reclamation is trying to over-charge Colorado Springs on a Pueblo Reservoir water storage contract (see my earlier blog posts for more details). The goal is to get this city to help "pay the freight" (in the words of an earlier Chieftain editorial) for the $300 million Arkansas Valley Conduit.

And why is this "fair," in The Chieftain's eyes? Because Colorado Springs was supposedly a late-comer to the process that created the Fryingpan-Arkansas water project (which is just another Chieftain-generated myth, most likely) and because SDS was not specifically mentioned at the project's inception, as the conduit was. Those are flimsy rationales on which to hang such a blatant ripoff.

No matter what role the Springs played in the founding, El Paso County residents have paid more than their fair share in Fry-Ark project costs. Any suggestion that the project belongs to Pueblo and the farm communities of the lower Arkansas Valley is arrogant and absurd. The originating law assigned no senior partners and junior partners, and we in El Paso County have the same right to use the project as others do. We have the same right that AVC communities do to pipe our water from the reservoir (even if The Chieftain has a double standard when it comes to supporting such projects).

If we apportioned project privileges based on who pays the "freight," we should be the senior partners. El Paso County property owners pay more than 70 percent of the ad valorem taxes that the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District uses to repay the federal government for construction, operation and maintenance of the Fry-Ark Project. That's more than $68 million, thus far (though the district has declined to provide tax figures for 2008 and 2009).

Of course SDS wasn't specifically mentioned back in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when Fry-Ark was in its infancy. But it's logical to assume alterations and modifications would take place over time, as circumstances required. And at any rate, maximizing the use of existing water projects is a necessity, given the near-impossibility of building new ones.

If "fairness" is the real concern, and if building the AVC is such a worthy goal, why not reopen the steel city's $17 per-acre-foot water storage contract in Pueblo Reservoir and have the Pueblo Board of Water Works pay the $50 per acre-foot that Reclamation bureaucrats are attempting to charge Colorado Springs? When The Chieftain begins editorializing in favor of that, we'll know its concerns are sincere, not just cynical.

Smart growth; smart lanes; smart cars; smart grids: I've come to believe that almost anything billed as "smart" is actually quite stupid when examined closely, with Boulder's so-called "SmartRegs" being the latest example.

Just calling something "smart" doesn't make it so: quite the opposite, in fact, since most "smart" initiatives are social engineering schemes foisted-off on the unwary or unwilling by planners, technocrats and other government know-it-alls. The term "SmartRegs" is particularly inane, since one-size-fits-all mandates of the type Boulder is imposing on landlords are the farthest thing from "smart." They're blunt objects, used to bludgeon the unwilling into submission. But who would dare raise objections, since opposing anything so "smart" must make one . . . well . . . stupid, right?

It's shrewd marketing, perhaps. But in the end, even a dummy can see that it's really just another way to promote more government micromanagement of our lives.

It's not exactly a confidence builder to see the newest federal agency stumbling out of the starting blocks. The Agency Formerly Known as the Minerals Management Service (or AFKMMS) can't seem to settle on the right acronym, according to The Washington Post. All the good ones seem to have been taken.

The Pueblo Chieftain wasted several thousand words yesterday straining to explain why Colorado Springs should pay $50 per acre-foot to store water in Pueblo Reservoir, while the steel city (I was almost tempted to write steal city) pays just $17 per acre-foot ($28.92 per acre-foot, minus a mysterious 40 percent discount). I'm no water wizard, but I didn't get it. The story goes on, ad nauseam, about spills, intakes and other water project esoterica, but never really explains the disparity. It seems like a lot of double talk, meant to muddy the waters rather than clear things up.

It's becoming obvious that there is no reasonable explanation for the attempted over-charge, because there is no methodology. The Bureau of Reclamation, at someone's behest (and I've speculated before that that someone might even be Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar) simply pulled the number out of a hat and hoped it would stick. Without a better explanation, and I haven't seen one, the rate seems worse than arbitrary and capricious -- it seems punitive.

Storing water is storing water. Pueblo's contract was negotiated in 2000, so Colorado Springs might expect to pay a little more in a deal negotiated today. But going from $17.35 an acre-foot to $50 per acre-foot is a stunning leap, even factoring-in inflation. Unless a better explanation is offered, it smells like an attempted ripoff.

The Chieftain's editorial page also tries, but fails, to adequately explain why we should pay nearly three times what Pueblo does to store water. But it does drop a clue as to what lies behind the shakedown, by mentioning the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a $300 million pipeline that "will supply good Lake Pueblo water to up to 42 communities east of Pueblo." This city's reluctance to be gouged on water storage rates amounts to a "slap in the face to the Lower Arkansas Valley," scolds The Chieftain. We should be happy about "paying the freight to help finance the long-awaited Ark Valley Conduit."

Now it's beginning to make a twisted sort of sense.

Colorado Springs -- which has been put through hell to build its pipe from Pueblo Reservoir -- is being set up as a milk cow to subsidize the AVC, by paying exorbitant storage rates. The same newspaper that decries our water line wants us to open our wallets, gladly, to "pay the freight" for a water line that runs elsewhere. It's fine for AVC communities to get their "good Lake Pueblo water" directly from the source, but The Chieftain routinely denounces this city's efforts to do the same. It has long pushed a plan to have us run our pipe from below the confluence of the Fountain, so we'll be drinking the discharge from Pueblo's medieval wastewater treatment facilities.

We are paying the full freight for our pipeline, with absolutely no help (but plenty of hindrance) from "neighbors" downstream. The cost of that project has soared, partly as a result of the shakedowns we've endured all along the way. And now The Chieftain and others (including the Bureau of Reclamation, apparently) expect that we'll happily help fund someone else's project, by paying obscenely-inflated rates to store water in a reservoir we help bankroll.

Amazing. Just amazing.

There isn't much steel made in Pueblo anymore. But there's no shortage of brass.

Now this might be an idea worth importing from "across the pond." I also like Clegg's "one in, one out rule," which requires that one law be repealed for every new law approved.

I might suggest a ratio change for the United States, though, making it a "one in, three out rule."

This piece by Denver Post Editorial Page Editor Dan Haley captures the anger I feel every time I drive through Colorado's beetle-ravaged forests. Instead of defaulting to the cop-out position, that it's all the fault of climate change, Haley lays the blame where it belongs -- with unsound policy, paralyzed federal land managers and green extremists:

"Katrina was a natural disaster followed by gross incompetence. This was gross incompetence that allowed for a natural disaster.

Pine beetles are native and a natural part of the eco-system, and forests need them, and fire, to regenerate. But decades of neglect — of short-sighted politicians foolishly choosing to put out fires later than pay now to create a healthier forest, and of knee-jerk environmentalists opposing every logging proposal — have finally taken root. Our forests may have looked thick and lush, but they were overcrowded and unhealthy.

We began ruining them more than a century ago when we started putting out fires that would otherwise cleanse forests of downed trees, underbrush and dry pine needles. And when well-intentioned yet overzealous tree-huggers made logging a sin a few decades ago, problems only mounted."

I began writing about the forest health crisis in the late 1990s, while at The Washington Times (which I picked up on from an unlikely source: Government Accountability Office reports), but it had been a recognized problem for at least a decade before that, dating back to the Yellowstone infernos of the late 1980s. The great Alston Chase sounded the alarm with his prescient book, "Playing God in Yellowstone," but the alarm went un-heeded.

It became much more obvious in 2002, when the Hayman and other wildfires ignited public awareness. It was widely acknowledged at that point -- before climate change became the default excuse for everything, and a convenient way for federal eco-crats and politicians to evade responsibility -- that there was a significant man-made component to the crisis. Here is a piece I wrote on the subject that year, which was published in National Review.

But by then, getting ahead of the problem was itself a problem, given the neglect this issue had received at most levels of government. Paralysis and defeatism were plaguing federal land agencies, which largely had lost the ability to actively manage forests, due to a constant barrage of lawsuits and a "public process" that worked to the advantage of professional activists.

Greens prefer non-management to traditional multiple-use management, because the latter translates into timber-cutting, mining, drilling, etc., and reeks to them of the evil profit motive. Quiet and reverent communing with nature is the only legitimate use for public land in their eyes. Cutting out the cancer, when it was still a manageable problem, was opposed, because it opened the door to "logging." That selective "logging" could have actually helped restore forest health was heresy. Better to see the forests die and burn than to give an inch on dogma.

Politicians (like Mark Udall, Ken Salazar and others) slept through most of this history, and only recently awoke from their slumbers, offering responses that are mostly too little, too late. They also share responsibility for this scandalous -- and it is a scandal, arguably criminal is nature, given the vast destruction of public assets involved -- chain of events. Public anger over the Gulf Coast oil spill is understandable, but where's that same righteous indignation, and where are the presidential promises of a little ass-kicking, over a forest health disaster that has been incrementally destroying Western landscapes for more than 20 years, without an adequate federal response?

It's not every day that the supposed capital of hard-hearted conservatism, Colorado Springs, is called "much more enlightened" than that bastion of the liberal bleeding heart, Boulder. Even odder is when the compliment comes courtesy of the ACLU. But here it is, in print (italics added), captured for posterity:

"There's one big distinction between what has happened in Boulder and Colorado Springs, however: The ACLU says more than 1,600 tickets have been issued for violations of the ordinance, while no one has been ticketed or prosecuted in Colorado Springs. That's one reason there's been no immediate challenge to the Colorado Springs law, Silverstein said.

"I would say, quite frankly, that Colorado Springs' approach has been much more enlightened than Boulder's has," Walta said. "My understanding is that police has detailed a couple of officers on the HOT team to deal with homeless folks, which is pretty forward-thinking."

Another reason, according to Walta, is that Boulder has limited bed space at its shelter, which is why Madison was forced to sleep outside. It was an issue that came up when the Colorado Springs City Council was debating the no-camping ordinance earlier this year. The council wanted to make sure there would be enough places to shelter the 500 or so homeless campers in the city. Bob Holmes, executive director of Homeward Pikes Peak, assured them that, between the Salvation Army's New Hope shelter and other programs, the city had enough beds."

It's unlikely that this will open the minds of left-wing pundits like Susan Greene (The Denver Post) and David Sirota (The Huffington Post and Denver Post), who've painted darkly distorted pictures of this city through a prism of anti-conservative prejudice. But it shows how silly such simple-minded, arms-length caricatures can be.

I supported the no camping ordinance on the advice of our city attorney, who vouched for its constitutionality. That won't be tested locally until someone is prosecuted and sues, which still isn't out of the question, since some camping is still going on, albeit in a more low-key way. I fully expect the ACLU's tune to change, should that occur.

Funny: no one is rushing down from Denver, or in from other national media outlets, to tell this part of the Colorado Springs story. It apparently doesn't fit with the simplistic morality play they've written in their minds, colored by their own ideology. But I am proud of the way Colorado Springs handled the situation, and of the care this Council took, in terms of proceeding with a humanistic and holistic approach, which wasn't strictly punitive. Only an outsider would find that surprising.

Springs residents who thought the Pinon Canyon controversy was all about expansion need to catch up. Protesters have moved the goal posts so often that they might as well be on wheels. Just when you think this dead horse can't be kicked anymore, the kicking commences anew.

It began with anxiety about possible expansion of the existing maneuver site, a supplemental training area Fort Carson acquired downstate in the 1980s. Locals feared that the Army would use eminent domain to grab a big new chunk of land. They predict the death of cattle culture if more ranches are gobbled up. Fair enough. But the aim of the protests has shifted over time, from blocking expansion to curtailing training at the existing site, taking an extreme turn that could paint the state as hostile to the military and make Fort Carson vulnerable to future closure.

The rancher-activists evidently don't just want the Army contained; they want it kicked-out. A line has been crossed from justifiable anxiety to paranoid antagonism, which seems out of proportion to the situation at hand. Instead of saying "enough is enough," and calling for a truce, or a toning-down of the wild rhetoric, a number of Colorado politicos keep pandering to what sometimes seems like an anti-Army mob.

U.S. Rep. John Salazar said at one recent gathering that the vilification of the U.S. Army was patriotic. "Don't ever let anyone tell you that it is un-American to stand up for your ranches and farms. Don't you ever let anyone tell you that you are un-American," Salazar told a crowd in Kim. "As long as I am in Washington (D.C.) the Army will not expand its Pinon Canyon."

Me thinks he doth protest too much. But the anti-Army attitudes are bipartisan. Rather than rise above the fray, and inject a little reason into the debate, one of Salazar's Republican challengers, Scott Tipton, joined-in on the bashing.

The Army is not the enemy, no matter how badly it mishandled the situation. It isn't considering expansion for the fun of it, or out of a malicious intent regarding ranchers, but because it believes it needs more space to train a 21st Century Army. It's one thing to raise one's voice against eminent domain, and against Washington. I can relate to both (even though the expansion of a military facility clearly falls under the traditional and constitutional use of a government "taking"). But this protest now has strayed far beyond that, and taken on an unnecessarily venomous and destructive tone.

The site hasn't actually been used much in the last five years -- Carson troops have been too busy spilling their blood in foreign wars to do much training there. But now that Carson's commander wants to increase use of the site, he shouldn't have to run a gauntlet of obstructionists to do so. Are such attitudes un-American? I wouldn't go that far. But they certainly are un-reasonable, coming from Coloradans who pride themselves on the bedrock American values of common sense and a commitment to the common defense.

They say you shouldn't speak ill of the dead, so I'll keep this brief.

I wish I could say that the King of Pork's passing will leave the U.S. Treasury a bit more secure from congressional plundering, but Sen. Robert Byrd taught his proteges in both parties well. Don't apologize for pigging-out, he taught them -- be damn proud of it. By helping to turn fiscal vice into political virtue, he made pork-barrel politics not just respectable but admirable. It's a darker part of his "legacy" our grandchildren will be paying for.

Oil and water don't mix -- unless you're a bumbling headline writer at The Denver Post, who can't seem to tell the two apart.

Sloppy or dishonest headlining of this report -- "Millions of gallons of oil spilled in Colo. over 2 1/2 year period" -- might leave casual readers with the impression that a gulf-style environmental calamity is occurring here, albeit in slow motion. But the body of the report tells a different story.

Actual oil spills amounted to 6,500 barrels over that time period. At 42 gallons to the barrel, that comes to 273,000 gallons, by my math -- or a little more than a quarter million gallons. And even if you add in the roughly 5,800 barrels of combined "oil and water" spilled in that period, you still haven't gotten close to the million gallon mark.

That's more spilled than one might like, in a perfect world. But does it constitute an environmental calamity? Apparently not, since this is the first most Coloradans are hearing about it. The story focuses on raw data, but presents little in the way of case studies. A layperson thus has no way to judge whether this constitutes a major problem, or falls into the category of minor glitch.

The rest of the reported spills -- the "millions of gallons" in the headline -- were of "drilling fluids" of various sorts, which are mostly water and much more benign than oil. Spills of "drilling water" and "drilling mud" amounted to 110,300 barrels, for instance. The zero-drilling crowd is desperately trying to make the case that these drilling byproducts also constitute a hazard, but the case just hasn't been made. The Post encourages such sensationalist spin, though, by lumping oil and water together, simultaneously defying the laws of physics and the rules of good journalism. Such distortions get picked-up by other papers and passed around the journalistic rumor mill, taking on a life of their own. A piece of reporting that should be putting the issue in context probably will be used to push the anti-drilling-anywhere agenda.

If read with a critical eye, the story actually reinforces a point made in this blog before: that onshore drilling, though it has risks, is much safer than the kind of deepwater operations that companies have been driven to as a result of over-regulation or restrictions elsewhere. No one has more incentive to minimize oil spills than these companies, since every barrel wasted reduces profit and increases mitigation costs. These are risks we have to manage, as an energy-hungry society, because we simply won't wean ourselves from hydrocarbons anytime soon (despite what the dream-weaver in the White House says). The best we can hope for is that the gulf spill helps us manage them more responsibly. The media does the informed public no service by producing fodder for extremists.

I've been meaning to blog a bit about the conspiracy to rip-off ratepayers between Xcel Energy and the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, which is chaired by the eco-social engineer Ron Binz (one of the driving forces behind Colorado's California-like renewable energy production quotas). But the Complete Colorado blog has done such a thorough job of connecting the dots that it would be a duplication of effort.

Xcel and the PUC have teamed-up to extract millions of additional dollars from Xcel customers, all in the guise of encouraging conservation, by instituting a two-tiered billing system that jacks-up charges on those who use more than an alloted quantity of electricity. The threshold is set so low, however, that even small-time energy costumers are treated like scofflaws, who have to be punished for their environmentally-incorrect lifestyles. It's a perfect example of the unholy alliances that form in the corporate welfare state America is becoming. The conspiracy permits the company to hedge its high-risk, high-cost "green energy" bets, while the PUC, under Binz, gets to play Colorado eco-cop.

I'm not sure anti-racketeering laws would apply in this case, but it ought to be investigated by the appropriate authorities. Maybe it's something Colorado's attorney general could look into . . . if he weren't so busy trying to run legal medical marijuana providers out of Dodge.

Residents remain generally upbeat about the quality of life in Colorado Springs, according to a community survey released yesterday at a Food for Thought Luncheon, but a growing number express doubts about the quality of leadership they're getting and some worry that the city is moving in the wrong direction. A panel of civic leaders discussed the implications. The event was hosted by Cheyenne Mountain Civic Solutions and Leadership Pikes Peak. Here's a write-up from today's Gazette.

Several themes were sounded that resonate with me.

The first is that one of this city's obvious but under-appreciated strengths, especially in the midst of a fiscal crunch, is the ability of the non-governmental sector (a more graceful way to put it is the civil sector or civil society) to assist with safety net functions the city isn't equipped to provide. The survey confirms that locals don't look first to government as a problem-solver, and don't have much faith in its ability to perform that function. It is there to provide essential services, hopefully in an efficient and innovative manner. Churches, non-profits, philanthropies and civic groups, relying on private donations and volunteers, do the rest.

This underscores the point, made here before, that one errs by confusing a city with a city government. They are two different things. Government provides the skeletal under-structure, but the muscle, sinews and vital organs that truly make a city great are non-governmental. Strong and resilient cities are those that don't confuse the two sectors and maintain the correct balance between them. Weak and vulnerable cities are those that rely too heavily on government, which erodes the ability and willingness of civil society groups to take a leading role.

One of the panelists, Randy Scott, talked about the retreat from civic involvement that many American churches experienced in the 20th Century, after the Great Depression led to the massive expansion of government safety net programs. Government crowded-out churches (and just about everyone else) as caregivers. And that trend continued with the further expansion of government spurred by World War II and LBJ's Great Society. Churches began rediscovering their traditional roles only recently. But as government enters a new era of over-demand for services and constrained budgets, churches (and all civil society groups) have an opportunity to show more hands-on leadership. We're showing how that can work in Colorado Springs.

A second theme I heard was the incredible opportunity Colorado Springs has, presented by the fiscal crunch, to fundamentally rethink and reinvent the way it does things. I wanted to stand up and list for attendees some of the progress we're making in that direction -- city partnership efforts, outsourcing discussions, shared-services projects and the fresh thinking that's taking place about the status of Memorial Health System and governance structure of Colorado Springs Utilities -- but the event came to a close before I had the chance. There is a lot of new thinking going on that may not be apparent to the general public.

The survey showed some loss of confidence in the city's political leaders. And there's no question that cynicism about City Council has grown (for what I believe are very specific reasons). But this city is not lacking in leaders, broadly-defined. Elected officials are just the tip of a very large iceberg, just as city government is one small part of a city. The room at yesterday's even was brimming with leaders, though few elected officials were there. Almost everyone I saw there played some critical role (and sometimes multiple roles) in making this a great city, by providing leadership in the civil sector. It's that leadership that's often much more important than political leadership, in terms of making a city function. We err when we think of leadership in such a government-centric way.

I found it ironic that a room full of leaders spent some of the lunch bemoaning the alleged lack of leadership in Colorado Springs. But this city also seems to suffer masochistic tendencies, which such surveys can't detect. We seem to enjoy beating up on ourselves, almost as much as certain politically-motivated outsiders do, and we sometimes can't seem to recognize and articulate our virtues and strengths.

Whenever I hear calls for more "leadership," I ask the question: "To what end?" I want to know where these leaders want to take us. If they want to lead the city in a direction average residents don't want to go -- which I've seen a lot of in my 8 years here -- all it does is create conflict and distrust. What this city needs is leadership in tune with local values. That's leadership that will embrace our government lite attitudes, rather than fight them -- leadership that won't try to redesign Colorado Springs according to an incompatible blueprint borrowed from somewhere else. We have too much of that kind of "leadership," in my opinion. That's where a disconnect occurs.

The remarkable thing about the survey, which didn't get much media play, is that overall satisfaction with the quality of life here remains very high, despite the tough times we're experiencing and the doubts about leadership that have developed. Locals remain positive and optimistic and enthusiastic about the city, despite the adversity. That's something we shouldn't just celebrate -- but something we should build on.

The economic arguments for licensing, regulating and taxing medical marijuana -- see related news stories here and here -- won't make a dent with prohibitionists. They are on a moral crusade to prevent the corruption of Colorado Springs youth, by pushing medical marijuana back into the shadows. That this will deny medical marijuana patients their constitutional rights, and get the city sued, while doing nothing to curb teen drug use, is of little consequence to them. Crusaders can see no shades of gray.

But those fretting over the prevalence of medical marijuana dispensaries in Colorado Springs need only be patient. Many of these businesses won't be around a year from now. They'll have been killed-off by regulation or competition.

One cause of death comes naturally in a capitalist system, with competition separating the good operators from the bad. Boom almost always leads to bust; that will happen here, too. Too many suppliers chasing a limited number of patients (and it is limited, despite the recent surge in red card applications) will sooner or later thin the herd. I trust in the market to solve many MMJ-related "problems," if given time to operate and evolve. But that requires a degree of patience, and understanding of markets, that prohibitionists lack.

The second cause of death -- death by regulation -- is more objectionable, in my opinion, because it is government-induced and largely unnecessary. Some reasonable local controls make sense, given the newness and sensitive nature of this industry. But most regulation is excessive and blindly destructive; it's imposed for the ego-gratification of politicians and the job security of regulators. It pretends to "fix" what isn't broken, to protect the public from a phantom menace. An example of this dynamic at work can be found in this article from the Boulder Camera, which details the struggles that city's dispensaries are having trying to comply with a spate of new regulations imposed by the state.

"Boulder-area providers of medical marijuana are scrambling to comply with new state regulations that require them to grow most of their own pot, keep detailed records of all transactions and apply for state licenses through a process that includes criminal background checks.

The new rules, signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter earlier this month, are predicted to put at least half of the state's 1,100 medical marijuana dispensaries out of business.

Local dispensary owners agree their numbers soon will be fewer, but each business owner is doing everything possible to be one of the survivors.

"When I look six months down the road, we're either going to be very successful because we made it through this, or we're going to be out of business," said Ryan Hartman, owner of Boulder Wellness Center on Arapahoe Avenue.

The biggest hurdle for Hartman is the requirement that dispensaries grow 70 percent of their own marijuana by Sept. 1. Hartman doesn't have the resources to hire employees right now, and he and his partners -- his wife and another couple -- are working "triple-time" to ramp up what had been a very small growing operation.

The new rules also require that dispensaries -- called "medical marijuana centers" -- have a local license by July 1 and apply for a state license through an as-yet-undetermined process by Aug. 1. The state license requires criminal background checks for all owners, officers and employees and calls for detailed security and record-keeping measures to account for all the marijuana that moves through a center.

"I think ultimately the goal of the legislation is to centralize the industry so it's easier to keep track of and control and tax," said Eric Moutz, a Boulder attorney who specializes in advising clients who work with medical marijuana.

While some of the law's requirements are clear, many of the details still need to be worked out through a state rule-making process that could take most of the year.

"Everything is in a holding pattern until the rules get set," Moutz said. "And those could be crippling or they could be very reasonable."

Colorado Springs dispensaries are in the same boat. Some will sink, others will stay afloat, as they struggle with the dual threat of competition and regulation. The architects of H.B. 1284 said they were out to kill many of these businesses, and they'll undoubtedly succeed. A year from now, the landscape will look much different, whether or not a dispensary ban makes the ballot.

Storefronts now filled will be empty again; landlords will be without tenants; jobs will disappear; city tax revenues will fall. Instead of visible dispensaries, operating openly in designated areas, some providers may go underground. The action will move back into neighborhoods, back behind closed doors. With less competition, and fewer places to purchase their medicine, the costs and inconveniences for patients will soar.

All the dreams of MMJ prohibitionists will be realized, in short, without the need for a divisive ballot battle, or the legal battle that will follow. And all they have to do is be patient, trust in the free market and let business-killing regulations take their toll. Banning businesses outright isn't really necessary in the United States. We have plenty of other ways to drive them under -- to strangle opportunity and entrepreneurship and cripple our local and national economy -- without the need for such extreme measures. All we need to do is the usual and these businesses will also disappear.

I voted for establishing a new Human Relations Commission ,with some reservations, understanding that it has the potential to be divisive instead of healing and destructive rather than constructive. I hope we won't see a repeat of history, as described in today's Indy by former Councilman Bill Guman, and that the commission will move the city forward, by steering clear of radical agendas and in-your-face tactics.

It's a leap of faith on my part. Only time will tell whether it deserves a second chance. If it can't operate professionally and constructively, I'll be the first supporter to argue for pulling the plug.

New Jersey Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov didn't become a billionaire on the up-and-up, in a strictly capitalist system, as this piece in the New York Times points out. Like other Russian "oligarchs," he made his fortune the post-Soviet way, by manipulating a corrupt "system" from the inside to line his pockets. The way he made his fortune wouldn't be legal in the United States, as the story points out. Oligarchs reaped unfair advantage from a too-cozy relationship with government.

The troubling irony in his continuing "success story," as the foreign owner of an American professional sports team, is how adroitly he has worked the "system" in New York City to similar advantage. Prokhorov has plenty of cash with which to hire top coaches and talent -- no objection there -- but he will also profit from taxpayer funding of his new sports arena in Brooklyn. Other government help for Prokhorov "includes eminent domain, major subsidies, a naming-rights giveaway and bad, undemocratic urban planning," reports The Times.

Prokhorov is working the system in New York City the same way he worked the system in the former Soviet Union, by using public resources and government power to get his way and enrich himself. That the two systems are so similar, and so corrupt, should be deeply troubling to Americans.

Fellow advocates for a reality-based energy policy will appreciate today's Washington Post column by the always- sensible, refreshingly-sane (for a Washingtonian) Robert Samuelson. I don't endorse Samuelson's idea of imposing an oil tax in order to spur efficiency, since oil prices will be high enough when the world economy turns up. But most of the rest makes sense.

Sit back. Read. And savor the common sense. Then send a link to friends who still need the cobwebs cleared away.

The latest of many court battles over the gray wolf could have implications for the mouse -- the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, that is.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy – who rules so frequently on such matters that he seems to set federal lands policy in the Mountain West by judicial edict -- is being asked to decide whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can de-list reintroduced wolves in some states, while leaving them listed in others. This follows a 2009 decision to de-list the animals in Montana and Idaho, but not in Wyoming. The former states had wolf protection plans the feds liked, while the latter's plan was found lacking.

The case was argued last Tuesday in a Montana courtroom. At issue is whether political boundaries, and political considerations, should have any bearing on listing decisions, when the law stipulates that they be based on science. Greens hope the usually-sympathetic Molloy will overrule the split decision, and thereby reverse the partial de-listing, restoring federal control over all gray wolves in the West. And they may get their way, judging from the Molloy’s green-leaning track record and the tenor of Tuesday's hearing.

Reports the AP:

A federal judge in Montana expressed skepticism Tuesday that the Endangered Species Act allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove federal protection of wolves in Montana and Idaho but not in Wyoming.

In a hearing for a suit brought by conservation groups against the federal wildlife agency, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy told Justice Department attorney Mike Eitel he was having trouble accepting the government’s bifurcation of protection rules. Under federal actions, Wyoming wolves are separated from the rest of their “distinct population segment” in the northern Rockies, Molloy said in his Missoula courtroom.

“I understand the practical argument,” Molloy said. “I understand the political argument. Those two things are very, very clear. But what I don’t understand is the legal argument. That’s not very clear.”

Fish and Wildlife’s decision to remove federal protection from a portion of the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population violates the Endangered Species Act, conservation groups argued. Lawyers from Earthjustice said that delisting part of the population is grounds for putting all wolves in the northern Rockies back on the threatened and endangered species list.

So what does this have to do with the mouse? Well, think about it a minute.

If Molloy rules that the USFWS can't use political boundaries to make listing decisions, that would seem to disallow a similar ruling in the Preble's mouse case, in which the agency de-listed in Wyoming but kept protections in place in Colorado. The feds ruled, unconvincingly and without substantiation, that mouse habitat was less at risk in relatively undeveloped Wyoming, while faster-growing Colorado threatened to bulldoze the furry little imposters into oblivion.

What the agency did, ridiculously, was attempt to split one subspecies of debatable scientific legitimacy into two additional subdivisions, using the state line as a dividing point. It thus dodged the only real question, which was whether the total population of mice (in whatever states they’re found) is sufficient to prevent some precipitous plunge toward extinction. That issue has been debated almost as vigorously as whether Preble’s is a bona fide subspecies.

No objective person would argue that the wolf reintroduction effort hasn’t far exceeded its original benchmarks. Animal groups simply keep redefining those goals, pushing beyond a wolf limit the modern West can sustain. The numbers are less definitive in the mouse’s case, but credible experts claim the animals are consistently under-counted and simply don’t merit special protection.

Molloy’s overturning of the wolf decision would create more hassles and challenges for the states that want them delisted, unfortunately. But it could benefit Colorado, by forcing a second look at the Preble’s ruling. The feds would have to go back and decide the issue based on science, not politics. I believe the de-listing of both species will occur when more objective methods are applied.

Bill Ritter's tenure as governor has been remarkably unremarkable, and what he calls his greatest accomplishment, the so-called "new energy economy" is mostly a myth, in my opinion, the creation of overblown rhetoric and fuzzy numbers. A gullible media also helped create the myth, by taking all Ritter's claims at face value, or giving him credit for things he really didn't do, as if his good intentions give him a pass on skeptical scrutiny.

Here's the latest example of what I'm talking about, an article in the Denver Post, called "Colorado Harvests a Green Economy," which appears to credit Ritter with an explosion of green energy activity and investment in the state. And Ritter, who lacks any other legacy, is only too happy to take credit. "This report very clearly and accurately documents the successes of Colorado's New Energy Economy," Ritter told the Post. "Colorado is now a national leader for clean-energy policies, jobs and innovation."

Problem is, the report on which the story is based tracks trends that occurred between 1995 and 2007. Ritter didn't take office until early 2007, meaning that he can't credibly take much credit for the claims being made. And those claims are sketchy at best, since they inflate and exaggerate the number of "green" jobs by throwing everything tangentially related to renewable energy or energy efficiency into the mix. How many of those jobs were "created" by government action, as opposed to market forces and consumer choice, isn't explored. And new energy boosters like it that way, so they can continue to promote that myth called the new energy economy.

Government mandates and interventions undoubtedly can "create" some clean energy jobs, at least in the short run, so Ritter the interventionist probably can take credit for something. Whether those jobs are sustainable, and can stand on their own without a perpetual prop from government, is the real question. As someone who is old enough to recall the last great government push for "renewables," launched by Jimmy Carter in response to the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, I've heard all the empty promises before. Live long enough and you see that folly runs in cycles.

So count me a skeptic.

Greens for years have been complaining about industries that "exploit" public lands at a discount. Timber-cutters, miners, ranchers, drillers: all stand accused of paying less than they should be for the privilege of operating on federal property. So there seems a good deal of hypocrisy for solar power companies to be whining about the allegedly-excessive rates the Bureau of Land Management wants to charge them for uglifying the landscape with their sprawling tinker-toys. Reports The New York Times:

The nation’s biggest landlord, the United States government, has set the rent it will charge developers who build solar power plants on federal land, and some prospective tenants are not happy.

Solar developers will actually pay two fees – the lease for the land along with what the Bureau of Land Management calls a “megawatt capacity fee” based on how much electricity a project generates.

“Since we don’t have authority to collect royalties for wind and solar projects, we had to come up with a methodology to convert that electrical generation into an upfront rent payment,” Ray Brady, manager of the bureau’s renewable energy team, said in an interview.

But potential developers see a disparity. “The proposed B.L.M. rental fees are in many cases two times higher than market rates for private land,” Monique Hanis, a spokeswoman for the Solar Energy Industries Association, said in an e-mail message. “The B.L.M. must collect ‘fair market value’ from developers, but this seems to go beyond that threshold.”

These charges do pose a problem, I'm sure, since solar farms can't possibly compete with conventional energy technologies without a panoply of government subsidies and favors. Solar has limped along for decades, leaning on assorted crutches, unable to live up to the promises it supposedly holds. Now, on top of everything else, the solar lobby wants subsidized access to public land.

When will this industry finally be forced to stand on its own -- to sink or swim without a life-preserver paid for by unwilling taxpayers and ratepayers? The closer we get to that much-promised day, the more it recedes from reach, forcing one to conclude that it's all a colossal scam.

Gazette Editorial Page Editor Wayne Laugesen must be a very alert reader. One would have to be in order to pick out this paragraph, buried near the end of a long Pueblo Chieftain story, for special attention:

"Collins explained that federal laws give Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar broad concessions to set rates, and did not attempt to argue the basis with the Colorado Springs team."

The paragraph jumped out at me, too, because it at least hinted, if not strongly suggested, that Inferior Secretary Ken Salazar had some direct involvement in the exorbitant, some might say extortive, rates the Bureau of Reclamation wants to charge Colorado Springs for storing water in Pueblo Reservoir, which is part of a water project local taxpayers heavily bankroll. I appreciate Laugesen's effort to drill a little deeper (so to speak) into this potentially-troubling possibility. Having a Coloradan as inferior secretary should be a help, not a hindrance, to the folks back home. If Salazar is trying to soak Colorado Springs for using the reservoir, while other users, like Pueblo, enjoy discount rates, we need to know about it.

Salazar's muppet denies the secretary is so intimately involved in such decisions, and denies, as well, that Salazar has any anti-Colorado Springs bias . . .

“The secretary has had no involvement in the development of the rate proposal,” Interior spokesman Daniel DuBray wrote in an e-mail. “The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Bureau of Reclamation. The federal negotiating team, led by Mr. Michael Collins of the Bureau of Reclamation, developed the proposed rates for storage, conveyance, and exchange of non-federal water within the federally-owned facilities of the US Bureau of Reclamation’s Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.”

DuBray denied that his boss sides with Pueblo to spite Colorado Springs.

“It has been Secretary Salazar, more than any other elected or public official in recent memory, who has tried over the years to bring Pueblo and Colorado Springs together to work cooperatively on water issues,” DuBray wrote.

. . . but I find it extremely hard to believe that the bureau is making such significant decisions in the secretary's home state without implicit or explicit approval from Salazar. And the fact is that Salazar sometimes has been a divider, not a uniter, in the Pueblo-Colorado Springs water feud. As senator, Salazar did seem to walk a middle ground, at least publicly. But before that, while serving as attorney general, he played a much more divisive role. It was AG Salazar who urged Pueblo County and other SDS obstructionists down south to use so-called 1041 regulations to delay or derail the project. And Pueblo County made the most of such advice.

That's all water over the dam, perhaps, but it's important to remember that Ken Salazar and his brother, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, have always been more closely aligned with Democrat-leaning Pueblo than with Republican-voting Colorado Springs. The anti-Springs bias of brother John (who serves on the House Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, which puts him in a strong position to influence bureau decisions) has been overt. Ken, when he was senator, needed to appear more even-handed.

Michael Collins could have said that federal law gives the bureau broad latitude to set such rates, but he used Salazar's name, which naturally raises suspicions that the inferior secretary is more deeply involved than his muppet will concede. That suspicion grows when the bureau can offer no clear and coherent explanation for how it determined that this city should pay $50 per acre foot of stored water, when Pueblo pays about $22 per acre foot. The missing methodology makes the charge appear arbitrary and capricious -- almost as if the number were pulled from a hat, by someone very high up the federal food chain.

This particular food chain, if you follow it to the top, stops with Ken Salazar.

ABC News reports that oil-slurping cleanup barges sat idle at the docks so the Coast Guard could "confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board." Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

Oil spills are bad. But it's the bureaucracy that will ultimately kill us.

Maybe I was a tad harsh on my former employer yesterday, when I took The Gazette to task for its hit-and-miss coverage of regional water issues, at least in comparison with the The Pueblo Chieftain, which makes all things wet a consistent news priority. But it isn't the first time I've raised the issue. I think Springs residents are generally less informed on these issues than the average Puebloan, due in part to the superior water coverage provided by The Chieftain. We're at a political and tactical disadvantage if our citizens are less informed.

The storage contract dispute (see previous blog post) has big implications for CSU ratepayers -- it will cost them hundreds of millions of additional dollars in the future if the Bureau of Reclamation succeeds in charging us exorbitant rates. I want everyone to be aware of the shakedown that's afoot.

The Gazette redeemed itself today, however, by running a catch-up piece on the Pueblo Reservoir storage contract dispute in its print edition, written not by Gazette staff but by The Chieftain's Chris Woodka. That's better than nothing. Woodka is a good reporter who knows his way around the issue. Most of the Chieftain's anti-Springs bias (and bile) shows up, appropriately, in its editorial page. And sharing content among papers has become the new norm, as staff reductions and tight budgets have constrained the breadth and depth of coverage. An archive search shows that this isn't the first time Woodka's byline has appeared on Gazette stories involving SDS.

What's important is that the story gets told, and that Springs residents stay informed about these critically important issues. Whose name appears on the byline is of less importance, as long as the reporting is accurate and balanced.

But where I really will get concerned is when Chieftain editorials begin appearing in The Gazette.

I still recommend regular trips to The Pueblo Chieftain website if you're a water news junkie. Just today, for instance, you'll find this story about Fountain Creek restoration efforts and this story about the Woodmoor Water District's activities in the lower Arkansas Valley. Both stories have local implications.

What at first seems a significant setback for property rights may actually be a victory of sorts, according to one wonk at the Pacific Legal Foundation, responding to today's Supreme Court ruling that seemed to kick sand in the face of Florida property owners.

The owners failed in their bid for compensation, after a sand replenishment project effectively redrew their property lines, turning "beachfront" property into "beachview" property. But the ruling is good news for property rights, according to PLF, because four of the justices, though they declined to rule this a government "taking," nonetheless recognized that such things can occur.

As a non-lawyer, I don't really follow PLF's rationale. But maybe someone smarter will get what they're talking about:

Judicial takings in Stop The Beach Renourishment

Author: Timothy Sandefur

The Supreme Court today decided Stop The Beach Renourishment v. Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation, a crucial case on the question of whether courts can retroactively erase property rights in the guise of legal interpretation without having to compensate property owners. Today’s decision gives hope to millions of American property owners whose right to their homes, businesses, and other property is often at the mercy of judges who are willing to totally rewrite the law to expand government at their expense.

The Fifth Amendment requires government to compensate people for taking their property away, and this also applies if the government enacts a rule that forbids people from using their property in any way. But according to a precedent called Lucas, no compensation is required if the rule that forbids the use of property “inheres in the background principles of state law”—that is, if the reason you’re not allowed to use your land is some long-standing common law principle, like nuisance. The takings clause does not require the government to compensate you for stopping you from running a dynamite factory next to a kindergarten.

The problem is that courts sometimes try to go back and rewrite state property law in order to take property from people without compensation. Although the Supreme Court has sometimes said that that wouldn’t be allowed, the Stop The Beach Renourishment case is the first time the Court has discussed the matter at length. In today’s decision, the justices found that such a thing did not happen here—but in section II of the opinion, four of the justices went on to explain why this would not be allowed:

States effect a taking if they recharacterize as public property what was previously private property.... The Takings Clause…is not addressed to the action of a specific branch or branches. It is concerned simply with the act, and not with the governmental actor…. There is no textual justification for saying that the existence or the scope of a State’s power to expropriate private property without just compensation varies according to the branch of government effecting the expropriation. Nor does common sense recommend such a principle. It would be absurd to allow a State to do by judicial decree what the Takings Clause forbids it to do by legislative fiat…. If a legislature or a court declares that what was once an established right of private property no longer exists, it has taken that property, no less than if the State had physically appropriated it or destroyed its value by regulation.

Although this is only the decision of four judges, not a majority, it is still excellent news for the rights of private property owners. Whatever one thinks about the end result of the decision, the crucial fact is that Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts recognize that state courts do not have free rein to redefine private property at will.

Technically, this may be some sort of victory. But it seems like another loss for property rights to me.

And given that the court is bound to move left, as President Obama stacks it with his kind of justices, the chance that it will ever take a strong stand against "takings" recedes further and further from the realm of possibility.

I've voiced frustration before about the fact that you frequently have to read The Pueblo Chieftain to keep track of water issues of critical importance to Colorado Springs. The Gazette's coverage is spotty at best, and usually after-the-fact. That means Puebloans who read newspapers are generally better informed on water issues than newspaper readers in Colorado Springs -- even though Colorado Springs has a lot more to lose if this city gets out-maneuvered in the ongoing water wars.

If knowledge is power, we in Colorado Springs are operating at a disadvantage. And what we as Gazette readers don't know really can hurt us.

Take, for example, a critically important meeting that took place yesterday in Colorado Springs, at which the rates Colorado Springs will pay to store water in Pueblo Reservoir were being negotiated. The Chieftain gave the meeting lengthy and detailed coverage, which it deserved, while The Gazette was a no-show, leaving CSU ratepayers completely in the dark about the extortive rates the Bureau of Reclamation wants to charge them to store water in a reservoir that we in Colorado Springs helped bankroll.

It's outrageous, in short, and something that should have Springs residents up in arms -- since these higher rates will ultimately show up in their utility bills. But only one local citizen, Walter Lawson, even spoke. Maybe that's because most residents didn't even know the meeting was happening; nor has the issue been adequately covered by our daily newspaper. Here's what went down, courtesy of The Pueblo Chieftain, in case you rely on The Gazette as your sole source of local news.

SDS talks stall over cost issues

COLORADO SPRINGS — After a long, tense day of talks, Colorado Springs refused to budge from its position Tuesday on a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation for the Southern Delivery System.

“The proposal you provided to us is unacceptable. It sounds arbitrary and capricious,” John Fredell, SDS project director, told Reclamation’s negotiating team. “Clearly you did not recognize that as in-basin users, we want to be treated fairly.”

Colorado Springs is negotiating on behalf of Security, Fountain and Pueblo West for a 50-mile pipeline that would take water from Pueblo Dam to El Paso County. The first phase of the project would cost $880 million, but would cost Colorado Springs ratepayers $2.3 billion and double rates by the time it would be finished in 2016.

One of those ratepayers, Walter Lawson, chided Reclamation for not revealing the whole cost to Colorado Springs, and said Reclamation is trying to “extort” money from Colorado Springs.

“We need transparency. We ought to know what the costs are,” said Lawson, the only El Paso County citizen to comment at Tuesday’s meeting.

The morning session of negotiations centered on contract terms, as Reclamation rejected about 25 proposed changes. Most of those centered on Colorado Springs’ intention to wheel water through SDS to other El Paso County communities and to sell excess capacity in the oversized pipeline at the base of Pueblo Dam.

The two sides staged frequent caucuses to discuss the finer points of the contract, but made little progress.

Late in the day, Reclamation Area Manager Michael Collins presented a proposal that would have allowed SDS participants to build an oversized pipeline from a new North Outlet Works to the point where Pueblo West would tap into it.

The capacity of the line needed by SDS, 96 million gallons per day, would be retained by participants, while Reclamation would discount its rate for combined storage and conveyance by the amount of excess capacity it could sell in the North Outlet Works.

Reclamation proposed a $75 per acre-foot fee for storage and conveyance — $25 less than the previous combined offer — plus the unspecified discount. It also stuck with its offer of $50 per acre-foot for exchange. The rates would increase by 3.08 percent annually.

That left Colorado Springs cold.

At a May negotiating session, Colorado Springs proposed to sell the excess capacity in the line to future users as a way to pay for it.

Colorado Springs also wants to pay just $17.35 per acre-foot, the same rate as the Pueblo Board of Water Works pays under a 25-year contract signed in 2000, with an annual increase of 1.79 percent.

“At the next meeting, we’d like to hear why our proposal is unreasonable,” Fredell said.

Colorado Springs hired Joe Hall, a former Bureau of Reclamation area manager, to analyze some documents which Reclamation provided to justify its $50 per acre-foot rates.

Hall said the basis for the rates is “confusing and inconsistent,” since it deals with some policies that are almost 30 years old and which apply to sales of former agricultural water to cities, rather than use of in-basin water rights.

“I’m not saying your studies and analyses are bunk,” Hall said. “They are just not appropriate to what we’re trying to do here.”

Collins explained that federal laws give Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar broad concessions to set rates, and did not attempt to argue the basis with the Colorado Springs team.

“We have some concerns about what’s been said,” he said.

Reclamation will continue to control the excess capacity of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Collins added.

The next session was set for July 15-16 in Fountain.

Some folks in The G's news department probably think The Chieftain's focus on water is excessive or even obsessive. But if there's any issue worth obsessing over, this would be the one, given that the stakes are so high.

Colorado Springs has heard a lot of trash talk from certain Denverites about our choice of budget cuts, but at least we can still get the garbage collected when things get tight. Unlike Denver, and a lot of supposedly "progressive" cities, we have private garbage collection -- a system that's reliable, affordable and frees residents from the threat of garbage strikes or service cuts when a contract expires or the money runs low.

Believe it or not, you don't need government, or government workers, to pick up garbage and transport it to the dump. Turns out that there are very reliable private companies that will provide this service, at very competitive rates, if the government simply declines to get into the business. Makes you wonder what other "government functions" could be performed by the competitive sector, if the government didn't insist on doing virtually everything.

Not that I'm gloating or anything. It's just a reminder that not everything we do in Colorado Springs is backward or wrong. In point of fact, we do a lot of things the right way, despite all the trash talk we sometimes hear from misinformed outsiders.

Driving by Acacia Park yesterday morning, I was excited to see that the farmers market had returned. The crowds weren't large, or vendors plentiful, but that hopefully will change as word spreads. It gave downtown that inviting, homey, lived-in feel that's sometimes lacking. Very cool, I thought.

Then I saw a meter reader prowling the park perimeter, looking for vehicles to ticket, and it struck me that we seem as a city to be working at cross purposes, by inviting folks to come downtown and enjoy the market with one hand, while punishing them for lapsed meters with the other. Don't meter readers have somewhere better to be on Monday mornings, while the market is in session? Can't we suspend the ticket-writing machinery occasionally, and selectively, so as not to discourage activities we want to encourage? How much repeat business, and how many happy customers, will the market generate, if patrons (and vendors) feel that they're on some strict time clock and being stalked by city ticket-writers?

I'm not advocating law breaking. Heaven forefend. But I am calling for some flexibility and common sense in how and where we enforce our increasingly-draconian parking policies, since they can serve as a deterrent to the sort of welcoming downtown we say we want to create.

Watching Washington for any significant length of time is bound to evoke feelings of deja vu. Not only do the political debates run in monotonous cycles, creating a sense of "haven't we done this before," but reports of federal malfeasance resurface with depressing regularity, showing how little really changes despite repeated calls for reform.

I had that deja vu feeling all over again last week, when reading stories and commentary about the disgraceful situation at Arlington National Cemetery, some of the most hallowed ground under federal management. They eerily echo a piece I wrote back in 1998 -- more than a dozen years ago! -- for Insight Magazine, highlighting racial tensions and management problems at Arlington. Really stunning to me is that the more recent revelations and critiques focus on cemetery Superintendent John Metzler, who has just been reprimanded and demoted over mixups involving graves. But Metzler was in charge at Arlington back in 1998, when I was blowing the whistle -- meaning that he's kept his job despite a long and documented history of management problems at the cemetery. And the problems predated my piece by years.

Here's a snippet of what I wrote back then:

"Behind its tidy white rows of headstones, impeccably manicured spaces and outward tranquility, Arlington, or ANC, is the site of bureaucratic bickering, mismanagement, morale problems and racial tensions, according to Army inspector general "climate assessments" conducted last year. "The atmosphere of turmoil, distrust, mismanagement and poor employee morale has continued [from the early 1990s] to the present," according to a Freedom of Information Act-exempt summary of the reports. "There is an overwhelming sense of frustration among employees and the senior leadership at ANC."

Fairly or not, the memo lays much of the blame for ANC's morale and management malaise on the "auto-cratic management style" of cemetery superintendent John Metzler, and suggests that little improvement is expected during his tenure. "There is no indication that the superintendent will ever change," the memo states, "and employees have lost confidence in his leadership ability."

It was long ago known that Metzler was a major screwup, who shouldn't have been entrusted with managing this sacred ground, much less with managing a McDonalds. Yet he somehow kept his job, up to the present day, and all he's receiving for years of "autocratic" incompetence is a slap on the wrist. Metzler will be allowed to retire with dignity on July 2. He should have been fired years ago.

A reprimand posted Friday chastises Metzler for his "dysfunctional relationship" with deputy Thurman Higginbotham, who gets some of the blame for grave-gate. But that dysfunctional relationship had been a problem for more than a decade. Higginbotham was on staff, and feuding with Metzler, back when I wrote about the cemetery:

"Group-sensing sessions" conducted at the cemetery last year found that a communication breakdown had occurred between ANC employees and management, and additional tensions exist between Metzler and his deputy, Thurman Higgenbotham. The (inspector general) bemoaned the lack of "team leadership," "sharing and consideration of others" and "unified direction" resulting from the rifts. The IG also found that the "dissension and discord" between the top two leaders "has a significant impact on the overall efficiency of the day-to-day operations of ANC."

This, recall, was back in the late 1990s.

What a depressing testimony to the entrenched incompetence at the federal level. What an insult to the heroes who are buried and honored at Arlington. What a black mark on the Pentagon for not cleaning up the situation more than a decade ago, when these problems first came to light (with the helping hand from yours truly). The scandal within the scandal is that some of the more recent abuses might have been prevented, had the early warning signs not been ignored.

I may not have a law degree, like my colleague and friend Darryl Glenn, who questioned my interpretation of Amendment 20 (which legalized medical marijuana in 2000, for those who haven't yet heard about this) in yesterday's Gazette. But I can apply a little logic to the situation at hand, and some common sense -- which might be even better than a law degree.

A debate has arisen in the last few years about whether Amendment 20 allows dispensaries, as the number of these businesses has grown. Good legal minds argue on both sides of the issue. It has never been settled definitively in court.

I have listened to both sides, as a layperson, and come down on the side of a broad reading of the amendment. The deciding factor for me is that the people for whom the law was written -- MMJ patients, remember them? -- seem content with the dispensary model. They are voting for it with their feet and their pocketbooks. And as a non-patient, I don't feel qualified or comfortable trying to override that choice. Some patients can and do grow their own. Others (who may be too ill or scared to do so, or who lack the know-how) can go to a mom and pop provider. Others prefer to patronize a so-called dispensary. I'm not sure why so many non-patients want to interfere in those private and personal choices, since no one can buy from a dispensary without a doctor's recommendation. But I find that presumptuous.

The legitimacy of dispensaries no longer is an open question. That all changed with the approval of House Bill 1284. Legislators, representing the people, settled the dispensary question by approving their existence, subject to certain conditions and controls. So, even if there was some lingering doubt about the dispensary issue dating back to 2000, that question has been settled. Any ambiguity is only in the minds of medical marijuana opponents, who want to keep fighting a battle they lost in 2000.

Problem is, the wiz kids in the Statehouse wrote an illogical bill, which concedes that dispensaries are constitutional but also grants cities the ability to ban them by vote. The contradictions seem obvious. If dispensaries are approved by the Statehouse, they must be constitutional. Majority rule doesn't allow voters to negate a constitutionally-protected right. Therefore, wouldn't a voter-approved ban violate the rights of dispensary owners and, even more critically, the patients they serve?

Logic tells me it would.

That means the so-called "local option" will almost certainly be challenged in court, and that it will probably be overturned, which means that putting this question on the local ballot this fall, or next April, would settle nothing and only prolong the uncertainty, the confusion and the conflict for patients, providers and the general public. A far better course of action is to protect the rights and choices of patients, move forward on the city's ordinance-writing process, with full public input, and get some rules and controls in place here at the local level.

Doesn't that make sense . . . . even if you're a lawyer?

Joseph Coleman and Mike Bristol have proven themselves as business entrepreneurs; one owns popular restaurants in town; the other, a successful micro-brewery. Now, with an exciting plan to remake the former Ivywild Elementary School, they're taking the plunge as what I would call civic entrepreneurs, which melds business smarts with a commitment to community. They envision a space that "includes a brewery, coffee shop and bakery as well a space for arts and community functions -- maybe community gardens," according to The Gazette -- all while preserving a historic building that enhances the character of the neighborhood. A once-boarded up school will be reborn as the a hub of a revitalized neighborhood. It's a bold and inspiring idea I'm glad the D-11 board approved.

Good luck with the project, Joseph and Mike, and thank you for being bullish on the Ivywild neighborhood. I know you'll be as successful as civic entrepreneurs as you have been as business entrepreneurs.

Purely by coincidence (honestly), I ran across this news item questioning the claimed safety benefits of red light cameras after returning home yesterday evening. Not that it would have altered the outcome. The cameras, along with photo radar speed enforcement, were approved by Council earlier Tuesday on a 4 to 5 vote. The "no" votes came from me, Tom Gallagher, Darryl Glenn and Randy Purvis.

The majority sincerely seems to believe that this will reduce traffic accidents and deter dangerous drivers. They believe adequate safeguards against potential abuses exist. And maybe they'll be vindicated. They even got a pat on the back from an unlikely source, The Gazette's editorial page, which gives a polite nod to my concerns about privacy and liberty but seems unduly beguiled by the revenue-generating potential of the technology. Only time will tell which side is correct.

There's no doubt we could provide much more safety and security if we go the way of a full-blown Surveillance State. But how much freedom are we willing to risk, or surrender, in the process? A government granted complete authority to safeguard our safety and security, by any means necessary, will itself become a threat to our safety in time, which pales in comparison with red light-runners or speed limit-breakers. It's an incremental process, which happens one seemingly-benign step at a time. How slippery the slope becomes depends on how much freedom Americans are willing to trade away in pursuit of safety and security.

RoboCop has arrived in Colorado Springs: It will require vigilance to ensure that he remains a faithful servant, instead of our master. To that end, I've created Google Alert news scans for red light cameras and photo radar, and I'll begin posting links to relevant stories on LLO's news aggregators as I can. A quick scan of the initial results -- stories like this, this, this and this -- suggests that these technologies remain controversial almost everywhere they've been tried. They have not won wide popular acceptance and the jury is still out on whether they really improve public safety. Many places that took the plunge are now having second thoughts, spurred by popular backlash.

I hate to see Colorado Springs jumping aboard a bandwagon that has broken down along the road -- and, in some cases, seems to be moving in reverse.

There will be a backlash here, too, if I read the popular pulse correctly. It should crest just in time to become an issue in next April's city election. A municipal judge who spoke at yesterday's hearing conceded that this new program created a "kettle of fish" inside the courthouse. I would describe it as a can of worms.

When talk turns to possibly selling all or part of Colorado Springs Utility, it's generally assumed that the energy functions of the enterprise are the most logical parts to spin off, with water and wastewater operations remaining in the city's domain. This certainly seems like a more tradition (and arguably legitimate) function of government. I'm sometimes stumped when asked whether I know of any municipal water systems that are run by private companies. And now I can point to at least one case (though there may be others).

Here's part of the relevant report from Canada's Edmonton Journal:

"Epcor Utilities Inc. has dipped its toe in the U.S. water business for the first time by acquiring Chaparral City Water Co. in Arizona for $35 million US.

The deal will be funded with cash or debt financing, and includes the assumption of $6-million of debt.

Chapparal distributes water to about 13,000 customers in the town of Fountain Hills and a small portion of Scottsdale, just outside of Phoenix.

Chaparral's 12 employees are expected to continue to operate the utility, whose assets include a water distribution system and a 15-million-gallon-per-day water-treatment plant.

Epcor CEO Don Lowry said he's been looking for three years to move into the fast-growing Southwest U.S. area, and the profitable Chapparal became available when its parent company American States Water Co. of California decided it wasn't part of its future plans.

"Other parties were interested in it, but through the business process were able to acquire it.

"It establishes a base in the U.S. Southwest from which we intend to grow our water business."

Does this mean I support auctioning-off the water-related functions of CSU to a Canadian Company?

Of course not -- unless it is throughly studied, supported by the public and shown to make sense. I highlight the story not because I necessarily believe it's the right way to go in our case, but because I believe in studying all alternatives and keeping our minds and options open.

Call it a little out-of-the-bucket thinking on a utilities-related matter.

Imagine the security and public safety that could be achieved in the Surveillance State that beckons: The all-seeing eyes and all-hearing ears of authorities could prevent and deter crime, thwart terrorism, speed emergency response times, etc. -- all while saving taxpayer money and making more efficient use of government manpower and resources. It's a temptation that's easy to justify and hard to resist. Sure, some potential abuses of power or invasions of privacy might occur, somewhere down the road. But all we need to do is put a few "safeguards" in place. Big Brother isn't something to fear, as long as the authorities exercise proper restraint and oversight. The slope is only as slippery as we allow it to be.

Or so goes one side of the continuing argument between security and liberty.

Security scored a point today, when The Denver Post editorialized in support of expanding the use of police cameras in the city. But even an editorial that paints Big Brother as a benign helping hand for cops shows that a slippery slope really does beckon once you start too far down this road. The Post has no problem with monitoring people on public streets: it's "creepy" but constitutional, according to the editorial.

"While it's creepy to think of the digital eyes that are peeping at you, you have no real privacy protections when you're walking down public streets. This is long established in constitutional case law."

Of greater apparent concern to The Post is the presence of cameras in high schools. But police officials assured the editorial writer that they would be peeping inside schools only occasionally, under certain circumstances, and that reassurance is good enough for the Post, which is content to "hope" the police will "stay true to those guidelines." Hope is a slender thread to hang on, given the propensity of government, historically, to abuse what powers it's granted.

And what about police intercepting text messages being typed-out on handheld devices in public places? The Post says such detailed monitoring might soon become possible, raising questions about potential violations of a person's Fourth Amendment rights. But "for now" that's not really a problem, says The Post, so why worry?

Police cameras on streets beget police cameras in classrooms; cameras trained on people can also be trained on their handheld devices: thus we see how the slippery slope beckons, once we accept the premise that security is more important than the liberty to move through our lives free from government monitoring. The Post's position is that Big Brother is permitted, as long as be doesn't become too big; he's our helper until he demonstrates the capacity to become a threat.

I believe the best way to avoid the slippery slope, and the temptations of the surveillance state, is to say "no" to these potentially-problematic techniques early and often, even when they appear benign or beneficial. The best way to avoid Big Brother is by saying "no" to Little Brother, before he gets too big for his britches.

That's one reason I'll be voting today against an ordinance that will inaugurate the use of photo radar and photo red light enforcement in Colorado Springs. I wasn't on City Council last summer, when it put this in motion. But as a skeptic of RoboCop technologies, I'll be voting "no" today, despite the considerable time and effort invested in tailoring a photo radar program that will meet this city's needs. I suspect that its passage is no slam dunk.

Those supporting the idea don't have bad intentions; they're not the conscious agents of Big Brother or the surveillance state. They simply choose to see the short-term "good" such technologies can do, while ignoring the long-term harm they can bring if over-used, misused or abused. The best way to preempt future abuses of power, and future misuses of technology, is to remove the tools and the temptations, in my opinion. That's why I'll be a "no" vote today.

It's good to see that the feds backed down from an eminent domain confrontation with a Vermont dairy farmer. That's what tends to happen when such stories begin making national news. Now, a backwater border station that was going to be rebuilt, at great expense to the taxpayer, will instead be closed. All of which raises a question: Was the expansion plan justified to begin with, or just another piece of Border Patrol pork?

Harvard's Greg Mankiw has an interesting piece in today's New York Times about some of the practical and moral questions surrounding nanny-nomics. But the biggest question of all, according to the economist, isn't whether taxing the hell out of tobacco users or soda pop drinkers benefits society at large (Mankiw believes the premature death of smokers and the morbidly obese make it a wash), but where it all ends? Once we hand government the power to reward healthy behaviors and punish un-healthy ones, the slope gets very steep and slippery:

"If this is indeed the best argument for “sin” taxes, as I believe it is, we are led to vexing questions of political philosophy: To what extent should we use the power of the state to protect us from ourselves? If we go down that route, where do we stop?

Taxing soda may encourage better nutrition and benefit our future selves. But so could taxing candy, ice cream and fried foods. Subsidizing broccoli, gym memberships and dental floss comes next. Taxing mindless television shows and subsidizing serious literature cannot be far behind.

Even as adults, we sometimes wish for parents to be looking over our shoulders and guiding us to the right decisions. The question is, do you trust the government enough to appoint it your guardian?"

The forced retirement of Helen Thomas, so-called "dean of the White House press corps," was about 20 or 30 years overdue, in my opinion. The daffy old crone has been making a fool of herself for at least that long, maybe longer, by badgering presidents and presidential press secretaries with all sorts of stupid, slanted, irrelevant questions. But she was tolerated, even venerated by colleagues, as long as the silliness came with a left-leaning spin. Only after Israel became the target of her barbs did press corps colleagues finally decide that she'd gone too far -- which only serves to confirm the political bias that's so deeply ingrained in the biz.

Enjoy your retirement, old war horse. I know I will.

I feel much, much safer eating breakfast this morning, knowing that the serial regulators at the FTC are going after the rogue cereal makers at Kellogg.

Who knew that such dangers lurked in a bowl of Frosted Mini-Wheats?

Some Americans may choose to vest their presidents with god-like powers. But the gulf spill reminds us that they aren't gods -- not even close -- and that's not such a bad thing, in my book.

The president-as-miracle-worker cult is out in force, demanding that Barack Obama single-handedly cap a deep water oil gusher, prevent the discharge from making landfall and scrub those oil-coated pelicans clean -- all while defusing Mideast tensions and turning around the economy. He won't even need a helicopter to inspect the disaster site; he can just walk there on water.

But truth is, Obama and the vast federal machinery at his disposal are largely powerless to step in and stop the disaster, posture as he might about being in charge. If engineers at one of the top oil companies in the world can't fashion a fix, what makes Americans believe that some desk-riding paper-shuffler at the Department of Energy or Department of Interior has the answer? The non-military part of the federal government doesn't actually do much of anything, except get in the way of, and exercise authority over, the actual doers. The bureaucrats can issue a deep water oil lease, or (in most cases) not issue one, but the incredible skills and engineering it takes to actually extract oil from the ocean floor is a feat that only people in the private sector -- only The Doers -- have the skills and know-how to perform.

Do The Doers perform flawlessly? Obviously not. They are human too. But without The Doers, where would the country be? All the federal overseers can do is stand around, like sidewalk supervisors, acting official and further complicating an already complex endeavor.

Americans who imagine anything different -- Americans who place their faith in the all-powerful president and the competent federal official -- have seen too many action flicks and TV shows.

This story began with such promise, before falling down the sort of rabbit hole one might expect from the top paper in Wonderland . . . er . . . Washington, I mean. To the Post, only right-wing crackpots and militia movement types would find anything relevant to study in the U.S. Constitution, or anything about the Founders to revere. A potentially-interesting story angle quickly devolves into another snide attack on conservatives.

And they deny there's a liberal bias in the media.

As much as Sarah Palin's shtick sometimes makes me cringe -- not that I have anything against mama bears or anything -- I do agree with her Facebook comments about green complicity in the deep water oil disaster unfolding in the gulf. We wouldn't need to resort to such extreme and risky drilling if so many safer and more accessible areas onshore and near-shore weren't off limits. Read Palin's complete commentary by following this link.

This city has taken its share of lumps lately. Some of them have been self-inflicted. But it's important that we highlight success stories when they happen, because they happen more often than we give ourselves credit for.

So thank you, Gazette, for continuing to record the progress of our homeless camper outreach efforts. By "our" I don't mean City Council, since City Council played a relatively minor part in the success of the effort. Council deserves credit, I think, for holding off on a camping ban until we were sure that it could be executed with care and compassion. But much of the success can be credited to non-governmental players -- to Homeward Pikes Peak, to El Pomar, to Teresa and Karl McLaughlin, to name just a few of the groups and individuals who serve as the stitching in this city's safety net.

Too many people, I think, mistakenly confuse a city with a city government, though the latter only plays a minor role in holding a city together and making it function as a community. City government provides a skeletal frame, but much of the muscle and the sinew, the blood and the vital organs -- especially the heart -- are provided by non-profits, philanthropies, churches, civic groups and the mostly-unseen and unsung individuals who volunteer, donate or reach out.

This is what makes or breaks a city, especially in challenging times. And this is the secret strength of Colorado Springs that largely gets ignored when we put all the focus on what the city can and can't afford to do. What we're seeing in Colorado Springs is that the community will step forward when the city cuts back -- and that, as with the homeless situation, city government is sometimes a relatively minor player in resolving our problems.

I sometimes stop to wonder what the founders would think of the United States today, were they granted the power to travel through time. Some would no doubt be shocked at the madhouse it's become, and regret parenting such a wayward progeny. But they might also be amazed, and perhaps even pleased, that the U.S. Constitution remains as relevant and in-the-news now as it was back then.

Take, for example, this recent piece in the Los Angeles Times, which poses the question of whether inking tattoos is a constitutionally-protected form of free speech -- and, by extension, whether one town's ban on tattoo parlors tramples the First Amendment. It's hard to imagine where Jefferson or Madison would stand on this admittedly odd question (assuming they weren't enraged by the trivialization of such momentous issues). I imagine that zoning laws and tattoo parlors would be alien (and probably abhorrent) concepts to them both. But they might be amazed to find that they're still a party to the debate, even if indirectly.

While it's probably true that their "original intent" has been twisted and distorted into something they wouldn't recognize, or approve, the mere fact that we're still trying to settle such disputes by consulting the Constitution, several centuries later, shows that it continues to function as a beacon and guidepost, despite the passage of time -- and the fog that we're stumbling through.

We've obviously gone a little crazy. But how much crazier would things be if we didn't have the Constitution as a touchstone?

Mike Rosen has a column in today's Denver Post that's worth a few minutes of your time. It echoes points about practical politics he made repeatedly when he spoke at the Peak Freedom Festival, though he's in this case addressing libertarians instead of tea partiers.

Rosen's message to both factions is that the only reasonable path forward, if they want to halt the country's collectivist drift and influence events in ways that favor true freedom, is to hold our noses and join forces with the GOP. While admirable, a rigid insistence on pure principle -- on putting philosophy over practical politics -- will only benefit the left, according to Rosen. Libertarians and tea party people will be relegated to the political fringes, and do their cause harm, unless we start thinking realistically. And the Republican Party is the only practical place for us to go.

The argument has undeniable appeal, logically. But this libertarian isn't ready to re-join the Republican fold until the party purges its blockhead element, eschews right wing nannyism and rededicates itself to a platform that truly emphasizes fiscal restraint, limited government and personal and economic freedom. Republicans undoubtedly will make electoral gains as a result of the anti-Obama backlash, but the party still lacks credibility on the issues just mentioned. It's better than Obama, arguably, but better-than-Obama is not a platform, or a vision, that can inspire people to stick with Republicans for more than a few election cycles, or effectively answer the statist drift of the country.

Rosen and other practical thinkers keep counseling the politically dispossessed to "come home to the GOP." But I keep asking, "Come home to what?" To that question, the party still lacks a compelling answer.

Dan Cole is back from Columbia Law on summer vacation and The Gazette's opinion page is a major beneficiary.

Cole, who suspended his column during his first year at law school in order to focus on the books, writes today, with mixed feelings, on the subject of nullification. His take on the issue is thoughtful, as always, but also conflicted. He concludes by dismissing advocates as "wild-eyed radicals who woke up yesterday thinking it was 1831," even while writing, in an earlier passage, that it's "refreshing to see a group of pols, activists and academics stick to their guns and maintain such an unpopular position in the face of such overwhelming odds."

Cole's view echoes one found in a New York Times opinion piece appearing a few days ago, which similarly pooh-poohed the push to repeal the 17th Amendment, that allowed for the direct election of U.S. senators after approval in 1913. David Firestone dismisses this parallel effort to reassert states' rights as another anachronistic pipe dream, which can never come true.

"Fortunately, repeal will never happen. Still, there is something bracing in the eccentric quest of these advocates, who may know their constitutional history better than most Americans.

To Madison, Hamilton and most of the other authors of the Constitution, allowing states to appoint the Senate was the linchpin of the entire federalist system and the real reason there are two houses of Congress. It may be true that appointed senators, accountable only to state legislators, would never approve of many useful federal mandates designed to put the national interest above local parochialism — including everything from the minimum wage to the new health care reform law.

Not enough Americans vote. But, fortunately, almost all like the idea that they can, a thoroughly modern sentiment that will confine this elitist notion to the fringes. That means Tea Partiers who are infuriated by the health care law and everything else now going on in Washington can no longer look to James Madison for a bailout. Their best remedy is the one they seem to spurn: a vote at the ballot box."

D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, who has ruffled feathers in her controversial quest to turn around one of the worst school systems in the land, seems to have notched another win today, with the signing of a new contract that will pay teachers considerably more (top performers could earn as much as $140,000 per year) in exchange for the surrender of ironclad job security. I say "seems" because it will be years before we know whether the trade-off pays dividends for D.C. school kids.

Having more flexibility to hire and fire teachers, holding them accountable for performance, will be a big plus . . . as long as you have a reformer like Rhee at the helm. But she won't be around forever, and accountability could fall by the wayside if a powderpuff takes the job. In that case, you could have permanent pay raises with faux accountability, putting an already troubled district further in the hole. The public school establishment has a knack for waiting out reformers and wearing them down. It will give ground tactically, if necessary, while maintaining the strategic objective of preserving the status quo.

Forward progress is fitful when it comes to fundamentally reinventing public schools, marked by one step forward and two steps back. So, while we should congratulate Rhee on her latest win, it could be years before we can call it a triumph.

The rise from obscurity of Rand Paul has the media in full frenzy, attempting to understand and explain what it all means. Problem is that there aren't many libertarians in American newsrooms, and any who are there are still in the closet, so you have reporters and pundits trying to explain something they either don't understand or view with hostility. Most of the coverage, not surprisingly, has been simplistic, snide or stupid. But in culling through items to post on LLO's news aggregators, I picked out a few pieces that make worthwhile reading.

There's a little of that liberal media bias, but not too much, in this Time Magazine piece about how the Pauls (Rand and father Ron) are shaking up the political scene. Newsweek offers a surprisingly refreshing take on the subject, by asking whether Rand Paul's ideas are any more wacky or outlandish than the left-wing dogmas that dominate in Washington -- which is a very good question, since we have ample proof that left-wing ideas don't work.

But most recommended is this Politico piece by the Cato Institute's Bob Levy, which not only puts Rand Paul's controversial statements on the Civil Rights Act into context, explaining why his position is more defensible than critics allow, but also offers a nice precis on what libertarianism really is, and isn't, for people who aren't sure.

Here's the section that deals with libertarianism, as a philosophy:

Of course, the media have used Paul’s forthright if impolitic pronouncement (on the Civil Right Act) as an occasion to disparage his libertarian — that is, classic liberal — philosophy. Not surprisingly, critics either do not understand or willfully distort basic libertarian principles. For starters, libertarians are proponents of limited government. We are not anarchists.

My colleague David Boaz sums it up nicely: “A government is a set of institutions through which we adjudicate our disputes, defend our rights and provide for certain common needs. ... What we want is a limited government that attends to its necessary and proper functions.

“Libertarians support limited, constitutional government — limited not just in size but, of far greater importance, in the scope of its powers.”

Ideally, government’s role is to foster an environment in which individuals can pursue happiness in any manner they please — provided they do not impede other individuals’ rights to do the same.

Regrettably, government does much more — and much less — than create a congenial civil environment.
It burdens transactors with confiscatory taxes, favors politically connected special interests, coerces parties to engage in unwanted transactions, transfers assets and incomes without consent from one party to another and depletes our financial and human resources by undertaking foreign interventions that bear little relation to America’s vital interests. Those are the excesses of government that libertarians struggle to rein in.

In addition, and perhaps least understood, a vital aspect of personal liberty is the freedom not to participate. In that regard, libertarianism is the antithesis of collectivism.

Anyone who prefers a social order that sacrifices individual liberty to attain equal outcomes is free to leave my libertarian world and form the collectivist society he favors. But he may not compel me to join.

Libertarianism does not foreclose collectivist arrangements as long as participation in those arrangements is voluntary.

By contrast, collectivists will not endorse libertarian enclaves within a collectivist system. Just try refusing to support the welfare state.

People who believe a deregulated free market leaves us worse off can create a hyper-regulated marketplace, shackled by government to their heart’s content. They would not extend the same opt-out choice to me.

The essence of collectivism is force. The essence of libertarianism is choice."

The real story of Colorado Springs isn't that the city has budget problems: what American city doesn't at the moment? The real story (as I've written so many times before) is the innovative ways we're dealing with them. Today comes news of another potentially interesting idea -- using parking stripes for advertising purposes.

Not sure where or with whom this idea originated; it's the first I've heard of it. And I'm not sure how much revenue it has the potential to bring in. But it's the sort of creativity that, if applied citywide, will help get us through the budget crunch.

If it pans out, I support paying the city employee who championed the idea a cash reward.

I was surprised (but not displeased) to see a "Richard Pombo for Congress" ad running in today's online version of The Gazette. We're a long way from California's 19th District, where Pombo is running, and readers may wonder who he is and why they should care about this race.

More about who he is can be found at his campaign website. Why his candidacy matters to out-of-state voters is explained in the recent Wall Street Journal column republished on the site (accessing the original requires a subscription). The Reader's Digest condensation is this: Radical greens hate Pombo because he is a stalwart defender of property rights and was an effective counterweight to their extreme agenda when he previously served in Congress. He fought abuses and misuses of the Endangered Species Act. He fought for economic freedom and regulatory reform, and against the encroachment of the federal government.

The Big Green Machine mustered all its might (and all its smear tactics) to knock him out of Congress once; it badly wants to keep him from getting in again. Isn't that reason enough to learn more about Richard Pombo? He must have been doing something right if so many wrong-headed people want to keep him out of Congress.

Some congressional races take on national significance. This may be one of them.

First they threw out the snowmobilers, but I was not a snowmobiler so I said nothing.

Then they went after the personal watercraft users, but I had no personal watercraft so I said nothing.

Next they took aim at ORV riders, but I don't like ORVs so I said nothing.

Then they rolled-up the welcome mat on rock climbers and mountain bikers . . . which started to get my attention.

Now they are banning trail runners, but the trail runners have few allies in the fight to retain access to supposedly "public" lands because nearly everyone else has been evicted.

We're told that federal lands are ours to enjoy, but the rise of recreational correctness has led to the eviction from those lands of most forms of recreation except passive contemplation. It began with an attack on motorized recreation but hasn't stopped there. Even relatively "light on the land" pursuits have been restricted or banned, as the exclusionists go after one group after another. If you don't recreate in certain narrowly-prescribed ways, you can become persona non grata. And no group is safe from eviction once the movement gains momentum.

Maintaining public access to public land is a fight we all have a stake in. United we stand, divided we fall. If the trail runners and mountain bikers had spoke-up in support of snowmobilers, maybe they wouldn't be the ones in the crosshairs now.

Barry Noreen has an interesting column today that broaches a subject Scott McInnis would rather not have broached as he trolls for votes in El Paso County.

I remember the episode in question, which is pretty well explained in Barry's column, because Scott's actions -- an obvious kow-tow to Pueblo Chieftain Publisher Bob Rawlings and other Springs-bashers in what was then his congressional district -- were a blow to this city's efforts to study the expansion of Pueblo Reservoir (something that must at some point be looked at if we want to maximize the use of a water storage asset we help pay for). I won't get into analyzing McInnis's motives, but there's no question he stuck it to this city, by killing a bill that wouldn't have cost him a lot of political capital but could have done this community a great deal of good.

Here's an editorial I wrote on the subject at the time. And here's a key passage (italics added for emphasis):

One Colorado congressman still on the committee is soon-to-retire Rep. Scott McInnis. But McInnis’ congressional district encompasses much of the Western Slope and city of Pueblo. That means he panders to Western Slope water fears, vis-a-vis the Front Range. And he’s obviously influenced by the relentless stream of anti-project propaganda coming from the Pueblo Chieftain.

Chieftain Publisher Bob Rawlings’ anti-Colorado Springs tirades seemingly have grown old to Pueblo city and county officials, a majority of whom have shown the courage to work constructively with us on water issues. But McInnis and others in Colorado’s delegation — including Sens. Allard and Campbell — evidently still are cowed by Rawlings, as well as the other parochial interests bent on denying Colorado Springs its water rights.

One might think that with a cushy lobbying job waiting in Denver, McInnis would cut Colorado Springs some slack — but no dice. His chief of staff seems to take glee in telling people that Hefley’s bill is going nowhere. We hope voters in this area will remember this should McInnis ever run for statewide office. Our representatives in Denver might keep it in mind, too, when lobbyist McInnis comes asking for a favor.

Well, McInnis has returned to Colorado Springs looking for votes. And this episode hasn't completely been forgotten, due to people like Dave Sarton, who has been quietly (and now, not-so-quietly) calling McInnis out on his problematic past. McInnis supporters would just like to see this subject dropped. It's all water under the dam to them: the imperative now is electing McInnis governor, not settling old scores. But all Sarton is asking for is something more than vague explanations and blanket denials of malicious intent. It bugs Sarton that McInnis won't man-up on the issue. To Sarton, it raises questions about the candidate's honesty and integrity.

My interest in the matter stems partly from what happened back then, which still sticks in my craw, but in part from a more recent event. About 5 or 6 months ago I attended a small meeting -- a briefing for McInnis on details of the Southern Delivery System -- where Sarton confronted the candidate on the issue. I saw a side of McInnis (who I had heard was something of a hothead) that wasn't flattering. Sarton raised the issue respectfully and tactfully, from my perspective. McInnis nearly exploded. I thought for a second he was going to get up off his chair and get in Sarton's face (I was sitting between them). Red-faced and enraged, he yelled at Sarton, saying that he never wanted to hear anyone ever again say that Scott McInnis screwed Colorado Springs.

I have a bit of the Irish myself (though I prefer to think of it as "passion" or "intensity" rather than a temper), and I've worked around some tightly-wound politicians in my day. But I've never seen anything quite like the "intensity" I saw in McInnis -- in a situation that might easily have been defused with a little diplomacy or humor. I considered rising to Sarton's defense as the tirade subsided, but I was sitting (as mentioned) within swinging distance of McInnis. A donnybrook would have put a damper on an otherwise informative meeting.

McInnis eventually screwed his head back on his shoulders, but he still refused to take any real ownership of past actions. Instead of getting a coherent explanation, or an apology for a misjudgment that might be understandable if put in context, Sarton was effectively ordered to shut up, stuff it and never say anything bad about Scott McInnis again.

One past decision and a short fuse shouldn't disqualify McInnis as a candidate. There still may be plenty of good reasons for locals to get behind him. But this performance could only have deepened Sarton's doubts about McInnis's temperment and character. And it certainly raised some for me.

The Colorado Springs Business Journal -- www.csbj.com -- is devoting a ton of ink to the Copper Ridge proposal, which is a good thing since it's a potentially big story. But here is the bottom line, from one councilman's perspective.

What I voted to support several weeks ago wasn't the project itself, since it faces numerous hurdles (some of which are highlighted in the Journal) and I personally have doubts about whether it will fly in the midst of an economic repression -- "repression" being my way of describing an economic funk that's neither "depression" nor "recession" but something we haven't seen before. All Council was doing was approving the creation of an urban development district at the site, before the use of that tool goes away, with a change of law, on June 1. Whether or not things take off from here is now in the developer's hands. Several fail-safe points still remain before the project is a "go."

If the developers can't attract the anchors or get the financing, the district won't be used. The city is out nothing and risks nothing by putting the district in place. If the developers deliver on all the promises and the project takes flight, a portion of the sales tax revenue will be used to complete the critically important connection between Powers and I-25 -- an $80 million item. The rest of the city's share begins flowing to the city. The developer benefits from the Powers project because Copper Ridge is then situated at the confluence of two major arterials, but the entire city also benefits from the road's completion, which wouldn't otherwise get done for many, many years. None of these tax dollars flow into the developer's pocket, or to the mall itself -- they all go to a road project that we'll have to pay for sooner or later if we want the gap closed and east-west mobility enhanced.

The taxpayers and the city's general fund are at no risk. All the risks are shouldered by the developers, their financiers and the bond-holders (on the Powers portion of the project). And the potential benefits are significant, which explains why the vote was 9 to 0. Of course the project, if it takes off, will create more competition for certain retailers, as well as for other developers -- which explains much of the sniping. But every development has economic consequences, for good and ill, depending on where one stands. Competition and so-called "cannibalism" are all part of capitalism, like it or not. Asking city officials to mitigate the consequences or manage the competition, in the role of local "cannibalism cops," is inappropriate, in my opinion -- not to mention hypocritical, since some Copper Ridge critics have benefited just as much, or more so, from past city economic development efforts.

There's a very interesting piece in today's Washington Post, of all places, arguing that the latest "culture war" is between advocates of economic freedom (AKA free enterprise) and the champions of government control.

Here's a tease . . . .

"This is not the culture war of the 1990s. It is not a fight over guns, gays or abortion. Those old battles have been eclipsed by a new struggle between two competing visions of the country's future. In one, America will continue to be an exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise -- limited government, a reliance on entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces. In the other, America will move toward European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large-scale income redistribution. These visions are not reconcilable. We must choose.

It is not at all clear which side will prevail. The forces of big government are entrenched and enjoy the full arsenal of the administration's money and influence. Our leaders in Washington, aided by the unprecedented economic crisis of recent years and the panic it induced, have seized the moment to introduce breathtaking expansions of state power in huge swaths of the economy, from the health-care takeover to the financial regulatory bill that the Senate approved Thursday. If these forces continue to prevail, America will cease to be a free enterprise nation."

. . . but take the time to read the complete article. It's worth it.

It's odd seeing a pro-free enterprise piece enjoying such prominence in a pro-government control publication. But just so regular Post readers don't get too disoriented, or fear that they've stumbled into some parallel universe, in which things make sense, the paper returns to its usual form with this piece -- which argues for a federal response to "beauty bigotry" and "appearance discrimination."

Also noteworthy is this partial interview with former Shell Oil CEO John Hofmeister, who has just published the book, "Why We Hate the Oil Companies," which offers some insights from an "industry" perspective -- assuming that these "greedy" despoilers of the planet still enjoy First Amendment protections.

I've given up on the reliability of hurricane forecasts done annually by the federal government. This year I'm looking to a more reliable source -- a dice-rolling chimp named Dr. Hansimian. Here's a link to Dr. Hansimian's Hurricane Forecast Center, which isn't underwritten by the government but which just as well could be, given the shoddy, politically-tainted "science" so many federally-funded centers crank out.

Can Hansimian out-forecast the supposed know-it-alls at NOAA?

My money's on the chimp.

Aspen is far too politically-correct to exercise any meaningful animal control -- that would mean conceding that humans have a right to live in "bear habitat." In lieu of animal control, Aspen naturally has opted for people control, laying down a spate of recent mandates that punish residents for a situation that officials let get out of hand by not exercising proactive wildlife management.

The latest -- no kidding -- may be bear-resistant doorknob mandates. This follows a city ordinance mandating bear-proof garbage cans, which the city then decided to subsidize, given the financial hardship meeting the mandate might mean for certain residents. The fines for violators will be stiff, even if the trash cans are subsidized. From the Aspen Times:

"The wildlife-resistant trash can law goes into effect June 1. In addition to the type of container required, containers can be outside between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. People who are found out of compliance after being warned face a $250 fine for the first offense; the second offense is $500; and the third offense is $999 with a mandatory court appearance."

Another bear control concept considered by the city was denuding crab apple trees in town of their fruit, in order to remove one temptation. But the idea of spraying the trees with chemicals caused a predictable uproar -- as if a bombardment with Agent Orange were being proposed.

"That's just Aspen," some readers might say. That sort of craziness can't happen here. But it can happen here, unless we're constantly vigilant against the incremental creep of command-and-control local government.

I wasn't keen on Ken Salazar when he represented Colorado in the U.S. Senate. His centrism was a contrivance and media-generated myth, in my opinion -- about as convincing as the cowboy hat he wears as a folksy prop. But his stock has fallen even more with me since he became Interior Secretary. Two recent actions of his illustrate why.

First, in a demonstration that he's become a consummate Washingtonian, Salazar "reformed" one troubled federal bureaucracy by breaking it into 3 baby bureaucracies -- as if a change of logos and letterhead constitutes a meaningful fix. Federal agencies routinely undergo such re-naming rituals in an effort to scrub away the stain of scandal, failure or irrelevance. I can't think of one such reinvention that resulted in any real transformation. One classic example of this was the Rural Electrification Administration, a New Deal creation with a laudable mission that should have shut down years ago, declaring "mission accomplished," but which lives on today as the Rural Utilities Service. The change was made in 1994, when the original name had become such a laughably obvious anachronism.

Even more disingenuous is Salazar's plan to reduce the number of energy leasing disputes by preemptively capitulating to the no-drilling lobby. By declining to put thousands of potential leases up for bid, and removing huge new swaths of federal land from responsible energy development, and smothering the process under a new blanket of pre-lease "reviews," Salazar will succeed in quelling controversy and reducing legal challenges. Fewer leases, fewer protests, after all. But he'll also succeed in creating energy scarcity, driving up costs, heaping a new burden on the staggering U.S. economy and increasing U.S. reliance on energy imports.

Instituting these sweeping new changes without broad public input or congressional buy-in already has one state (Utah) threatening a legal response. So much for reducing contentiousness and court battles.

A high price will eventually be paid for this short-sighted policy change: the seeds of the next energy crisis are being sown by Salazar today. It almost makes me wish Salazar were still in the Senate, where the damage he could do was limited to voting the wrong way, not doing the wrong things.

Some eyes glaze over when you talk about the City Auditor, even though the value of the work he or she performs becomes much more real to people when they read news reports like this one, in this week's Colorado Springs Independent. At his or her best, an auditor should serve as a roving (though not necessarily rabid) watchdog, sniffing out waste, fraud and mismanagement in city operations and making sure the books aren't cooked. He or she should act as the taxpayer's best friend, and an objective finder of fact, performing the same role in the city that the Government Accountability Office and agency inspector generals play at the federal level.

My appreciation for the work these people do dates to my days as a working journalist, covered the federal beat. Most of the "scoops" I got weren't the result of worn shoe leather or unnamed "sources," but came from culling through stacks of GAO and IG reports, which most reporters find mind-numbing. The tragedy, at least at the federal level, is that so much of this work is ignored, or exploited for short-term political gain. Warehouses are stacked ceiling-high with federal management critiques that no one (but the authors) ever read -- a mountain of waste-fighting reports that have also gone to waste.

It's ironic that the biggest single source of government reform proposals, at the federal level, is the government itself. Getting the executive and legislative branches to actually act on those recommendations is where the process fails. I don't believe that's such a problem at the local level, given the proximity of the governed to the government. Our city's watchdog, if let off the leash, could probably have more real impact than his federal counterparts do, in terms of actually improving government operations. But he or she first needs to be let off the leash.

Nothing is seriously wrong with the way the City Auditor operates now. As the Indy story indicates, our auditor can do a credible job of detecting possible problems, even when answering to City Council. But I have long believed that the city would benefit much more from having an independent city auditor, elected by and answerable to the people -- which is why I'm considering a ballot measure that would let the watchdog off the leash by making the City Auditor an elected position. The arguments for an independent city auditor are strong even in a city manager form of government. But they become even more compelling if voters embrace a strong mayor concept, by providing a much-needed check on the enhanced power vested in a single individual and office.

Some backers of the strong mayor proposal have reacted coolly to this idea; they don't want to clutter up the ballot with too many potential distractions. But I believe a "strong auditor" measure would actually improve the chances for their ballot measure, by providing the public with an extra measure of assurance that any future strong mayor would also face greater scrutiny, courtesy of an independent City Auditor. Checks and balances must be maintained even at the local level, in order to avoid the abuses that potentially arise from consolidated power. An independent, elected City Auditor would provide just such a check on a strong mayor. Far from competing with the strong mayor measure, this proposal might actually complement it.

I'll be writing more about the virtues (and potential vices) of an elected City Auditor in the weeks ahead, as I try to measure public support for such a change. Reader feedback and insights on the topic are welcome, as always.

The German word "zeitgeist" translates as "spirit of the times" or "spirit of the age." But the "spirit of the times" in contemporary America might more accurately be called its "frightgeist," given the state of permanent anxiety in which so many of us seem to live.

We lurch from "crisis" to "crisis," in a reactionary mode, applying a patchwork of policy prescriptions as we go. Then we wonder why we have no coherent energy policy, no coherent foreign policy, no coherent public lands policy, no coherent policy, period.

The Crisis of the Day, according to this MSNBC report, is reckless, risky, completely un-regulated cheerleading -- the kind of cheerleading that has left a swath of heartache and carnage in its wake. And as so often happens, once a sense of crisis is generated, the thinking of some Americans reflexively turns to a government response. The story comes complete with a poll, in fact, which poses the inevitable question: "Should cheerleading be more tightly regulated?"

This being MSNBC -- a cable network that caters to a left-leaning audience -- the poll results as of 2:00 pm today were as follows:

93.1% said "yes,"cheerleading should be more tightly regulated;

6.3% said "no" -- indicating that they must have gotten lost on their way to Fox News;

And 0.7 percent weren't sure what to think -- meaning they must be Keith Olbermann fans.

With poll results like this, how long before pandering politicos will be introducing bills, and government regulators will be making "rules," designed to safeguard our young people from the scourge of cheerleading-related injuries and hazards? Only a matter of days or weeks, if experience is any guide. Manufacturing and sustaining a sense of crisis --irrespective of whether a crisis exists -- is the necessary prerequisite to the expansion of government power. And this is how government grows, step by step, "crisis" by "crisis," into the monster it is today.

I’m not sure why this non-event generated so much coverage and commentary, but since it has, let me make a few points.

The headline in yesterday's Gazette might lead casual readers to conclude that Uncle Sam placed a bucket of gold on the city’s doorstep and it was rudely rejected. That’s not the case. We simply decided not to send a form letter, at the urging of a left-leaning municipal league, asking U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn to support a bill that might, at some future date, trickle some federal “job creation” money into the city, if we grovel hard enough, if we are lucky and if we want to live with the strings that always come attached. The chance that this bill will pass, and that the money will ever flow to this city, and that it would do this city any lasting good, is so small and hypothetical that it barely deserves mention – much less the headline coverage it has received.

The proposed bill hasn't passed. It may not pass. No money has been appropriated -- and any money that might be appropriated is borrowed money, which will have to be funded with more debt, or with printed money, which will eventually contribute to explosive inflation. One letter from this city to Doug Lamborn will have zero impact on whether the bill passes, how the proposed program will work, what levels of funding it will receive and whether this city would ever receive a dollar. It's all pie-in-the-sky, in short. You can't turn down something that doesn't exist. There are better uses of staff time.

But even if such a program, and such a pot of gold, existed, there are plenty of good reasons to be wary. Temporary infusions of federal money won't result in sustainable solutions, because the funding will eventually go away, leaving the city with an obligation it can't afford. Uncle Sam is a pusher, who gets the addict hooked on a habit he can't pay for.

FREX offers a good case in point. The commuter bus service began as a federal "demonstration" project -- which demonstrated that people will take a heavily-subsidized ride to work if it's available. But when the federal funds ran out, the city was left to fund a service that couldn't operate on a sustainable basis and was draining precious resources from our core bus routes. FREX is now running on borrowed time -- time borrowed by cannibalizing and selling off the fleet. It was an expensive diversion from the city's real transit priorities, which began with an offer of federal "help." Sometimes, it's better to say "no" to such offers -- that's the lesson of FREX and a hundred other federal programs. If you don't want to become an addict, you have to turn your back on the pusher.

Virtually all federal money is earmarked for certain purposes, and comes with conditions attached. The city can't just take federal money designated for "job creation," for instance, and use it to water city parks or fill potholes or keep community centers open. Because of that lack of flexibility, the utility of such funds is often limited. As in the case of FREX, if we hire additional city personnel based on a temporary funding stream, those jobs may have to go away when the funding stops. You gain no long-term benefit and assume obligations you can't sustain. This is what happened with Bill Clinton's Community Oriented Policing program, which I covered as a journalist. Some local police departments used the windfall to put a few more cops on the street (the 100,000 figure touted by Clinton was a lie, to put it bluntly), temporarily. But many of those cops were hitting the streets with pink slips a few years later, when the funding ran out.

The federal government has killed far more jobs than it ever “created.” It should focus its efforts on killing fewer and leave job “creation” to the competitive sector. Every job “created” with a federal dollar is paid for by removing that dollar from our pockets, or from the private sector, where the real jobs are created. Maybe if we stop asking so much of Washington, it will stop taking so much from us. Until we as citizens (and cities) recognize that this is all just a shell game, in which government “gives” us something that it actually takes from us through its taxing power, we’ll never get a handle on runaway federal deficits and debt.

The fastest way to create real local jobs, and to stimulate the economy, is for Washington to stop carrying so much local money off to the U.S. Treasury, where it is re-distributed according to a political spoils system. Until Americans start saying “no thanks” to gifts from Washington, Washington has tacit permission to fund its gift-giving sprees at our expense.

This was one small (largely symbolic, admittedly) step in the right direction. It's a revealing sign of the times, and slightly sad, that saying "no" to Washington becomes big news.

Colorado Springs Business Journal Editor Allen Greenberg is new to town, but he already clearly sees the problems that arise from having City Council also serve as the Utilities Board, which he highlights in this column. Sometimes it takes a relative newcomer, with a little more detachment and distance, to remind us of the obvious.

I've supported the creation of a more independent and professional board ever since coming here, 8 years ago this summer, and everything I've experienced during my tenure on City Council has reaffirmed my belief that it's the right way to go. The most uncomfortable moments I've had since my appointment have come while sitting as a CSU board member, given the sprawling complexity of the enterprise and the critical role it plays in every resident's life. Mistakes and missteps in CSU decision-making can have far greater ramifications than those we make on the city side.

I used to joke in editorials that Colorado Springs isn't really a city with a utility company, but a utility company with a city attached. And it's fun to tell old high school chums that I'm moonlighting these days on the board of a $1 billion a year utility company. But now, as someone who is sitting in that seat, shouldering a small portion of that responsibility, it's not such a joke.

It's not that City Council members aren't bright enough or competent enough to make reasonably sound decisions; actually, I'm impressed with the level of insight and knowledge they bring to this part-time task. It's just that decisions would probably be a little more sound, and more thoroughly studied, and perhaps a little less "political," if the board didn't have so many other distractions and conflicting roles. This large a responsibility deserves a board's undivided attention.

Exactly how a new board should be constituted is an open question, which needs further thought and debate. I personally feel that an elected board would fall prey to the same pitfalls that Council can when trying to wear both hats. What should be business decisions become political decisions, as we struggle to reconcile our obligations to taxpayers and ratepayers. A board that panders directly to voters would create even bigger problems than those we have now. We need some level of city control and accountability, but a board that's more objective and independent -- and less political.

I'm not sure how to strike such a balance. But I hope we'll begin this long-overdue debate in earnest next week, when the issue comes before the utilities board. I'll support taking these discussions to the next level.

Deep offshore oil drilling is far more risky than on-shore drilling, as has now become obvious. It's easier to contain a spill on land than to cap a blowout that takes place a mile below the ocean surface. But that's where oil companies are forced to go, given the barriers to domestic drilling that exist almost everywhere else.

Even Wyoming, which is more receptive to energy development than most states, has seen a significant recent slowdown in activity -- a slowdown not just caused by the swooning economy, but due to the obstructionist tactics of federal bureaucrats and zero-drilling zealots.

Why are energy companies drilling so far offshore?

Because this is what they typically face when drilling on shore:

Backlog of protested Wyo leases persists at BLM

CHEYENNE -- Environmental protests, uncertainty over endangered species and a change in presidential administrations have bogged down oil and gas leasing in Wyoming.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has issued just 51 of nearly 1,200 oil and gas leases sold at its 11 lease auctions since June 2008.

The backlog prompted Gov. Dave Freudenthal to "implore" Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a fellow Democrat, to act in a January letter. Yet the backlog is likely to grow when the BLM holds its next lease auction today.

Of the 85 leases the BLM plans to offer at the regular sale in Cheyenne, environmental groups are protesting 62. If previous auctions are any indication, that means at least 62 more leases in limbo -- none of the 51 leases recently issued was protested.

Environmental groups have protested 1,297 of 1,351, or 96 percent, of leases offered from the June 2008 sale through the upcoming sale, BLM documents show.

"No wonder companies are taking their money and investing in other states that have private land, where they don't have to deal with this bureaucracy and politics," said Bruce Hinchey, president of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming.

Oil and gas leasing in Wyoming provides a significant share of the nation's energy. The state in 2008 ranked second among states for natural gas production, providing more than 10 percent of the U.S. total, and ranked seventh for oil production, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Environmentalists defend the protests as necessary to protect Wyoming's wildlife and cherished vistas. They expressed doubt that the protests are slowing down drilling.

"The oil industry has enough leases in its pocket now to drill for decades. So the idea that somehow a scarcity of oil and gas leases is holding up energy production is laughable," said Erik Molvar, executive director of the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance.

Not only are companies unable to drill on leases they've bought, the state and federal governments haven't had access to the $50 million companies have paid.

Half of the money would go to the state and half to the federal government. Both are having budget trouble, yet the money has been piling up in an escrow account pending a BLM decision on whether to issue the leases.

"I implore your immediate attention to these unissued leases," Freudenthal wrote Salazar on Jan. 8. "Some would say that the oil and gas industry is getting what it deserves. But this is much too serious an issue for such pettiness."

A reply letter from Assistant Interior Secretary Wilma Lewis said the leasing process is "broken" and the department is working on a way to "restore needed balance."

Salazar spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff did not respond to a request for comment.

Julie Weaver, the BLM's head of oil and gas leasing in Wyoming, said she expects the backlog to end soon, especially now that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced in March that it would not list sage grouse as a threatened or endangered species. Most of Wyoming, including its best oil and gas fields, is sage grouse habitat.

Even so, Fish and Wildlife determined that protection for sage grouse is warranted, just precluded by higher priorities. That didn't exactly open the gate for leases.

"We had to go back and re-evaluate everything to make sure that we are complying with the Fish and Wildlife decision to warrant that animal," Weaver said.

The BLM auctions offer oil and gas leases every other month in Cheyenne. Environmental groups began stepping up protests against the leases a couple years ago.

Groups have protested not just leases in sage grouse habitat but leases they said could affect a wide range of wildlife -- prairie dogs, raptors, big game migration corridors and fish. Some protests have focused on climate change.

"We must address a protest before we can issue a lease," Weaver said. "And we have protests on every sale, different parcels in every sale, that we're trying to resolve."

She also said the change in presidential administrations has required the BLM state office in Cheyenne to adjust to new policies.

On Thursday, environmental groups stepped up pressure on the BLM by suing over the BLM's plan for oil and gas development in southern Wyoming. The area includes Adobe Town, a "wilderness quality" badlands where the groups say the BLM has approved five drilling permits.

The groups, represented by the Natural Resources Defense Council, include the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, which by itself or with others has protested more than 90 percent of leases offered over the past two years. Other plaintiffs include the Wyoming Outdoor Council, which has protested leases offered at every sale over the past two years.

Wyoming Outdoor Council attorney Bruce Pendery said his group used to be one of the few that would protest oil and gas leases in Wyoming. Now, he said, a range of groups have been protesting leases.

"To me, what that speaks to is that there was this massive effort to increase oil and gas leasing during the Bush administration," Pendery said. "Because of that massive effort to increase leasing, there was an equally massive response."

Other groups that have been protesting leases include the National Audubon Society, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout Unlimited, Center for Native Ecosystems and Wyoming Wildlife Federation. Sometimes the groups object to just a handful of leases.

Other times, it's every lease offered at a sale, as the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance has done eight times in the past two years.

"Our goal here is to get results on the ground for wildlife and for special landscapes," Molvar said. "Not to prevent the oil and gas industry from gaining access to oil and gas leases."

The social welfare state is hitting a wall in Europe, with Greece's bailout conditioned on a significant rollback of a post-World War II system that emphasized entitlements, unrestrained deficit spending, unionism and unsustainable payouts to public sector employees, all at the expense of productivity and competitiveness. This system, though a demonstrated failure in economic terms, has succeeded magnificently in developing a large and vocal constituency, which is rioting to keep its special perks and privileges.

The United States isn't Greece -- yet. But we're walking the same general path, albeit at a slower pace, which should raise a few questions. How long before we hit the same wall Europe has? What changes or adjustments should the U.S. be making today in order to avoid the same sort of calamities tomorrow? Is this administration taking the country in the right direction, or the wrong?

Just something to ponder as you sip your coffee this morning, reading about seemingly distant events that have more relevance here than you might think.

The Southern Delivery System project has critics in Pueblo, as we all know. But you couldn't find many of them yesterday at the El Pueblo History Museum, which hosted a workshop for local companies hoping to get a piece of the action now that construction is about the begin.

Pueblo Chieftain publisher Bob Rawlings wasn't there.

State Rep. Sal Pace wasn't there.

Pueblo DA Bill Thiebaut wasn't there, either.

These and others who have done their damnedest to discredit, delay or derail the project were nowhere to be found. Instead, the event attracted people like Carla Barela of Pueblo-based Cortez Construction, who sees SDS not as an abomination, but as an opportunity. She told the Pueblo Chieftain that SDS potentially means local jobs for local companies.

"SDS will provide an average of 380 jobs annually, with a peak of 700 jobs in 2014, said Dan Higgins, construction manager for Colorado Springs Utilities.

“Utilities will not be doing the main hires, that will be done by the primes and subs,” Higgins told a crowd of about 60 local contractors.

The purpose of Monday’s workshop, along with one last week in Colorado Springs and another planned for Thursday in Canon City, is to guide contractors through a procurement process that can be daunting.

SDS has been broken down into several project segments that will give local firms the opportunity to meet bonding requirements, rather than running the whole project under one large contractor.

That also includes a wide array of jobs ranging from carpenters, landscapers, fencing, stucco and welding to sign-making, security and traffic control."

Also at the workshop was Pete Dobbs, project manager with ASI Constructors of Pueblo West, which has been hired to do the North Outlet Works connection to Pueblo Dam and run water lines under Marksheffel Road. “We’ve gotten a lot of contacts and gotten to know our client better at these meetings,” Dobbs told The Chieftain. And the "client" -- regularly portrayed as the proverbial 800-pound gorilla by Pueblo detractors -- apparently looks much less menacing when it is handing out paychecks and generating jobs.

While The Chieftain keeps pounding the war drums, generating the usual drone, reasonable people are making peace with a project from which both cities, and the entire region, will benefit.

This is what happens when you look to Statehouse bumblers to solve your “problems” for you. You get infinitely more problems.

Incompetence alone can’t explain the mess of things legislators made with the approval of House Bill 1284, the long-awaited “fix” to Colorado’s medical marijuana “problem.” It takes malice aforethought to screw-up something this badly. I generally agree with Barry Noreen's assessment that it makes the situation even messier, if that's possible.

The law is probably unconstitutional, just for starters – making it an engraved invitation to court battles that will prolong uncertainty and anxiety for MMJ patients, MMJ providers and the general public. The bill sanctions the dispensary model with one hand, while permitting local governments to ban them with the other, adding no clarity to the question of whether they are legal and legitimate (since local governments can’t rightly ban something that’s constitutional).

Many MMJ patients seem perfectly happy with the dispensary model, judging from the fact that the facilities are flourishing. They are voting for it with their feet and their pocketbooks, irrespective of whether the word “dispensary” appears in Amendment 20 (the word "dispensing" does, however). If patients want to buy their medicine from a mom and pop caregiver, they can do that. If they want to buy from a larger storefront operation, that should also be their choice, in my opinion. As a non-patient, I don’t presume to second guess such decisions. Let the consumer determine which sort of provider suits him or her. That the attorney general and others are so determined to limit the patient's choice, and narrow their options, is hard for me to understand. But I guess there are as many nanny state Republicans as nanny state Democrats.

A sales tax exemption for MMJ, added in a surprise 11^th hour amendment, will eliminate one of the big advantages to making it legal. This conflicts with a ruling by the attorney general that this is, in fact, a taxable commodity. And it deprives this and other Colorado cities of much-needed tax revenue at a time when every dollar counts. Some of those revenues will be needed for monitoring and regulating this emerging "industry” at the local level -- if this measure doesn't succeed in killing it! It, too, seems almost like a poison pill, added by those bent on thwarting partial-legalization. Onerous licensing fees will drive up the cost of entry, and drive out competition, meaning that the bill is anti-small business, anti-entrepreneurship and (ultimately) anti-patient.

This is a terrible bill, which brings more confusion than clarity to a chaotic situation. The only hope now is that Gov. Ritter will find some reason to veto it (maybe on the grounds that it is hopelessly incoherent and counter-productive), or that legislators will come down with a case of sausage-maker's remorse. No action would be better than this action.

The ball is back in the city's court now, even if the rules of the game are even more confusing. And I hope this City Council will take immediate steps to bring more certainty to the situation, by sending a clear signal on where we stand on the dispensary question and moving forward on the draft ordinances now in the works.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, as the old saying goes, so we shouldn't be surprised that the city of Boulder is breeding a bumper crop of young activists, which will help ensure that the college town's radical traditions carry on in perpetuity. The cause of the moment for the little green sprouts -- a group led by 9-year-old Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez -- is banning the use of two herbicides in city parks.

Both chemicals come with the usual warning labels, which are required by law to highlight worst case scenarios and rat-lab risks. Rational people understand that most chemicals -- including those found widely in most homes -- carry dangers, if improperly used. But we also recognize that the significant benefits in most cases outweigh the minimal risks. These young radicals, like their radical parents, want to live in a risk-free, trade-off free world, where anything that's not completely benign, and even suspected of ill-effects, is banned.

It runs in the Roske-Martinez family:

"The third-grader comes from a family of environmental activists. His mother, Tamara Roske, is a founder of the Earth Guardian Community Resource Center and the Global Alliance of Youth and Adults in Action, a group that provides environmental and leadership education.

Using her e-mail list, Xiuhtezcatl organized a group of some two dozen children to protest the potential use of the herbicides."

Whether city officials will bend to these demands is uncertain. It's Boulder, and these pint-sized protesters made the news, so they probably will. But perhaps the city -- as an object lesson in real world trade-offs -- should make a counter-proposal to the sprouts, asking that all those children opposed to herbicides volunteer for a summer of weed-pulling parties as a substitute. That would probably bring another batch of protests, alleging insensitivity and child abuse. But at least these young Boulderites would better appreciate the potential benefits of responsible herbicide use -- a lesson in trade-offs their parents apparently never learned.

"Partnership" is a word we're hearing a lot these days, as the city looks for collaborative new ways to cope with fiscal adversity. But the idea is catching on elsewhere as well -- in Arizona, for instance, where 13 state parks slated for closure will remain open, thanks to the intervention of local governments and concerned citizens.

Is this model sustainable? It's a question I sometimes get asked, when I'm out promoting private-public partnerships in Colorado Springs. "It may have to be," is the answer I usually give, since I personally don't see a quick end to our city budget crunch -- and because I think taxpayers have simply hit a wall, in terms what they are willing to give government at all levels, until they see that government is fundamentally changing the way it operates.

Until that happens, we may see accelerated movement toward a do-it-yourself model, in which those who care most (and benefit most) from an at-risk government service (state parks, in the case below) step up to directly shoulder the burden. How far that can be taken is unknown. But an extended economic and fiscal downturn means that we may see the concept pushed in interesting new directions.

Here's a partnership success story from today's Arizona Republic:

State parks once targeted for closure to stay open

by Jim Walsh and Lindsey Coll om - May. 6, 2010 12:00 AM

Arizona residents proved they love their state parks by opening up their wallets to keep them open after the state Legislature gutted the budget.

Thanks to a combination of public-private partnerships, 13 state parks once targeted for closure are expected to remain open, including a group of five that had been scheduled to shut down June 3.

The State Parks Board is expected to approve the plan to plan keep the parks open at its May 19 meeting.

"When the parks got in trouble, these communities stepped up to keep them open. In a lot of ways, we made new friends or friends we didn't know we have," said Jay Ream, assistant state parks director.

"It's going to be a great summer for the people of Arizona because the parks will remain open," he said.

The news is not all good. Four parks will remain closed - Homology Ruins, Jerome, McFarland and Oracle - but there's still hope that some of them may reopen if additional agreements can be worked out with local communities, Ream said.

Officials from Florence and the parks department are discussing the possibility of reopening McFarland State Historic Park, town spokesman Jess Knudson said.

The park is named for longtime U.S. Sen. and Arizona Gov. Ernest McFarland, who is considered the father of the state parks system.

Although fund raising remains ongoing, Arizona State Parks is convinced enough money will become available from a variety of sources to keep the parks open, Ream said. It includes contributions by counties, cities and friends of state parks groups.

The support surfaced after the state Legislature swept $71.7 million from the state parks budget during the 2009 through 2011 fiscal years.

Apache Junction mobilized after Ream told a formative meeting of Friends of Lost Dutchman State Park in March that $24,000 was needed to avoid shutting down the facility from July through September.

An $8,000 donation from a Texas philanthropist, a motorcycle run and a donation by the owners of Superstition Harley-Davidson all contributed toward the effort.

"I think all communities should bridge the gap until they get the funding issue straightened out," said Mark Rescue, the motorcycle dealer. "Lost Dutchman State Park is part of our identity. This helped the community come together."

Friends of Lost Dutchman State Park is recruiting volunteers to collect gate fees from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily to keep the trails open. The campground will be closed on July 6 for renovations aimed at making the park self-sufficient.

Eloy is set to spend up to $20,000 from its contingency fund to help keep Picachio Peak State Park open through the summer months, Mayor Byron Jackson said Wednesday. An intergovernmental agreement will be presented to the City Council at its May 10 meeting.

Picasso Peak, site of the only Civil War battle in Arizona, covers about 3,450 acres in Pinal County. The money is expected to cover the park's projected operating deficit through September.

"We're afraid if it closes, it will never reopen," Jackson said. "That would have a devastating impact on the area."

I'm doubtful that meetings of the 10th Amendment Task Force will attract overflow crowds in Congress, where that part of the U.S. Constitution is treated as some sort of typo. The Congressional Polygamists Caucus may have more members. But I'm glad, nonetheless, that Doug Lamborn is involved (see press release below).

Task Force founders deserve credit for having the gumption to set up shop in the heart of hostile territory. And though they might seem to be tilting at windmills, at least for now, the groundswell of grassroots interest in the 10th out here in the sticks means that the group's work could have national impact, even if it falls on deaf ears in the hallowed halls of Congress. It's always good to have a few moles on the inside.

The group's goals include: Educating Congress and the public about federalism; developing proposals to disperse power to regional entities, states, local governments, private institutions, community groups, families and individuals; elevate federalism as a core Republican focus; monitor threats to 10^th Amendment principles; and to help build and foster a federalist constituency.

Good luck, 10th Amendment Task Force. You've taken on a dangerous mission, far behind enemy lines. We'll try to air-drop supplies and reinforcements when we can

House Republicans Launch New 10th Amendment Task Force

Task Force Seeks to Restore the Constitutional Balance of Power Through Federalism

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Republican Study Committee (RSC) Chairman Tom Price (R-GA), Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT) and nine other Republican Members of Congress officially launched the newly formed 10th Amendment Task Force, a project of the RSC. The Task Force will develop and promote proposals that aim to disperse power, decision-making, and money from Washington back to states, local governments, and individuals.

The Task Force was created in response to the public outcry over the concentration of power and the one-size-fits-all solutions from Washington. More than ever, Americans are expressing frustration at having important facets of their lives controlled by a government that is out of reach and out of touch. Among other things, the Task Force will focus on educating Congress and the public about federalism, elevating federalism as a core Republican focus and monitoring threats to 10th Amendment principles.

Rep. Tom Price, Chairman of the Republican Study Committee (GA-06): “Our Founding Fathers understood the danger of amassing broad powers in the federal government at the expense of individual liberty. The 10 co-founders and all members of this task force should be commended for taking the initiative to champion the cause of Federalism and its vital role in our Republic.”

Rep. Rob Bishop (UT-01), Founder of the Task Force: “This is not yesterday’s states’ rights argument. It’s much bigger than that. This is about better governance and breaking up big, inefficient, unresponsive government-returning power back to the people of this country.”

Rep. John Culberson (TX-07) co-founder: “The Task Force was formed to uphold the principle that the will of the people is best served at the state and local levels, and that the federal government should not interfere in matters that are fully within the purview of the states.”

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (TX-19) co-founder: “We have strayed too far from the principles of our Founders. This Task Force will be key in monitoring the further erosion of powers that traditionally belong to the states and the voices of the American people, not the federal government.”

Rep. Doug Lamborn (CO-05) co-founder: “Americans are outraged with the federal government’s ever increasing intrusion into our lives. This intrusion comes in the form of burdensome regulations, taxes, and unfunded mandates. I reject this one-size-fits-all approach coming from Washington because it doesn’t work. I am calling for a return to what the Constitution outlines as a limited role for the federal government and more rights to the states.”

Rep. Cynthia Lummis (WY-At large) co-founder: “We in Wyoming value our independent way of life and frontier spirit. We don’t take kindly to Washington bureaucrats telling us how to live our lives. We need to limit the power of federal bureaucrats and give it back to states and individuals. That is what our founders envisioned, our Constitution requires and what our constituents want.”

Rep. Mike Conaway (TX-11) co-founder: “Supporting the 10th Amendment is not a partisan issue. It is about respecting the boundaries placed on the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. It is my hope that through the Tenth Amendment Task Force, Members on both sides of the aisle will be better educated on our founders’ vision for America.”

Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05) co-founder: "The principles they secured in the Constitution should be the guide for every action the government undertakes. Unfortunately, the Federal government has crept into many facets of once locally controlled areas and, in many instances, the Federal judiciary has ignored the intent of federalism. That’s why I am happy to join with my fellow members in ushering in this “New Era of Federalism” to alter the government’s operation and influence on the daily lives of its citizens."

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT-03) co-founder: “Successful federal government by its very nature should be focused and limited. Washington cannot possibly develop solutions that are the best fit for all 50 states. Each state has its own unique priorities, demographics, economy, strengths and weaknesses. That’s why we need to allow states to have more control over policy making and implementation.”

Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-04) co-founder: “The ultimate check upon an abusive or dysfunctional government is the ability of people to walk away from it. By limiting the federal government to those enumerated powers that serve a truly national objective, our constitution disperses the remaining powers among 50 states and a hundred fold more communities. Those states that are governed unwisely naturally lose population and commerce to those that are governed well.” Original “10” co-founders of the 10th Amendment Task Force: 1. Rob Bishop (UT-01) 2. Marsha Blackburn (TN-07) 3. Jason Chaffetz (UT-03) 4. Michael Conaway (TX-11) 5. John Culberson (TX–07) 6. Scott Garrett (NJ-05) 7. Doug Lamborn (CO-05) 8. Cynthia Lummis (WY-At large) 9. Tom McClintock (CA-04) 10. Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)

Does anyone else see irony in the news that Concord, Massachusetts -- a town so closely associated with America's first fight for freedom -- has approved an ordinance banning the sale of bottled water?

Is it me, or does the American Revolution seem to be moving in reverse?

The EPA recently announced a contest -- the "Rulemaking Matters Video Contest" -- asking Americans to submit videos extolling the virtues of the regulatory superstate. It's a fun, creative way to show how grateful we all are for the blessings bestowed on us by Big Government.

Here's the actual press release, in case you think I'm joking. And because it's the EPA, don't forget to carefully follow all the rules. Naturally, there will be a form or two to fill out. The EPA prefers that you use the term "rulemaking," instead of "regulating" -- the latter carries such negative connotations with some people. Finally, please be sure that no plants or animals are harmed, or noxious chemicals released into the environment, during the making of your video: You don't want to find out what it's like to be on the bad side of the EPA. The winner will walk away with $2,500 in prize money (before taxes, of course, since all this "protection" doesn't come cheap).

My fun-loving former colleagues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute have entered the contest, with a somewhat tongue-in-cheek video called "A Day in the Life of the The Regulatory State." Find it on YouTube by following this link. Somehow, I don't think it will walk away with top prize. But I found it funny.

Americans are all-too-aware (maybe even hyper-aware) of the risks and consequences associated with conventional, carbon-based energy sources -- a spreading oil spill in the gulf brings those trade-offs into stark focus. But almost every "clean energy" panacea being touted has weaknesses, limitations and environmental impacts of its own -- problems that will become more obvious as this alternative energy bandwagon picks up speed.

One looming problem with solar and wind energy, for instance, is that they'll require a significant expansion and alteration of the existing electrical grid to accommodate, if they're going to be anything more than niche players. Government mandates, subsidies and incentives have succeeded in kick-starting the construction of solar centers and wind farms, yet, in a classic case of putting cart before horse, an antiquated and underdeveloped U.S. transmission system is posing a serious barrier to further development.

This problem, on a small scale, can be seen right here in Colorado, where Xcel Energy's plans for solar centers in the San Luis Valley are being scaled-back, due to concerns about transmission line limitations. Read more about it in today's Pueblo Chieftain. Then, imagine an entire country confronting similar bottlenecks and setbacks, when government's over-exuberant backing of so-called renewables crashed head-on into practical, fiscal and technological reality.

Ever wonder why there are so few endangered species success stories? Could it be because federal agencies and green groups keep moving the goal posts on what constitutes species recovery?

The federal wolf reintroduction program offers a good case in point.

Does a U.S. Secretary of Education really need a siren-wailing motorcade to clear away the rabble as he rushes to a media interview in Washington, D.C.? That's the first of many indicators in this news story that the department, and the man in charge of it, Obama basketball buddy Arne Duncan, might be a little out of control, a little too intoxicated with a sense of power and self-importance. And that, as the story indicates, means he poses an unprecedented threat to the independence of local schools.

"Mr. Duncan is a man in a hurry. He has far more money to dole out than any previous secretary of education, and he is using it in ways that extend the federal government’s reach into virtually every area of education, from pre-kindergarten to college.

“This is the most assertive secretary of education we’ve ever had,” said Carl Kaestle, an education historian at Brown University who has studied the federal role in 20th-century American schooling.

Mr. Duncan has run a $4 billion school-improvement competition that led many states to change education laws to reflect his prescriptions. This month, the department is distributing $3.5 billion for the overhaul of thousands of failing schools. Mr. Duncan has been shuttling frequently to Capitol Hill to outline plans for a rewriting of the main federal law on public schools.

In March, Congress terminated a huge, bank-based college loan program, replacing it with one run out of the Education Department, and redirecting $36 billion in bank subsidies into Pell grants for low-income students.

Now the administration has begun writing rules to ensure that students will not assume burdensome tuition debt for career training that is unlikely to land them well-paying jobs.

“This administration’s education vision is a very activist, expansive role for the federal government,” said Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president at the American Council on Education, who has watched education policies evolve in Washington for nearly 30 years. “We’re never going to be like France, where the education minister can look at his watch and tell you what every fourth grader is doing. But inevitably, with more federal education initiatives, more federal money, comes more strings, more federal control.”

Not everything Duncan has done as Ed-Sec is bad; in fact, on many issues, he convincingly mouths the rhetoric of a reformer. But even a self-styled reformer is something to be wary of, if his goal is greater federal hegemony over local schools -- since such powers, once granted, are unlikely ever to be rolled back.

We've heard warnings for years about the rise of the "imperial president." In Barack Obama, this idea takes on its most tangible form yet. Maybe, in Duncan, we have our first "imperial educrat."