Dan May brought his anti-medical marijuana dog-and-pony show to City Council again Monday. I can only hope his underlings make more convincing cases when they're trying to put criminals behind bars.

May cherry-picked a few quotes, flashed a few inflammatory photos and rattled-off some misleading statistics, all taken out of context, in order to make the case that medical marijuana dispensaries and grow operations are illegal, despite Colorado voters having legalized medical marijuana ten years ago. May and a guest brought in from Denver painted these facilities as the perpetrators of a massive fraud, and as an imminent threat to public health and safety, though they offered nothing but anecdotes to support that.

Such a case would have been laughed out of criminal court. May was free to bend and twist the "facts" to suit his fancy, without a defense attorney there to correct the record or blow holes in his arguments. Only a jury of rutabagas would have been won over. That the DA thought this was good enough to woo City Council suggests a low opinion of our intelligence.

The Gazette reported that May told City Council to go slow on writing its ordinance -- but that's not really what he told us. He told us -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that doing anything to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries in the city would make us complicit in criminal activity, since they are, in May's opinion, illegal. I asked why, if they're illegal, we aren't raiding them and shutting them down? I never got a coherent explanation for this glaring inconsistency.

These allegedly-illegal facilities are operating in plain view across the city (and the state); they advertise their locations in the alternative weekly. It would seem like shooting fish in a barrel for the Police Department and Dan May to swoop-in and make the bust. Yet the DA and his mentor, John Suthers, won't do it -- which suggests to me that they know they're on thin ice in both the court of law and court of public opinion. Rather than put their legal theories to the test, by closing dispensaries, they are using their positions, and public resources, to wage a propaganda war against them, using scare tactics and distortions of fact. They want to re-fight a battle they lost ten years ago. But almost everyone else is moving on.

Many other cities in Colorado already are regulating these allegedly-illegal dispensaries. El Paso County has put temporary regulations in place, which tacitly acknowledge the right of dispensaries to exist. The legislature is considering bills that make provision for these allegedly-illegal dispensaries (although they may be called something else). Local governments are collecting taxes from these allegedly-illegal operations. All of Colorado seems willing to legitimize these activities, by regulating and taxing them, except for an isolated band of well-placed reactionaries, who are relying on the federal Drug Enforcement Administration to keep Colorado patients and care-givers living in a state of fear.

Dan May's dogs jumped through rings and his ponies danced in circles on their hind legs, but the audience wasn't dazzled; a majority on council seems determined to move forward on refinements to a draft ordinance, despite May's advice. Rather than doing nothing, or waiting for the state to solve our local problems for us -- and rather than going backward -- we're going to move ahead with a public process, using the draft ordinance as a template on which refinements can be written, with all opinions considered.

This council, like much of the rest of Colorado, seems to want to move forward and deal constructively with the new reality. Dan May will be relevant again when he catches up.

Some legislators seem to wake up every morning during the session, asking themselves, "What can I do today to make Colorado a less appealing place to do business?" Pueblo's Sal Pace is certainly doing his part, by offering a bill that, even in its watered-down version, would make it harder for companies to make the case against employees who are running workman's compensation scams.

Early renditions of the bill would have limited the ability of companies to conduct certain types of surveillance on employees claiming injuries. Some of those provisions were eliminated, as a result of one very obvious objection -- that this would green light more worker's compensation fraud. But the bill isn't dead yet, unfortunately, leaving Colorado's business community to wonder why, in the midst of an economic calamity, legislators seem to be looking for new ways to drive companies over the brink.

The Denver Post has an interesting piece today on a topic I blogged about several days back, indicating that the jury is still out on whether Robocop-style policing actually improves public safety (Colorado Springs' looming experiment with red light cameras gets a brief mention). Although automated ticket-writing is a proven way to fatten municipal coffers, at low- or no-cost to the city, conclusive evidence is hard to come by about whether the cameras prevent accidents and deter scofflaws, according to the Post:

"The Federal Highway Administration reviewed all studies of red-light cameras in 2005 and offered a lukewarm endorsement. While avoiding estimates of injury reductions, the agency said sites with cameras produced an average of $39,000 in annual economic benefits from crashes avoided. But, the agency added, wide variances in methodology and reliability "render useless any conclusions" from most of the studies.

Researchers in Oxnard, Calif., in the late 1990s compared results at that city's red-light cameras with three other cities. They found that overall accidents in Oxnard fell 5.4 percent; yet crashes in the control city of Santa Barbara, without red-light cameras, dropped more than 10 percent.

A Texas study showed a 43 percent reduction in broadside collisions and a 5 percent increase in rear-end accidents — but noted that the cameras' role in those numbers was inconclusive."

Aurora's experience with red light cameras has been equally inconclusive, even though the city is expanding their use, according to the Post:

"Aurora is negotiating a contract to add cameras at 10 intersections to the four cameras operating since 2006. Police say they are convinced the cameras improve safety, but the statistics are less clear.

Intersections with two of the older cameras showed a decline in accidents, from 17 to 11. One intersection had no accidents, before or after the camera was put in, while a fourth intersection actually saw an increase, from zero accidents to five.

"What we're finding is that the numbers are not real, real significant in seeing a decrease in accidents, because there were not a huge number of accidents to start with," said Cloyd, of the Aurora police.

Police officials often point to reduced violations at red-light cameras, separate from accidents, as proof the devices educate drivers and change behavior. Yet Aurora's cameras issued 9,918 tickets in 2007, 8,717 in 2008 and 9,855 in 2009."

Critics of the cameras claim that equivalent intersection safety improvements can be gained, and red light-running can be curtailed, by simply fine-tuning the signal light sequence -- by prolonging the yellow light for just a few seconds, for instance. I've not studied the issue enough to reach my own conclusions. But one thing seems clear enough to me; that something other than hard data is driving the expansion of Robocop technology.

Traffic enforcement should be aimed at improving roadway safety, not generating revenue or creating automated speed traps. One sure way to undermine public support for law enforcement, and erode respect for the law, is to create the impression that police officers are just revenue collectors in blue uniforms. And I don't want to see that happen in Colorado Springs.

The outfitters' lobby at one point seemed to have smooth sailing on a bill (HB-1188) that would grant river rafters the "right" to come ashore on private property, without the owner's permission. But the measure is hitting Class 4 whitewater in the senate, thanks to the compelling counter-arguments of property owners and property rights advocates.

The Denver Post has a good write-up on the issue today, for those who have been following it. An extensive debate on the subject can also be found at Seth Richardson's Broadside Blog, for those who want to wade in even deeper.

I've written before of my admiration for Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat with a strong independent streak who did the Cowboy State proud by bucking Washington when it was in the state's best interests. I'm disappointed, therefore, to learn that he won't be seeking a third term. A non-conformist to the end, Freudenthal shrugged off any talk of a "legacy" at the announcement. "We don't do that legacy stuff," he said. "This legacy stuff is incredibly dangerous."

He does leave a legacy, though, which was probably best summed-up by State Sen. Eli Bebout, a former political rival who narrowly lost to Freudenthal in the 2002 governors race. "I think he really tried to represent Wyoming against the intrusiveness of the federal government, and he did that," Bebout said. That led to clashes with Washington over energy policy, reintroduced wolves, the sage grouse (which was granted some new federal protections this week, but not "threatened or "endangered" status, thank goodness) and, most famously, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse.

The mouse is listed as a protected federal species in Colorado, but not in Wyoming, not coincidently, thanks to Freudenthal's persistent efforts to fight the listing and expose the fraudulent science behind it. Maybe this absurd split decision never would have occurred if Colorado had a governor who was more protective of the state's interests, vis-a-vis the federal government.

And unlike Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, who has waged regulatory war on the traditional energy sector, while touting "new energy economy" fantasies, Freudenthal managed to strike a sensible balance between environmental protection and economic development in Wyoming, leaving the state on a sound financial footing. "When we had huge energy development, he did the balancing act," said Sen. Kathryn Sessions, a Democrat from Cheyenne. "He tried to preserve those things that we hold most dear in this state -- our water, our air, our mountains, our open space," she told the Casper Star-Tribune, while serving as a "balancer between all of that and industry and money and all the stuff on the other side."

Freudenthal does leave quite a legacy, even if he characteristically would never brag on it. I hope for the Cowboy State that it finds a worthy successor.

Colorado Springs is at this point only dabbling with Robocop ticket-writing -- a contract still in the works will soon have a private entity operating red light cameras at certain intersections in the city, automatically issuing tickets to drivers caught in the act. This may reduce red light-running -- a good thing -- but it can also, if expanded, become a major revenue-generator for the city, at relatively low cost, which can incentivize the further expansion of such technologies city-wide.

This is one area where the slippery slope definitely beckons, as this story in the Boulder Daily Camera indicates. Once you embrace automated law enforcement, the logic of it (and the economics of it) tend to drive you toward greater and greater use of it -- and abuse of it, almost inevitably. That may fit in well with the Boulder model, which tends toward command and control, but I'm not sure it fits comfortably in Colorado Springs, where people are a little more wary of Big Brother-like technologies and attitudes.

I wasn't on Council when the red light cameras were approved, so I didn't have an opportunity to raise these concerns and objections. But count me as a strong skeptic of more Robocoping, as we move forward.

Colorado Springs probably should brace itself for another round of ridicule, once word gets out about our Cabs on Patrol program. Left-wingers, looking to score political points, will point to this as another example of the calamities that await all who live in low-tax towns. But let the critics snicker. While they’re prisoners of an old paradigm, in which there’s only one way to run a city, with government acting as the hub, around which everything else turns, Colorado Springs is finding innovative, interesting, out-of-the-box ways to respond to fiscal adversity.

That’s the silver lining in budget crises – they force you to try things you might not under normal circumstances. In adversity there’s also opportunity – a chance to do things differently. We’re providing a model of how that’s done in Colorado Springs, from the Cabs on Patrol Program to community center partnership efforts. That’s something we should take pride in, not apologize for.

Our Police Department and its partner, Yellow Cab, deserve praise for this innovative approach to keeping more eyes on the streets. And who better to provide those eyes than street-savvy cabbies? Does anyone ridicule Neighborhood Watch programs? This is Neighborhood Watch on wheels. There’s only so much territory professional police can cover, even when the city’s coffers are fat. And when they’re lean, there’s even more reason to deputize private citizens to take a more active role in fighting crime. Citizen-centered crime fighting is part of long American tradition. This is a continuation of that tradition.

We won’t have Colorado Springs cabbies making street arrests, negotiating with hostage-takers, responding to domestic disputes or chasing down bad guys, ala Starsky and Hutch. We’re simply asking them to provide an extra set of eyes and ears for the police department, when going about their normal business.

It makes a lot of sense.

Why didn’t we think of it sooner?

We didn’t think of it sooner because we didn’t have to.

Renewable energy mandate mania is again sweeping our Democrat-controlled Statehouse: not a year goes by, it seems, that "green energy" production quotas aren't jacked-up even higher, with no cost-benefit analysis, no understanding of what they'll eventually cost ratepayers, no sense of realism whatsoever. Renewable energy advocates simply pull a new number out of their hats, arbitrarily, and demand that it be met, putting Colorado on the path blazed by that regulatory wonderland called California.

Here's a write-up on the bill by ColoradoSenateNews.com:

Renewable energy mandate advances, moves CO towards higher energy costs

Democrat Sens. Gail Schwartz, of Snowmass Village, and Bruce Whitehead, of Hesperus, argued for a state mandate this afternoon that Republicans say would put Colorado on the road to higher energy prices and a possible energy shortage.

“Renewable energy is not the problem, but the approach of this proposal is,” said Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, whose house is run by entirely renewable energy.

House Bill 1001, sponsored by Schwartz and Whitehead, would mandate large utilities to get 30 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. That's triple the standard before Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter took office and made renewable energy his pet issue.

Republicans say the proposed mandate is too aggressive and could go the way of the failed renewable energy initiatives of California. In July of 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that “California's utilities are barrelling ahead to try to meet a state mandate to garner 33 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020, and some officials are concerned the effort might push up electricity prices and crimp supplies.”

California utilities also complain ambitious renewable energy mandates, combined with tough environmental regulations on conventional plants, are compromising their ability to deliver adequate power.

“Thankfully California has once again shown us the road not to travel,” Lundberg said. “Let’s not mimic their failed policies that have lead to high taxation and high unemployment. We cannot spend and mandate our way to prosperity.”

Proponents of HB 1001 claim it will create thousands of jobs. Republicans counter by calling the bill a union pay-back because it requires union labor to be used for many of the renewable energy installation projects. “Apparently Washington doesn’t have a monopoly on special interests and vote trading,” Lundberg said, referring to U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska who carved out a huge earmark for his state in the healthcare bill.

Lundberg went on to explain that HB 1001 is going to raise energy bills because wind and solar still need to be backfilled by more traditional energy, like coal and natural gas. The new Comanche unit 3 coal plant in Pueblo, for example, was built to backfill wind energy. It would take three wind farms spread out around the state to increase the likelihood of continuous energy production of wind. To match Comanche 3’s output, the consortium behind the farm would need to more than double the size of the current Cedar Creek wind farm in Weld County. That would total 2,051 wind turbines operating on 240,000 acres, or 375 square miles.

Colorado Springs Utilities isn't lobbying against this measure, because it won't apply (for now) to publicly-owned utilities. One shareholder-owned energy company, Xcel, has figured out how to cash in on the mandates, by betting the ranch on wind farms. It supports this bill because it helps hedge the company's high-risk bet, buffering it against the day that the wind energy bubble bursts. So why, if other energy providers support a new round of mandates, should CSU fight them? Here's why.

CSU is engaged in Ostrich-like thinking, in my opinion, pretending that future mandates will pass it by if it lays low on this fight and buries its head in the sand. But given how mandate mania spreads, it's only a matter of time before these quotas are imposed on everyone else -- including on energy providers, like CSU, for which a massive investment in renewables might not make sense. What goes around comes around, in short. And hiding our heads in the sand won't save us for long from the mandate maniacs.

Supporters of the new wave of mandates claim they will create new jobs, but those claims are as pie-in-the-sky as the other numbers they pull out of thin air. Reports today's Pueblo Chieftain:

"Environment Colorado’s study said the bill would create 23,450 jobs in solar generation over the next 10 years. But researchers acknowledged that only 152 of those jobs would last for two years or more. The remaining jobs would be short-term construction and support jobs.

Raising the renewable energy standard to 20 percent has already created 17,000 jobs in Colorado, Gov. Bill Ritter said last month.

But even supporters acknowledge the projects need government subsidies of up to 50 percent to cover the cost to make it affordable.

‘‘It’s a make-work project on the front end and heavily subsidized and costly on the back end,’’ said Sen. Kevin Lundberg, a Republican from Fort Collins.

Critics say the only way to sustain the industry is with subsidies and increasing energy standards, since most of the jobs are short-term construction jobs.

Sen. Mike Kopp, R-Littleton, said a study of Spain’s experience, cited by President Barack Obama as a model for the United States, showed the energy industry lost nine traditional energy jobs for every four jobs created by a shift to renewable energy.

If Colorado’s standards were economically viable, mandates and subsidies wouldn’t be needed, Lundberg said."

An admirably alert scribe at the Grand Junction Sentinel, who actually bothered to check some of the job creation claims made by Gov. Bill Ritter, found, at least in one case, that they were misleading, if not bogus. Ritter's spokesman, when confronted with the falsehood, said it was a simple mistake. But I'm betting many more such "mistakes" would be found if one examined the numbers closely. Enough of these mistakes, added together, almost constitute a "lie."

We should fight for the freedom to provide CSU ratepayers with the energy mix that makes the most sense for CSU. Meeting mandates arbitrarily imposed by politicos in Denver, based on nothing more than warm-and-fuzzy whim, is not a rational or responsible way to run a utility company, or to make energy policy. Will California have to completely implode before Coloradans see that this isn't the model to follow?

As troubled as I am by DA Dan May's efforts to intimidate and hassle a local business owner (whose business just happens to be legally dispensing medical marijuana), because May doesn't want the shop located in a commercially-zoned area near his neighborhood, I'm also disturbed by the DA's efforts to spread misinformation about Amendment 20 and whip up unnecessary public anxiety about the situation.

Typical was his statement in the story linked above, in which he suggests that the mere presence of a MMJ dispensary will lure innocent school children into the web of drug abuse.

"May said he “absolutely” supports medical marijuana. Dispensaries, however, are a different story.

“I have seen crimes because of dispensaries,” he said. “I’m seeing them being put up next to schools, which gives the potential to openly recruit kids out of our high schools.”

It's amazing how many people in Colorado Springs, like May, claim they support the medicinal use of marijuana, at least in theory, yet seem determined to eradicate it in practice, by making life impossible for those who grow, distribute or use it in city limits. We're not against it, they say -- we just don't want it going on anywhere in the city. It's a new form of nay-saying called Canna-NIMBYism.

It's also remarkable that some residents, like May, seem to believe that school kids will go to the trouble of getting marijuana at locked-down dispensaries, which they can't even enter without a red card, when pot and much harder drugs are far easier for these kids to acquire from schoolmates or Facebook friends. I'm not aware of one case in which a dispensary has been caught selling MMJ to minors, but I'm sure the DA knows of many, many cases of black market drug transactions that go down on or near school property. Given the much higher prevalence of illegal drug activity taking place in Colorado Springs schools, neighborhoods have much more to fear from schools than from dispensaries. Maybe, instead of creating setback rules to "protect" schools and neighborhoods from MMJ dispensaries, we should create zones of separation that protect neighborhoods from schools.

As a step-parent, I'm not oblivious to the temptations and dangers drugs pose to young people. I wrestle with many of the same issues other parents do. But I think the anxiety in this case is misdirected -- and that May's position on the dispensary issue is irrational, reactionary and will prove unconstitutional if tested in court.

If school kids are the DA's concern, he should concentrate his efforts on cleaning-up Colorado Springs schools, not hassling legal dispensary owners, operating responsibly and discretely in commercial zones. If he wants to help get a better handle on the medical marijuana situation in Colorado Springs, fearmongering and vigilantism aren't the way to go. I would suggest, instead, that Mr. May get more involved in shaping the draft ordinance produced by the Medical Marijuana Task Force, which is currently bogged-down in city bureaucracy -- a process I invited him to be a part of back in December, when we began working toward a solution. Many of the issues that tend to raise public concerns are dealt with in the ordinance. His input, even at this late date, would be welcome.

No one denies that dispensaries can become a target for criminals. But are they a bigger target than the average bank, convenience store or Subway sandwich shop? Not that I'm aware of. The police chief, when questioned at a Council meeting last week, could not produce evidence of a MMJ-related crime spree in Colorado Springs (I asked him to begin tracking such stats way back in December, when this issue first was raised during a briefing to council). The appropriate response to a crime threat isn't banning potential targets -- which would mean imposing a moratorium on banks and Subway sandwich shops in Colorado Springs -- but bolstering protection for those businesses and going after the criminals who target them. That would be a much more appropriate use of the DA's time and energy.

Dave Hughes receives well-deserved praise today in a Bill Vogrin column about his historic preservation efforts on the West side, which I support, and will continue to support, as long as these efforts remain voluntary, rather than coercive. Coercive historic preservation can lead to the kind of property rights abuses we're seeing in the Old North End historic zone, as described in a recent Gazette editorial. That effort also began with assurances that property rights would be respected, and that this was a purely voluntary exercise. But that's not how it is working out in practice.

Some North End homeowners now are captive of a process they didn't choose to participate in, and would gladly opt out of if given a choice. The case of the Christiansen's wall illustrates the injustice, pettiness and arbitrary application of silly rules that such overlay zones can bring. No matter the fate of this particular wall, it shows why residents should always preserve their right to opt out.

I don't share Vogrin's pessimism about the fate of the West Side overlay zone, since, from what I've been told, including by Hughes, most of the hardest work already has been done. It may take a little longer to get all the final pieces in place, and for West Side homeowners to apply for and receive their tax credits, when the city is short of staff, but all the pieces will come together eventually. Pride of ownership and community -- along with a pride of place Dave Hughes helped instill there -- will ensure that the West Side continues to improve in the meantime.

What began as a Colorado news story -- suburban Denver man, Chris Bartkowicz, busted by the DEA for growing medical marijuana in his home -- is quickly shaping up as something more significant, as the Denver Post explained last week. The case will not only test whether federal drug policies trump partial drug legalization that's been written into a state constitution. Even more interestingly, it will test whether Colorado conservatives like Attorney General John Suthers support states' rights in theory only, or whether they'll defend them in practice on an issue as controversial as medical marijuana.

Self-proclaimed conservatives love to prattle on about freedom and states' rights. This is a litmus test of whether they truly believe any of it.

They want government out of our lives, they say, and more freedom, but many conservatives draw back when free citizens choose to treat real or perceived maladies with medical marijuana. Country club conservatives can sip Stellas and cosmos until their heads swim, and dope themselves happy on over-the-counter narcotics and mood-enhancers. But for them, Nancy Reagan offered the last word on the drug question when she just said "no."

These conservatives say they support more autonomy for states, against encroachments by Uncle Sam. But they think Uncle Sam automatically knows best when it comes to enforcing rational drug rules, even when those rules clash with state law. They're content to see Coloradans living under the threat of DEA drug raids and federal prison sentences, for engaging in an activity that has been legal in Colorado for a decade. Conservatives also say they support the protections afforded by a written constitution. But that position gets shaky if what is written into the state constitution conflicts with their personal prejudices, or with rules from Washington they selectively approve of.

Liberals generally are content to have states living under Washington's long shadow. The more regulation the better, from their perspective. But the situation creates much bigger problems, in terms of consistently applying one's principles, for conservatives. They may rattle the chains over federal seatbelt mandates, or grumble about the absurdities of the Endangered Species Act. They will cheer if states buck Washington on a host of other issues. But they seem content to let a few agents in DEA's Denver office trample all over the Colorado Constitution by hauling Bartkowicz into federal court. They're content to have the DEA scaring the hell out of every medical marijuana patient and distributor in Colorado, though it's been legal here for a decade.

So much for personal freedom. So much for states' rights. So much for defending the state Constitution, which explicitly allows the medicinal use of marijuana, against federal interference. These sorts of Republicans aren't very different from Democrats, really; they're the kind of Republicans who led the party of freedom and limited government so far from its roots. They're the kind of Republicans who compromised their way into a minority position. And they have to rebuild the pro-freedom platform in the party's plank if they're ever going to offer a true alternative to statism.

Here's a friendly reality check for parents in Colorado Spring who worry that a medical marijuana dispensary opening in the strip mall a quarter mile away will lead their child to the life of a dopefiend.

No one under 18 can even enter one of these facilities without being a card-carrying medical marijuana patient. A facility owner who distributes marijuana to someone who isn't carrying a card faces felony drug charges. This makes dispensary owners very careful about who they deal with. The security cameras and locks on the doors are there to keep the uninvited out.

The average age of a medical marijuana patient in Colorado is 40, and most of those who use it are ill people, worried about the stigma attached to the medical treatment they choose. They're not loitering around strip malls, riding skateboards and spray-painting walls, or drawing attention to themselves. They're not criminals, or the "criminal element." They might even be the wife of your neighbor, who is suffering through chemotherapy. They just need a place to pick up their medicine and go home.

Thus, the school-age children of Colorado Springs have a far, far easier time scoring marijuana and other elicit drugs in their schools, or from Facebook friends, than from a medical marijuana dispensary. If concerned parents want to direct their anxieties in a more rational and productive direction, they should turn their attention to drug sources much closer to home. If the attorney general and other law enforcers are really interested in protecting kids from drugs, they should devote more time to crushing Mexican drug cartels than to bothering medical marijuana providers and their patients.

Does anyone else see the humor, and the irony, in Bill Vogrin's piece about the objections that some smaller Homeowners Associations are voicing to the allegedly-onerous mandates imposed on them by the state? The article even quotes Jan Doran -- who has no problem enforcing mandates on her "neighbors" via her Discovery Neighborhood Homeowners Association -- calling for "a little less-rigorous governmental involvement” in the affairs of HOAs.

I happen to agree with Doran that the state should meddle less, or not at all, in the affairs of private HOAs. But I also think HOAs should meddle less, or not at all, in the affairs of people living under them. The only reason the state got involved is that some HOAs begun wielding too much power with too little flexibility, transparency or accountability. Some people who live under HOAs feel that they've become little tyrannies, which trample property rights and other civil liberties as a result of . . . well . . . of all the mandates.

It's hard to have a lot of sympathy for meddlesome HOAs when they complain about meddling. What goes around comes around, as they say.

Unless one takes the position that the U.S. Constitution applies only part-time in certain places, but full-time everywhere else, you will be gratified to know that the Second Amendment is valid again today in national parks.

Some people argue that the right to carry firearms shouldn't apply in national parks -- these are such pristine and special places, supposedly, that Americans ought to happily waive our rights to go armed there. But national parks aren't crime- or danger-free zones. The right to defend oneself, with firearms if necessary, isn't signed away, and then magically restored, when we cross over a park boundary. And it's absurd to argue that certain provisions of the Constitution don't apply on our own "public lands," because they allegedly detract from the back-to-nature experience.

Yelling might disturb the peace and tranquility, but the First Amendment remains in full force when Americans visit our national parks. All other Constitutional protections are in full force there as well -- with one glaring exception. Bravo to those who fought to restore the full force of the Second Amendment to national park visitors.

John Andrews, writing in the Denver Post, says that the latest attack on the state's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, a federal lawsuit brought by Boulder uber-lawyer Herbert Fenster -- may actually stand a chance of success, since the issue will be decided not by the people, but by a "robed priesthood answerable to now one" (by which Andrews means federal judges). It's a barn-burner of a column, which I highly recommend. After reading it, I'm actually starting to take this threat seriously.

Andrews, by the way, will be the featured speaker at an April 28 Tax Freedom Day lunch at The Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, sponsored by The Limited Government Forum. That, too, should be a barn-burner. I'll post a link to the registration site as soon as it becomes available.

It's not uncommon for right-leaning folks to make jokes or snide comments about left-leaning Boulder: we sometimes hold it up as a point of contrast, showing what Colorado Springs could become if we aren't careful. I've been guilty of that myself.

But today I'll leave the Boulder-baiting to a Boulder insider, Deputy Mayor Ken Wilson, who is making news for saying what many of us have been thinking for a long time. Wilson's critiques became public after a personal e-mail exchange was sent to The Boulder Daily Camera. Take it away, Ken:

"Sometimes people in Boulder, at least a set of them, get arrogant about where we are and who we are," Wilson said. "I think we have a selfish and arrogant streak that we need to be careful about."

He went on to explain that he thinks the city's attitude and policies are to resist growth, and that it's self-serving to "keep people out of the city ... to limit housing to the point where middle-class and working-class people can't live here," he said. "I think that's a shame, and I think it's a selfish streak."

Wilson said he works on the council to provide more density in the city, and that to do otherwise is "pushing the problems on someone else."

"That's selfish and arrogant," he said."

You said it, Ken. Not me.

The real news isn't that Colorado Springs is suffering through a budget crunch -- that can be said for just about every city in the United States right now. The real story here -- the story I keep trying to convey to reporters who call me, the story that truly merits national attention -- is how average citizens and non-governmental entities step in to fill the void left when city services are threatened. Steve Immel's one-man initiative to help with parks maintenance, highlighted in Daniel Chacon's City Desk blog, offers one case in point. But there are dozens more I could point to (and that I do point to when I get a call from some out-of-town reporter, who only seems interested in our darkened street lights and homeless camps).

But even some local reporters can miss the story, though it's right under their noses. Wednesday's report in The Gazette about the partnership initiative had virtually nothing to say about the success stories that were reported at the Tuesday event: about the fact that friends groups have raised nearly enough funds to keep the Starsmore Center and Rock Ledge Ranch open through the year; that our aquatic centers are working with USA Swimming to come up with a new operating model: that local organizations and activists are stepping up to help our community centers through the crisis. The Gazette focused almost exclusively on the fundraising aspects of what's happening (and our supposed "pleading" for more money), though that is a secondary focus for me and only one small part of what's happening.

The Independent's Adrian Stanley understands this, resulting in the top-notch piece of reporting on the partnership efforts published today. But that's because Adrian has taken the time to study the issue, attend the meetings, get to know the people who are rolling up their sleeves to get involved. Give the piece a look, Gazette -- maybe you can find some story leads.

There are two stories we can tell about Colorado Springs. The one the national media has focused on so-far is a gloom-and-doom story of draconian budget cuts -- a cautionary tale about the municipal Armageddon that awaits cities that have relatively low taxes and vote predominantly Republican, according to the simplistic analysis of liberal reporters and pundits. Or we can provide a more balanced, positive and (in my view) accurate picture, of a city that's confronting fiscal adversity with creativity, innovation and the can-do spirit of average citizens -- people who, like Steve Immel, are stepping up to fill the void.

The problem is that some city leaders (and some on city staff) are so heavily invested in sky-is-falling thinking and rhetoric (which they used to try and sell an unsuccessful tax hike) that they can't change gears and get with the new program. We've been beating up on ourselves so much in Colorado Springs that we're reluctant to fight back when outsiders join in on the beating, in order to make some lame political point. This self-defeating sort of thinking is the biggest single barrier to getting us safely through this crisis.

So what can you do to help get involved in the Community Center partnership effort? You can start by writing out a check for $250,000 and sending it to me (actually, for $250,000 -- or even a fraction of that -- I'll come and personally pick it up).

Or, if that won't work, you can go to the Texas Roadhouse tonight (595 S. Eighth St.) and eat a big, delicious meal, knowing that 10 percent of the tab will be donated to the community center effort. Have a few extra beers (as long as you have a designated driver, of course), and don't forget dessert -- it's all for a good cause, after all.

But there are plenty of other ways of getting involved, as reported in today's Indy:

"A couple large-scale organizations have shown interest in partnering with Colorado Springs community centers, but the Community Center Task Force isn't just waiting around for a lifeline. Here's a look at its current itinerary:

Already done

Fundraisers have brought in a few thousand dollars.

SCORE, a nonprofit business counseling group, is putting together a business and marketing plan for the centers.

A volunteer submitted a $1,000 grant request to Sam's Club, and is waiting for a response.

Westside has two pending grants from local foundations.

Ongoing

Volunteers have put up a Web site — cctfsprings.org — where some task-force events are listed.

Donations are being accepted at all community centers and at ppcf.org/donate (link to "Community Development" and then "Save our Community Centers"). Donors who want their money to go to a specific center must indicate that.

At Westside, activist Dave Hughes has paid for advertising to bring in donations through the Old Colorado City Historical Society's "Save Our Community Center Fund" (history.oldcolo.com). As of Monday, his effort had raised $3,480 for Westside. "We're charging ahead," Hughes says. "Little old ladies in tennis shoes have sent in their $20 and $25."

Volunteers created a flier, and have been handing copies out door-to-door. The community centers have been distributing fliers of their own for some time now.

An instructor is teaching square dancing once a month to raise money for Westside. The events are 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on the first Fridays of the month at Westside (1628 W. Bijou St.) The cost is $2.

Talks continue with the El Pomar Foundation, local churches, restaurants, businesses, schools and military leaders.

Upcoming

Texas Roadhouse at 595 S. Eighth St. will donate 10 percent of your total purchase to the community centers Feb. 18. You must mention the promotion.

Local jeweler J P Kreations will have a Feb. 23 show at Meadows Park. Fifty percent of all sales will go to support community centers, as well as 80 percent from a special community center jewelry line. Visit jpkreations.com for more.

The Colorado Springs chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is holding two fundraisers: Youth Speak Out, at 2 p.m., Feb. 27 at Deerfield Hills (4290 Deerfield Hills Road) and the Founder's Day Celebration, at 3 p.m., Feb. 28 at Hillside (925 S. Institute St.). Contact Taraya Bland at 310-4992 or blandsclerical@yahoo.com for more information. Donations will be accepted for the centers at both events.

Texas T-Bone, at 2070 S. Academy Blvd., will donate 20 percent of your purchase to the community centers during March — if you bring a promotional flier (they're available at all the centers).

Chuck E. Cheese, at 2925 Geyser Drive, will give 15 percent of purchases made at the register to the community centers — if you mention the "Community Centers Task Force"— on March 2 from 3-9 p.m.

Hillside will hold an indoor yard sale from 8 a.m. to noon March 27. Admission is free. If you want to sell items, a 6-foot table costs $20, an 8-foot table $30.

Hillside will hold a Social Injustice Film Festival from 5 to 10 p.m., March 27. Donations will benefit the centers.

A "Gospel Explosion Concert," featuring local and regional church choirs, poets, drill teams and more will happen at the City Auditorium from 6 to 8 p.m. on March 28. Tickets are $10 and proceeds will benefit the centers.

Hope to see you at the Roadhouse tonight. But if not, please see if there are other ways you can get involved.

People should have the right to access and travel on public waterways -- this seems clear enough. But what if that waterway -- a river, for instance -- runs through private property: does it become a case of trespass if the boater comes ashore? Does one "right" trump the other?

It's not an easy question to resolve, since both rights -- the rivers user's and the property owner's -- seem legitimate. But river rafters apparently have better lobbying skills than riverside property owners do, since legislators have settled the dispute in favor of the former, over the latter.

Reports the Pueblo Chieftain:

"A bill that allows rafters to go aground on private property passed the House on Tuesday and awaits the governor's signature to become law.

Sponsored by state Rep. Kathleen Curry, unaffiliated-Gunnison, HB1188 sparked debate over commercial rafters' rights to travel public waterways and the rights of property owners.

In the end, rafters won out, as the bill passed 40-25.

The bill, if approved by Gov. Bill Ritter, would allow rafters on commercial trips to touch the banks and the riverbed as they pass through private property. Until now, rafters had been allowed to pass through private property as long as both of those steps were avoided.

Opponents of the bill said it strips property owners to their right of exclusion. State Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, said allowing rafters portage is akin to setting aside circumstances that allow trespassing through one's house, yard or car.

"Once you allow government to start saying who can and cannot come on your property, that's a very dangerous door," Sonnenberg said."

On this question, I tend to come down on the side of the property owner over the river rafter -- on the side of the individual rather than the collective. That's because we're witnessing a steady erosion of the well-defined rights of individual property owners in the United States, in favor of the much more nebulous "rights" claimed by the state and the collective. Once property rights become subject to majority rule, or the discretion of the state, they lose their former meaning. The floodgates are open to a gradual washing-away of this bedrock American value.

River rafters who were once prohibited from coming ashore on private property, without the owner's permission, will now be permitted to do so, with the permission of the state legislature. Score one more for the collective, at the expense of the individual. It may not seen like a big deal -- unless you put yourself in the property owner's place. The camel's nose is under the tent. Whether he forces his way further inside, only time will tell. But what's to stop him from doing so, if such conflicts are settled by majority rule? The collective will always be able to out-vote the individual.

Let's explore this dynamic a little closer to home -- on the city's historic north end. Sally and Holger Christiansen take great pride in their historic home on Cascade Avenue. They've spent a small fortune on loving restorations -- on making theirs a better neighborhood than it was when they arrived. It's the sort of gentrification work that ought to be cheered by city officials and the Historic Preservation Board.

But the Christiansen's ran afoul of the aesthetic enforcers on the un-elected preservation board (acting in the name of the collective) when they built a beautiful (and historically-correct) brick wall -- a piece of art, really -- that was a few inches higher than the rules allowed. They initially received a waiver for the wall from city planning, but were rejected by the historic board, in a process the Christiansen's felt was stacked against them. Before they could take their case to City Council, they were sued by the city. A judge has ruled for the city, giving the couple 90 days to chop off the top of their $150,000 wall.

The judge didn't rule on whether wall height restrictions were capriciously enforced (which evidence presented in court strongly suggests). He ducked the central issue. The Christiansen's lost because they didn't exhaust every administrative remedy before going to court. But the city sued the couple, as I understand it, not the other way around. They never made a final appeal to City Council.

No one is completely blameless in the conflict that arose -- the couple probably should have worked the process through, even though, from their point of view, it gave too much authority to a historic board that just wanted to say "no" to something. But one might ask why building a wall on one's own property requires anyone's approval -- and whether it should be contingent on the approval of an unelected board, which rules over the overlay district like a shadow government, even though there are those in the zone who opposed its creation? The injustice of the situation, as they perceived it, made the Christiansens combative, understandably. It would make me combative too.

Historic preservation efforts should be strictly voluntary, in my view, not coercive. This tips the balance of power too far in the direction of the collective, at the expense of the individual. This case illustrates the dangers of coercive preservation in the historic north end. It's why I believe individuals who found themselves in the district, sometimes against their choosing, should be given the opportunity to op-out.

Wall height rules are subjective in nature and arbitrarily enforced, in my opinion. There are walls within walking distance of the Christiansen's home, and all across the city, including in the historic overlay zone, that violate the same limits. But now the city and the historic board -- in order to make an example of the Christiansens and "win" a test of wills -- may force the couple to decapitate the wall. Score one more for the collective, over the individual.

This is the sort of thing that routinely happens in collectivist Boulder, where property rights are always subject to the whims of city officials and activist busybodies. But it would seem unthinkable in Colorado Springs, where the rights of individual property owners are still supposed to count for something, against the claims of the collectivists.

Back in my Washington days (first as spokesman for Citizens Against Government Waste and later as the "Waste and Abuse" columnist at Insight Magazine) I had several opportunities to interview then-Comptroller General David Walker, who headed-up the Government Accountability Office (formerly the General Accounting Office). Indeed, I sometimes felt as if Walker and I were partners of sorts, given how much I relied on GAO reports in the work that I did.

It's one of Washington's great ironies that the single biggest producer of government management critiques is the government itself; most notably the GAO. Wasteful practices are exposed and reform recommendations are made on a daily basis by the office, and by the inspector generals at various federal agencies. Everything from Pentagon procurement problems to the medical equipment sales fraud plaguing Medicare are reported upon. Yet it's depressingly rare that the executive or legislative branch jumps on the problems being identified. Next to the Maytag repair man, the comptroller general may be the loneliest person in Washington. But Walker brought a level of visibility to the job it never had before. People actually knew who he was. And that fell to the taxpayers' benefit.

As someone who relied on GAO reports for story ideas and source materials, I not only valued the office's role in highlighting management problems inside federal agencies, but I knew it could always be counted on for accuracy and objectivity -- something exceedingly rare in Spin City, U.S.A. Few other Washington institutions manage to maintain that kind of integrity, given the gravitation pull that partisan politics exercises on everything that takes place there. This, too, is a tribute to Walker's personality and passion for reform.

I'm delighted, therefore, that Walker agreed to be the subject for our latest LLO Interview, which can be read by following this link. I feel like we're old friends in some ways. And he's certainly been a good friend to taxpayers over the years.

The debate about the effectiveness of charter schools, vis-a-vis their conventional public school counterparts, seems never-ending. Some studies suggest they're superior; others say that's a myth. Both camps point to the anecdotes and analyses that bolster their positions. The waters remain murky.

But by one oft-overlooked but critically-important measure, parental demand, charters seem to be making the grade. Just look at today's Denver Post:

"Alma Meraz's eyes welled when her daughter's name was pulled from a cookie jar during an enrollment lottery for the high-performing West Denver Prep charter school.

"I'm so happy," said Meraz, who cleans houses for a living. "I need her to go to this school for better opportunities. For a better life."

West Denver Prep — which some parents have come to view as a first step toward college and possibly a lifeline out of poverty — is rated the second-best school in Denver.

The school's college-preparatory curriculum and swift interventions for struggling students have been touted for helping at- risk kids beat the academic odds. West Denver Prep now posts some of the best academic growth in the state.

The middle school also draws nearly double the number of applicants it can seat, meaning waiting lists are long and disappointments high during the annual school- choice enrollment period.

It's a scenario played out across the state each winter, as parents battle to get their kids into popular, high-performing schools during the choice period.

The Colorado Department of Education estimates about 38,000 children are waiting to get into Colorado charter schools. One such school, Classical Academy in Colorado Springs, has 7,800 students on its wait list."

While the so-called experts duel and debate, education consumers are speaking loud and clear. More and more Americans, if given the choice, are voting with their feet for charter schools. And that's a good enough measure of success for me.

Wyoming would seem to have a lot in common with Colorado, when you look at it on the map. It's directly to our north and about evenly split between mountains and plains. People there wear cowboy boots. Some even still work as cowboys. Both states are home to an endangered species called the Preble's meadow jumping mo . . . . oops . . . . correction: the mouse is endangered in Colorado but not in Wyoming.

But one thing Wyoming still has that Colorado seems to have lost is the wild and rebellious spirit of the old West.

It's hard to imagine a good old-fashioned sagebrush rebellion breaking out in the "new" Colorado. But the desire to be free from Washington's suffocating embrace still burns in the hearts of Wyomingites, judging from the batch of neo-federalist bills under consideration by legislators there.

I've written before about my admiration for Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat who isn't afraid to buck Washington when it's in the state's best interests. During his state of the state speech Monday, he accused the federal government of trying to "regulate everything." "The states need to be more than empty vessels whose job it is to execute federal policy," said Freudenthal. "And the only way you're going to do that is to take it very delicately and go in and try to re-establish the balance between the federal government and the states."

Can anyone imagine Bill Ritter saying that?

Whether we can "delicately" re-establish this balance is doubtful, in my view. Uncle Sam won't release his grip on Western states without a saloon-style brawl. But some Wyoming legislators seem intent on backing-up the governor's rhetoric with action.

From the AP:

CHEYENNE -- The Wyoming House of Representatives is taking the first steps toward possibly telling the federal government to back off on a range of states' rights issues, from gun control to endangered species management.

A few House members, however, warn that Wyoming shouldn't seek too much independence from a federal system that serves as a significant source of state income.

Rep. Pete Illoway, R-Cheyenne, is the main sponsor of House Joint Resolution 2. It would call on Congress to stop enacting mandates beyond the powers granted to it in the U.S. Constitution. The resolution lists federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and federal land management statutes as failing to make that cut.

The House voted 50-8 on Tuesday to clear Illoway's resolution for introduction. It takes a two-thirds vote to introduce non-budget matters in the current legislative session.

"Maybe somebody will start to listen to see that the states' rights are being taken away," Illoway said after the House vote, adding that other states have enacted similar measures. "That's really what we tried to do, to say, 'Come on, you're taking away what the Constitution gave to us . . ."

So what's on the agenda?

HB-28, the "Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act," would "provide that firearms that are made and sold within Wyoming would be exempt from federal regulations," reports the AP. House Joint Resolution 5 calls on Congress "to stop abridging states' rights, including gun rights." HB-47 "would direct the Wyoming Attorney General to consider legal action against the federal government over federal agency environmental review proceedings or endangered species issues including wolf management in the state," reports the AP.

Can anyone imagine a majority of Colorado legislators supporting such bills?

Naturally, a few ninnies worry that showing a little independence, a little defiance, could cost Wyoming federal funds -- it's the long green leash that keeps so many states from straying. Rep. James Byrd, a Democrat from Cheyenne, said that the state's access to mineral deposits on federal lands might be jeopardized, and its federal road funding might go away, if it doesn't "work with" the federal government. "So, we have to be careful as to how we phrase things and what positions we take in opposition to the federal government," said Byrd.

What a sad day we live in as Americans, and how far we've drifted from the nation's original design, when elected state leaders feel they need to tiptoe around, whispering like UN diplomats, for fear that they'll anger the sleeping giant in Washington.

I did the David Sirota radio show yesterday morning, in what one Denver media columnist hyped as a "cage match." I recount the experience in today's Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-paige/dueling-with-this-david-m_b_459464.html.

Democrats pull a lot of easy votes out of Pueblo, but that may get a little tougher to do after Statehouse Democrats rammed-through a bill that will increase the tax burden on what's left of the manufacturing sector in the state. Pueblo's remaining steel mill reportedly will see its annual tax bill jump by $2 million as a result. How many jobs that will cost, and whether it threatens the mill's future, is unknown. But it must make at least a few Pueblo Democrats wonder whether they're supporting the right party.

Republicans seized the moment to drive home the point. "To those folks at the steel mill in Pueblo, I want to apologize to you for what this body is doing," one Republican legislator said. Republican Sen. Josh Penry, from Grand Junction, scolded Sen. Abel Tapia, a Democrat from Pueblo, for supporting a bill that could cost Tapia's constituents jobs. "Stand up for the people in your district," Penry said, addressing Tapia. "Stand up for the people you represent who are facing layoffs."

But Tapia just sat there, doing the governor's bidding instead.

Democrats talk a lot about "creating jobs" and "stimulating the economy," mostly through government intervention, yet they consistently support tax and regulatory policies that destroy jobs and stultify economic growth. Perhaps this vote will help more Puebloans see the inconsistency.

The word "infuriated" doesn't accurately describe my reaction to Dave Munger's claim that CONO was somehow excluded from the task force process, or that the group's concerns were discounted. "Perturbed" might be a better word; maybe "hacked-off." "Annoyed" would have been an understatement.

But here's what had me miffed.

On the day this task force was formed (largely on a whim), Munger approached me about CONO being involved. I told him it would be, throwing out, as a possibility (not some carved-in-stone promise) that it could have three slots on the task force. Once Tom Gallagher and I began chalk-boarding a steering committee, it became clear that this would be too many slots for just one group, forcing the exclusion of other stakeholders (and other average citizens, not affiliated with this particular group) who also needed to be involved. CONO would be represented, but not over-represented, on the steering committee. The group was free to participate in all our meetings, as it saw fit. But we declined to stack a steering committee of 12 to 14 people with 3 representatives of CONO.

Munger thought that was a broken promise. But it wasn't a promise; nor was it a promise that I could make, since all I really did was serve as a facilitator for the process. CONO apparently isn't happy with just being a party to deliberations, as one among many stakeholders. It prefers to dominate the process and get its way at all costs. And it's that presumptuousness that gets my dander up.

CONO's steering committee representative is a retired pharmacist. I think his perspective was valuable to the task force's work, and valued by other participants. His viewpoints were heard, respected and taken into consideration. But he didn't prevail on every point (just as every other stakeholder group didn't prevail on every point). It was clear mid-way through the process that he had some serious reservations about medical marijuana generally, and medical marijuana growing in neighborhoods specifically, and his positions seemed to harden, and his mind to close, against counter-arguments.

Personally, I found some of his positions extreme and unworkable. He proposed at one meeting, for instance, that anyone growing medical marijuana in a home be required to disclose this to neighbors -- which would not only stir-up all sorts of unnecessary conflict, and raise security issues, but would constitute an unprecedented intrusion into privacy and property rights, in my opinion. That proposal didn't pass muster with others on the steering committee, understandably (I was there as an observer and facilitator and didn't vote on proposals). It isn't in the draft ordinance.

The man had some more reasonable suggestions, and the steering committee, at my strong urging, did make changes to proposals in deference to neighborhood concerns. We also repeatedly reminded CONO's representative that this was just the start of the larger public process, and that many of the issues he raised could and would be addressed and negotiated going forward.

The situation with small-scale grow operations in private residences requires striking a careful balance (and a willingness to compromise). Steering committee members understood that large-scale grows and selling directly out of one's home raises potential problems, but that banning these activities altogether would raise constitutional issues, stifle entrepreneurship, drive a legal activity underground and reduce supply considerably. Telling residents how many plants they can grow in their basements or spare bedrooms also raises privacy and property rights issues -- all concerns CONO's representative seemed oblivious to. I think the task force struck the right balance on this issue -- and there will be no dispensaries in residential neighborhoods, contrary to what's suggested by the inflammatory statement, about "gun battles" and such, made by Munger in this article.

CONO didn't get its way on every issue the steering committee and task force dealt with, but neighborhood concerns were frequently taken into account, often at my urging. But it's a democratic process. That requires a willingness to compromise. CONO seems more interested in dominating the process and getting its way on every point.

I hope it will assume a more reasonable stance moving forward, since what the task force proposes already includes many compromises on the part of every other participant group. But some groups think the only way they can be a player, and insert their influence, is by "winning" battles that don't have to happen if they would just be reasonable. They get so caught up in their roles as "activists," and their desire to "win," that they lose the ability to compromise. I fear CONO is drifting in that direction.

Munger's griping about being shut out of the process is not only inaccurate, but it's unfair to others who saw the process through, even though they didn't get everything they wanted either. It betrays a win-at-all-costs, we-demand-attention attitude on CONO's part I find disturbing and frustrating.

The people who use medical marijuana, or who discretely grow small amounts of it for themselves or their patients in the privacy in their own home, are also someone's "neighbors." If CONO won't take them into account, I will. These activities have been going on quietly in city neighborhoods for months and sometimes years, with no complaints (and no gun battles) until CONO baselessly declared this a problem. This creates unnecessary fear and anxiety, where it just isn't warranted. CONO would do the city a service by taking off it's "activist" hat for just a moment and putting on an educator's hat, since much of the anxiety about this industry dissipates once people take a little time to learn something about it.

But maybe CONO is more interested in digging in its heals, closing minds and exercising "clout" than in collaborating on a compromise everyone can live with. Others on City Council may be comfortable with this, and with kowtowing to CONO, but I'm not.

It was reported several weeks back that the beetle blight sweeping through Colorado is slowing somewhat. The bad news behind the "good news" is this: It's slowing because huge swaths of forest are dead and the hungry little buggers are running out of food. How much of this calamity is "natural," and how much man-made, isn't much discussed (especially by those who might have the fingers pointed in their direction). I'm of the school -- having first written about the forest health crisis back in the late 1990s -- that the conditions for the crisis were largely the result of policy choices, and that much of the devastation could have been contained with aggressive and focused federal action.

That action didn't come, in my opinion, because of bureaucratic and political inertia, red tape, "analysis paralysis," the obstructionism of the environmental lobby (which won't even tolerate tree cutting designed to save forests) and the pusillanimous politicians who kow-tow to the extremist element. Maddening stories such as this one show that federal responsiveness has not improved, despite recent rhetorical support for "responding to the crisis."

Reports The Pueblo Chieftain:

"Officials with the Rio Grande National Forest are still waiting to see whether their forest will benefit from $30 million the Forest Service has set aside to fight bark beetle outbreaks statewide.

The agency's regional office in Denver recently earmarked $2 million from that pie for spruce beetle outbreaks and other forest health issues in Southern Colorado and the Western Slope.

Janelle Smith, a spokeswoman for the regional office, said there was no timeline for when a decision would be made on how to divide the $2 million, which could be spread across as many as three national forests.

Aerial survey results released last month show that spruce beetles have chewed through at least 144,000 acres on the Rio Grande, which surrounds much of the San Luis Valley.

But foresters suspect the outbreak may be even larger since the initial stages of infestation are not visible from the air, said Mike Blakeman, a public affairs officer with the Rio Grande."

The beetles have leisurely eaten their way across Colorado, devastating landscapes that are this state's most precious resource and biggest tourist draw. Yet the Forest Service is taking it's sweet time about doling out the meager funds belatedly made available. The Denver Post reports that another $30 million will soon be flowing to the state, but this will be used not to counter the epidemic, or save our remaining forests, but to clean up after the beetles and spruce-up the emerging moonscape. Senator Mark Udall called this a "huge win" for the state -- which is a little like saying Little Big Horn was a huge win for Gen. Custer.

This is more than a disaster: it's a national disgrace. It's Katrina in slow motion, but with a federal response even more unforgivable, since it has had years, not days or weeks, in which to react. And it's a direct result of the inability (or is it the unwillingness?) of Washington to responsibly manage lands it holds in trust for the rest of us.

So, the next time someone tells you that adding new acreage to the massive federal domain will lead to more "protection," laugh in their face. What's happening in Colorado and elsewhere across the West proves that the surest way to wreck a beautiful landscape is to put your incompetent Uncle Sam in charge.

Human fireball Michelle Malkin weighed-in this morning in defense of her new home town, Colorado Springs, picking up on a piece I did at The Huffington Post: Link. She even puts in a plug for Local Liberty Online.

Thanks, Michelle.

Columnist David Sirota is trying to turn a budget crunch in Colorado Springs into a broader indictment of the conservatives who live here. I counter his slurs, and correct the record, in the Denver Huffington Post: Link.

Here's a teaser:

"The Denver Post parachuted a reporter in several weeks back, who painted an excessively grim picture of circumstances. That got picked up on and accentuated by ABC News. That's how Colorado Springs became the poster child for conservatism gone wild, and gone wrong. But the city is far from the desolate and desperate place portrayed. It's adapting to fiscal adversity with creativity and a can-do spirit. And it's still leagues ahead, in terms of livability and quality of life, of most places from which the ideological sniping comes."

Read the rest at The Huffington Post.

Users of our LLO news aggregators (left column on the home page) may notice that we're linking less to content from the Wall Street Journal. That's because the paper has begun charging for what it once gave away for nothing, by restricting certain on-line content to subscribers only. Journal owner Rupert Murdoch signaled his intent to do so, and explained his reasons why, back in December (I blogged on the issue in depth back then).

His piece is worth re-reading by anyone interested in the future of media. It's a written warning that the Golden Age of free media content (of public freeloading off news producers) is coming to a close. WSJ pieces like this one, which I would like to post on our news aggregators, now will cost money, where formerly they were "free."

But nothing really is "free," as the economist Milton Friedman taught. Only economic illiterates don't know better. There's no such thing as a free news story, just as there's no such thing as a free lunch.

We value WSJ content, and frequently link to it, but we can't afford to subscribe at this time. I'm not too deeply disappointed with this development, though, because I recognize that charging for on-line content may be the only way that many "print media" companies will survive in the "new media" era. This change is terribly inconvenient for new consumers who relish all the free content we can pull off the web with a click of the mouse, and the move toward pay-for-content, once it spreads, may eventually make it too costly to do news aggregation of the kind we do on this site.

But generating good journalism isn't a cost-free endeavor. It will go away if people aren't willing to pay for it. And the freeloading en mass must end.

Legislators wisely declined another invitation to fight over water Friday, when they voted down a bill, floated by Pueblo's Sal Pace, requiring that reparations be paid (Pace's preferred euphemism is "mitigation") when out-of-basin water transfers take place. Pace blamed the surprise defeat of HB1159 on a lack of understanding of what the bill was really about (it's about "shakedowns," in a word). But a majority understood this much -- that it was designed to increase water conflicts in the state, when we have plenty already, which will only shackle Colorado's ability to deal with future water challenges.

You'll have to get the details in The Pueblo Chieftain, however, since The Gazette's coverage of water issues extends no further afield than Shooks Run.

I suppose I’m partially to blame for all the focus and speculation about who will be picked to serve on the Memorial Health System Citizens’ Commission (or whatever it’s called), since I made statements early-on about the perception that City Council picks “pet people” for such panels. But I think my friend Barry Noreen is finding drama and “secrecy” where none exist, at least from my vantage point.

The interviews yesterday and today are open meetings, by vote of Council. The vote for openness wasn’t close. I can’t prove it, of course, but I think the vote would have been the same even if The Gazette hadn’t made an issue of the fact that we had a choice. So there’s no “secrecy” in the interview process. The names of all the candidates have been known for weeks, and were published in The Gazette. No "secrecy" there either.

We’re declining to provide the media with the top ten lists drawn up by each councilperson, and I will support deliberating behind closed doors once all the interviews are done and we begin making final cuts. That’s because it would be hard to have candid discussions about winnowing the list if everything we thought and said about every candidate becomes public. It’s inconsiderate to the candidates, who didn’t sign-on to having their perceived strengths or weaknesses aired in public. A lot of feelings could needlessly be hurt. As a former journalist, who has gone to battle many times in favor of government transparency (remember the bus audit case?), I believe in maintaining as much openness as possible. But occasionally there’s a need for confidential discussions.

My hesitation with sharing my top ten list is that some people might take it personally if they aren't on it, or were ranked lower than they think they should be. I made my initial picks based largely on a cover letter and resume. These are subjective and instinctive judgments, and my opinions may change based on the interviews. Making the lists public would shed very little light on the process (for reasons I'll elaborate on in a moment), while having a high likelihood of needlessly bruising egos and hurting feelings. In this case, I side with the need for confidentiality.

I’m sure Gazette journalists would insist on a secret ballot if they were asked to rank the best writers or editors in the newsroom, recognizing the hard feelings that would result if all the rankings were posted on a bulletin board. Much of the same concerns apply here.

The Gazette wanted the top 10 lists “because they would reflect the agendas of the council members when it comes to the hospital,” according to Barry. “Having the lists would show whether members of the council might have been coordinating their efforts so they could stack the panel with appointees favoring a “sell” or “don’t sell” position. It’s the sort of back-room maneuvering politicians never want you to see.”

But that over-dramatizes the situation. I have detected no effort at “coordination” in the process, thus-far. I shared my list with no one else on Council. No one else shared a list with me. And when I look through the lists of my colleagues – in which we were supposed to rank our candidates in order of preference – I see no pattern suggesting a conspiracy. A number of candidates got picked more than others did, but never in the same order, and I can’t detect any pattern, if there is one. Moreover, it was hard from reading resumes and cover letters to determine where a candidate might stand on the “Sell - not sell” question; nor did I detect a strong bias in those we interviewed yesterday. And even if some did have a bias, stacking the deck with one faction or another would take a level of planning and plotting that just doesn’t seem possible. It would also be somewhat pointless, since this is a steering committee, not a policy-making group.

What I meant with my “pet people” remark wasn’t that we on Council shouldn’t have preferences, but that I’ve grown a little tired of seeing the same old faces, many of whom are known commodities with predictable attitudes, showing up on such boards. This time, I would simply like to see some new faces, with some fresh ideas and attitudes, added into the mix. And that’s one of the things I have been looking for as we move through the process.

It's going to be hard for Andrew Romanoff to get to the left of Sen. Micheal Bennet, as he mounts a primary challenge for the seat. That would practically push Romanoff into the Abbie Hoffman wing of the party. But he's giving it his best shot.

In Pueblo Yesterday, Romanoff tried to sound even more anti-Pinon Canyon than Bennet is, hoping to curry favor, no doubt, with those who take the military's continued presence in the state for granted. "We need a total ban on (the Army) expanding Pinon Canyon," Romanoff said in an interview. "The ranchers down there deserve to have this fight come to an end once and for all."

Whether that's emphatic enough to put some distance between himself and Bennet is unclear. "While Sens. Mark Udall and Bennet, both Democrats, have voted for annual funding bans blocking any expansion, neither senator has gone so far as Romanoff, ruling out any future consideration,"reports The Pueblo Chieftain. But it's undoubtedly emphatic enough to send another anti-military message from Colorado back to The Pentagon, which can only serve to antagonize and alienate a major employer and economic driver in El Paso County and the state.

While it's true that a number of other prominent Democrats (including Bill Ritter, Rep. John Salazar and now-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar) have been more measured in their rhetoric, they've done everything possible to scuttle expansion, short of simply saying "no." The anti-military message is being read loud and clear back in Washington: Some say that it cost us the opportunity to host Cyber Command, as well as thousands of soldiers that were headed for Fort Carson before Democrats began using Pinon Canyon as a political pinata.

This is Colorado, not California, yet too many of our leaders and representatives speak and act as if they come from the latter rather than the former. And that will come back to haunt us, big time, next time The Pentagon looks around for some military bases to close.

As a step parent to teens, who operate in a world where drugs are readily available and frequently abused, I read opinion pieces like this one with genuine anxiety. I wonder whether I'm sending them the wrong signals by defending the right of adults to responsibly use medicinal marijuana, as approved by Colorado voters in the year 2000. The issue, in my view, is personal freedom -- that's what I'm an advocate for, not medical marijuana. But I know such distinctions can get blurred in the debate.

Am I inadvertently giving my step children a green light to use drugs by taking this position, as the columnist suggests? I wrestle with that question, but still come down on the side I'm on. My belief in the virtue and value of personal freedom in this case trumps my fear that liberty will lead to license. I want them to grow up free, even if freedom has risks. I want them to use their freedom wisely and responsibly, but there are no guarantees. This is what makes freedom a more perilous course than control, rules and regimentation.

Our desire as parents is to minimize freedom’s dangers by maintaining control, through cajoling, counseling or threat of force and punishment, if necessary. And this serves as a metaphor for the tensions that arise in a free society at large. The paternalists among us want to extend those risk-mitigation controls beyond adolescence, to the adult population – from cradle-to-grave if possible -- because they don’t trust people to make responsible choices. But such paternalism takes a heavy toll on our freedoms over time, which brings a danger arguably more menacing, which some call the Nanny State.

I follow a simple rule of thumb when wrestling with such issues: When in doubt, err on the side of freedom. That's because I fear overweening state tyranny, disguised as paternalism, more than I fear the messiness and riskiness of freedom.

The Denver Post today picked up on a bright idea being floated at the Statehouse: A bill that would establish a panel of business experts, which would advise state government on how it can operate in a more innovative, efficient, cost-effective manner.

"Legislation filed Monday would form two panels plucked from the business world: one to scrutinize and reduce the cost of regulations and another to find where there are redundancies between state and other government services.

Republican sponsor Sen. Mike Kopp said the legislation will shed fresh light on a multi-year budget crunch and take away some of the partisanship and politics from program cuts.

“The idea is to lean up state government so it costs taxpayers less to run,” Kopp said. “I only wish we were halfway through the process already.”. . .

... Also supporting the legislation are Democratic Sens. Linda Newell and Mike Johnston.

Johnston, of Denver, said it’s an opportunity to get insight from people whose job it is to run businesses efficiently and comes at a time when those same people are being asked to shoulder heavier tax burdens. The legislature is set to yank a number of tax breaks from private industry.

“At this point, given the budget hole, there’s nothing that can be off the table,” Johnston said. “I like that (the bill) is not presuming any villains in the process. The spirit is right: Let’s lead by looking at ourselves first.”

Now why didn't we in Colorado Springs think of that?

Actually, we did think of it, picking up on a suggestion made by Broadmoor CEO Steve Bartolin in a much talked- about letter. The so-called City Committee will perform a function similar to the panels described in the article, with some of the same goals in mind, and it should be up and running in only a few weeks, once members have been selected. I think such collaborative efforts really can help the state and city rethink the way they do things, adopting lessons from the private sector.

I'll keep readers in the loop as this interesting experiment unfolds.

Government is America's only remaining growth industry -- the only part of the economy that continues to expand even as the private sector (the "competitive sector," as one friend calls it) contracts. It's not very surprising, therefore, that government sector unions have now eclipsed competitive sector counterparts in terms of membership numbers. While overall U.S. union membership continues to fall, tracking the downward trajectory of old line industries (industries that unions helped destroy), the numbers are rising where the growth is -- in government. The Wall Street Journal makes note of this trend, and explores some of the implications, on today's editorial page.

"In private industries, union workers are subject to the vagaries of the marketplace and economic growth. Thus in 2009 10.1% of private union jobs were eliminated, which was more than twice the 4.4% rate of overall private job losses. On the other hand, government unions offer what is close to lifetime job security and benefits, subject only to gross dereliction of duty. Once a city or state's workers are organized by a union, the jobs almost never go away.

This means government is the main playing field of modern unionism, which explains why the AFL-CIO and SEIU have become advocates for higher taxes and government expansion in cities, states and Washington. Unions once saw their main task as negotiating a bigger share of an individual firm's profits. Now the movement's main goal is securing a larger share of the overall private economy's wealth, which means pitting government employees against middle-class taxpayers.

And as union membership has grown in government, so has union clout in pushing politicians (especially but not solely Democrats) for higher wages and benefits. This is why labor chiefs Andy Stern (SEIU) and Rich Trumka (AFL-CIO) could order Democrats to exempt unions from ObamaCare's tax increase on high-cost health insurance plans. To the extent Democrats have become the party of government, they have become ever more beholden to public unions.

The problem for democracy is that this creates a self-reinforcing cycle of higher spending and taxes. The unions help elect politicians, who repay the unions with more pay and benefits and dues-paying members, who in turn help to re-elect those politicians."

With American manufacturing pretty much on its knees, brought low by self-inflicted and government-inflicted wounds (as opposed to the usual bogeymen of free trade and globalization), the only fertile place left for unionism to grow is in the government sector. That not only is turning unions into a major lobby for higher taxes and government growth, as the editorial points out. It also increases the difficulty of reining-in government, and reforming government, when the "taxpayer sector" balks at paying more.

That dynamic can be seen not just at the federal level, but at the state and local levels as well, as the revolt against furloughs in Pueblo County and the ongoing sniping over public sector pay in Colorado Springs prove.

The city attorney sent an e-mail around Friday, heralding the city's latest victory in court. It was nothing to be proud of, in my opinion.

District Court Judge Timothy Simmons has given Holger and Sally Christiansen -- who reside at 1221 N. Cascade Avenue, in the city of Colorado Springs, which when last I checked was in the United States of America, a nation which some brag-on as "the land of the free" -- 90 days to tear down parts of a wall surrounding their home. Why? Because the wall exceeds arbitrary and subjective aesthetic rules approved without the couple's consent, as part of the old north end historic overlay zone, and enforced by an unelected body known as The Historic Preservation Board. The Christiansens lost because they didn't exhaust every possible administrative remedy before taking the city and its zoning rules to court. This, ruled the judge, effectively nullified their claim that the city was enforcing wall-height rules in an arbitrary and capricious manner, which constituted unequal treatment under the law.

But the Christiansens, by the time they took the case to court, had obviously lost faith in an administrative process they believed was rigged against them. A reading of the case history suggests that the Christiansens, when they went to the Historic Preservation Board asking for a little flexibility, faced what amounts to a kangaroo court. Here's some of the history, as recounted in Friday's ruling (I've italicized some passages for emphasis):

Most people who live on the north end are drawn there by the ambiance. They can be trusted to manage their properties in a manner that maintains that charm, and enhances property values, without a bunch of nosy neighbors, or the city of Colorado Springs, dictating terms. This became a charming part of town, and would likely remain so forever, without the need for rigid mandates. But the control freaks have in this case gained the upper hand. And a judge -- a judge who is supposed to uphold justice and safeguard our rights -- in this case found in their favor.

I would have voted to leave the wall (and the Christiansens) alone, because I believe property rights are grants from God guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, not contingent on a majority vote of neighbors. I oppose any historic overlay zone that isn't voluntary in nature. I would like to see an opt-out clause written into the north end overlay zone, retroactively. And I'll be pushing for such a change as a result of this unjust and unfortunate ruling.

Douglas Bruce loves the limelight, as we in Colorado Springs know all-too-well, so his reluctance to take ownership of several statewide ballot measures that have his fingerprints all over them is a little odd, as Gazette columnist Barry Noreen noted Sunday. Coming off a recent victory with Issue 300, and a court win on the petitioning issue, Bruce has been strutting around town like the rooster who rules the roost. Yet he's gone to great lengths to conceal his involvement with the statewide measures. The Gazette through some solid reporting has now made the connections more obvious. Yet Bruce continues to duck and dodge.

Why all the secrecy? I have a couple theories.

Bruce had been on a losing streak at the local ballot box until 300 squeaked by. The only reason he carried the day this time is that 300 shared the ballot with the overwhelmingly unpopular 2-C. Folks who turned out to kill the "rain tax" weren't going to vote for the 2-C tax, and vice versa. Thus, ironically, Jan Martin is as responsible for passing 300 as Douglas Bruce is.

Bruce remains a polarizing figure despite his recent win, and his association with a ballot measure, under normal circumstances, is likely to work against it. Bruce's ego isn't so big that he doesn't recognize this. He's thus taken to using strawmen -- "fronts" in a word -- to advance his agenda, when he can find them. I know this because he once approached me about serving in such a capacity. I declined the invitation.

The second possible reason for all the secrecy is that he's been skirting the letter or spirit of election integrity rules -- a possibility raised by the Gazette's reporting -- and just doesn't want close public scrutiny of how the Bruce machine works. This might raise questions not only about the statewide ballot measures, but about local ones too, since Bruce used the same petition-gathering techniques to help get Issue 300 on the ballot. Would any bending or breaking of rules nullify the win for Issue 300? I don't think so. But it might place a taint on the outcome, and remove some of the gloss from Bruce's win. That's reason enough for him to bristle at such questions.

Many of these campaign-related rules are idiotic and nit-picking, no doubt. But as long as they're on the books they ought to be followed. Bruce has come before Council on several recent occasions, blasting the City Clerk for her alleged failure to punish a violation of campaign rules by those who opposed Issue 300 -- so he's a stickler for details when it suits him. He ought to stop dodging and weaving and evading answers on the signature-gathering issue and show that he's in compliance with the rules. If he's done nothing improper, all the secrecy seems unnecessary.

This would be the consistent thing, and the right thing, for Bruce to do.

President Obama was sounding bullish on nuclear energy in his State of the Union speech, but he's been sheepish on the storage of spent nuclear fuels, having driven a stake in the heart of the best option available, at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Last week he was calling for new power plants; a budget he released this week didn't include a dime for dealing realistically with the hazardous byproducts.The gap between rhetoric and reality is jarring, even for Obama.

It's evidently a ploy to win Republican support for a climate bill, as this Washington Post piece suggests. It may also be a case of the president chasing the polls, in a bid to recapture the middle. But Obama's credibility on the issue is shaky at best.

The president made killing Yucca Mountain a campaign promise, in a bid to woo Nevada voters and curry favor with gang green. It's one campaign promise he actually kept. Now, one year later, having dealt the prospect of a nuclear energy revival a staggering blow, he comes out in the State of the Union as an advocate for new plants. He's a champion of nuclear power, rhetorically, but opposes the most logical and secure waste storage option available -- a solution he nixed after decades of study and tens of billions of dollars were spent. Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?

The president proposes "a tripling of government loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors to more than $54 billion," reports Reuters. Yet the Department Of Energy has been dragging its feet on releasing loan guarantees already available. Loan guarantees aren't enough if power providers have no assurance that the regulatory and political climate will remain as hostile as it has been. And no such assurances are possible when the president says one thing and does another.

The president also announced the "formation of a panel to consider the future of nuclear waste storage, including alternatives to a proposed site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada," Reuters reports -- which sends the country back to a drawing board it began scribbling on 30 years ago. The panel will explore every option -- except the most obvious one. It's not allowed to revisit Yucca Mountain. Dusted-off Washington retreads Lee Hamilton and Brent Scowcroft will lead the effort. I guess James Baker was unavailable. Who else would chair a blue ribbon commission that begins its work with its hands tied behind its back?

You can begin work on a new generation of nuclear power plants without resolving the waste storage problem, at least in the short-run, but that's risky, given the strength of the no-nukes lobby. Going back to the drawing board erroneously presumes that no-nukers will embrace a better solution, which they won't.

Republicans should insist that Obama reverse his position on Yucca Mountain before they even consider support for a climate measure. Anything less and they're being played for suckers.

An awareness has been growing in recent years about the oppressive nature of many homeowners associations (or HOAs), which has in turn led to a number of legislative responses, dragging the state into a realm where it really doesn't belong. There's a better and quicker solution for most of these problems, however, as today's "Side Streets" column illustrates: It's called democracy.

If you're not happy with how your association is run; if the people in control of it act like petty despots; if your neighborhood covenants, and the people who enforce them, prevent you from having keg parties on your own back patio; if your property rights are being trampled by the too-much-time-on-his-hands busybody 3 doors down -- there's a viable (and legal) alternative to this state of affairs, other than violence (as tempting as that might be). Most HOAs and the rules they enforce are amenable to alteration by a majority of association members, if they are organized and motivated enough to change them. The petty despots can be overthrown, in short, without a single shot being fired.

If a little good old democracy doesn't end the tyranny, there's another alternative -- move to a neighborhood where individual freedom and property rights still take precedent over regimentation and control. Some of those still exist, from what I've heard. Your new neighbor might permanently park his trashed-out Winnebago on the street, but then he can't raise a stink when you paint your window awnings bright pink.

I take no personal delight in the death of histrionic "historian" Howard Zinn, despite the unhealthy and warping influence his revisionist, left-leaning text books have had on an untold number of school kids. I only wish his "People's History of the United States" could so easily be expunged from school bookshelves.

The propaganda will outlive the propagandist, unfortunately. That's what grieves me the most.

So far out of the mainstream was Zinn's interpretation of U.S. history that even the late Arthur Schlesinger Jr. -- no slouch as a liberal -- called Zinn a "polemicist, not a historian." Yet that never prevented Zinn's texts from winning wide acceptance among educrats, who inflicted his politically-motivated distortions on impressionable young minds. He also developing a cult following among the fashionably left wing, including fellow revisionist Oliver Stone, as the following write-up indicates.

From the Associated Press:

Howard Zinn, an author, teacher and political activist whose leftist "A People's History of the United States" sold millions of copies to become an alternative to mainstream texts and a favorite of such celebrities as Bruce Springsteen and Ben Affleck, died Wednesday. He was 87.

Zinn died of a heart attack in Santa Monica, Calif., daughter Myla Kabat-Zinn said.

Published in 1980 with little promotion and a first printing of 5,000, "A People's History" was — fittingly — a people's bestseller, attracting a wide audience through word of mouth and reaching 1 million sales in 2003. Although Zinn was writing for a general readership, his book was taught in high schools and colleges throughout the country, and numerous companion editions were published, including "Voices of a People's History" and a volume for young people.

At a time when few politicians dared even call themselves liberal, "A People's History" told an openly left-wing story. Zinn charged Christopher Columbus and other explorers with genocide, picked apart presidents from Andrew Jackson to Franklin D. Roosevelt and celebrated workers, feminists and war resisters.

Even liberal historians were uneasy with Zinn. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. once said: "I know he regards me as a dangerous reactionary. And I don't take him very seriously. He's a polemicist, not a historian."

In a 1998 interview with The Associated Press, Zinn acknowledged he was not trying to write an objective history, or a complete one. He called his book a response to traditional works, the first chapter — not the last — of a new kind of history.

"There's no such thing as a whole story; every story is incomplete," Zinn said. "My idea was the orthodox viewpoint has already been done a thousand times."

"A People's History" had some famous admirers, including Matt Damon and Affleck. The two grew up near Zinn, were family friends and gave the book a plug in their Academy Award-winning screenplay for "Good Will Hunting." When Affleck nearly married Jennifer Lopez, Zinn was on the guest list.

Oliver Stone was a fan, as well as Springsteen, whose bleak "Nebraska" album was inspired in part by "A People's History." The book also inspired a 2007 documentary, "Profit Motive and the Whispering Wind." It even showed up on "The Sopranos," in the hand of Tony's son, A.J.

Zinn himself was an impressive-looking man, tall and rugged with wavy silver-gray hair. An experienced public speaker, he was modest and engaging in person, more interested in persuasion than in confrontation.

That Zinn became the teacher of so many American students is another indictment of a system that often seems more interested in political indoctrination than real education.

The Colorado Springs Business Journal this afternoon posted the following response from Broadmoor CEO Steve Bartolin to the Colorado Springs City Council, which late last week asked Bartolin to create a business practices advisory group to the city:

Much has been said and written about my November letter to City Council. In that letter, intended for their eyes only (but quickly went “viral”, as they say), I shared my thoughts about looking at the city’s budget situation in a different way.

My intention was more to inspire a new way of looking at government, much the way all organizations (private and public) and families must do now given the times, as it was to offer up some specific ideas on operating more efficiently and reducing costs. I will be the first to admit that comparing the operations of the resort hotel business are not the same as running a government - yet there are similarities with the resort business as well as all businesses.

I think the city does a fine job overall with their service delivery — police and fire, in particular, are exceptional — while working under some pretty difficult circumstances. How do you maintain or even improve the delivery of city services within a cost structure the taxpayers will support? I advanced some thoughts on this; some that may have footing and some that may not. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but it seems that an honest and sincere look at how the city operates strategically, organizationally and financially can better provide a long term solution versus annual random budget cutting.

So what’s happening? Together with our District 2 Councilman Sean Paige and local businessman Chuck Fowler, we have formed The City Committee, which will systematically study the business policies and operations of municipal government and Colorado Springs Utilities. Chuck will serve as chairman of the group and Sean will coordinate and manage the Committee’s relationship with City Council and city staff. I will serve as a member of the Committee and help and support Sean and Chuck and other members in any way that I can. We will ask a selection of local business people to join us as we research, analyze, discuss and hopefully offer up some recommendations to City Council for their deliberation and possible action. I feel that it is important for citizens and community leaders to understand that participants in this effort will be recruited for their expertise and creativity in their business specialties — be that finance, personnel, marketing, contracting, public relations, technology, etc. - tasks that also make up the daily routines of our civic administrators. The work of this Committee cannot be successful without the support and conviction of the city administration, and I truly appreciate the Mayor’s and Council’s pledge to cooperate with us.

When the economic climate becomes difficult, some organizations do better than others. By tapping the entrepreneurial survival instincts of those who run these organizations, my thought is we can help our city managers versus hurling criticism from the sidelines. Please know that I have the greatest respect for the people in government and the work that they do. Operating in this climate cannot be much fun for them either.

We are a private committee and not relying on taxpayer funding. Nonetheless, we believe our work is public in nature and we will organize a website to publish our pursuits and findings. All Colorado Springs citizens are encouraged to share their own ideas and comments at the site. Please look for a press announcement soon for the launch of the website.

My letter was not intended to be a criticism of the Council or city government; it was intended to be constructive and, in that vein, I hope it has opened a window of opportunity and that good can come from it.

- Steve Bartolin

This should speak for itself. Lionel is writing on behalf of City Council, all of whom endorse this letter. See my earlier posts on the Steve Bartolin letter for more context.

January 19, 2010

Steve Bartolin, President and CEO

The Broadmoor Hotel

1 Lake Avenue

Colorado Springs, CO 80906

Dear Mr. Bartolin:

I'm writing on behalf of City Council to thank you for your letter of late last year. We welcome constructive suggestions whether they come from average citizens or experienced professionals, from City insiders or outside observers. It’s why we would like to take you up on your offer of help.

Municipal governments across the country are in fiscal straights and we can’t afford to ignore any good ideas about how to operate in a more efficient and innovative manner. Meeting our challenges will require a collective and collaborative approach, employing the best people available, no matter their backgrounds or areas of expertise.

The proposals made in the letter are a start but we would like to take the collaboration a step further by asking that you create an independent advisory group, consisting of volunteer business professionals from various backgrounds, to consult with the City on two key issues, at least initially.

First, we would like recommendations on improving internal City/CSU operations by employing more business-like practices where they apply. In your letter you suggested a review of benefit and pension plan costs, CSU human resource departments, the City IT department, CSU communications department, expenditures on vehicles and many others areas. Any area where the City/CSU could be run in a better and more cost-effective manner, where services could be delivered more quickly and efficiently, where manpower and resources could be used more wisely, might be explored.

Second, your group can look for any government-created barriers to entrepreneurship, enterprise and job-creation in Colorado Springs, with an eye toward making this the most business-friendly City in the country. A vibrant local economy is critical to the City’s fiscal viability and quality of life. Everything else hinges on that. Who better to help the City improve its business climate than those who actually do business in the City?

Whether the group serves as a clearinghouse for existing ideas, or dives in deeper and develops proposals of its own, is up to you. But the faster these ideas come forward, the better, given the City’s budget crunch. We can’t promise in advance that every proposal will be acted upon. However, we do pledge to give our serious and thoughtful consideration to the advisory group’s work and implement recommendations when feasible.

We leave it to you to select group members, name a chairman, write a mission statement, establish priorities, etc. We only ask that members come from a variety of business backgrounds; that they be people who can work collaboratively and collegially with City Council and City staff; that the only agenda they bring to the job is a sincere desire not just to help the City through this crisis but to create a better operating model for Colorado Springs in the 21^st Century.

In exchange for its time, energy and ideas, the City pledges access, cooperation and implementation, where the ideas are found to be sound. We see this not as just another lumbering blue ribbon commission but as an unpaid business practices consulting firm to the City, consisting of individuals who call this City home and care deeply about its future.

It’s a novel approach to problem-solving, no doubt. But that’s the sort of thing we’ll need more of moving forward. We hope you will seriously consider this request. We stand ready to answer your questions and to work through details.

Thank you, again, for stepping forward, Mr. Bartolin. We think something truly exciting and innovative could come from this.

Respectfully,

Mayor Lionel Rivera

City of Colorado Springs

Heading out to Miami today for a funeral -- which is why my blogging will be sporadic (and possibly non-existent) over the next 3 or 4 days. I got a pretty good deal on a rental car, with a daily rate of around $25, which should cost me around $100 for 4 days. But when all the taxes, fees and other charges are tacked-on, the total price jumps by nearly 50 percent!

Here are the add-ons:

Facility Charge $15.80

Concession Fee Rec $10.56

The Gazette's Dan Chacon has the latest on the Bartolin letter story at his City Desk blog: link. No need to re-write it here.

I won't be posting the content of the letter until Mr. Bartolin sees it. But I will say I think it shows that the city is open to all ideas from all who offer them, on how we can run it and its enterprises in a more innovative and efficient manner. There's a perception out there -- unfair and inaccurate in my opinion -- that we on Council somehow snubbed Mr. Bartolin: read this post for more context. I will concede that we could have responded, in a more unified fashion, with more speed. But we have now responded as a body.

That said, I think this letter opens the door to some exciting collaborative opportunities moving forward.

So stay tuned for further developments.

Instead of just sitting in the cheap seats, throwing tomatoes, Seth Richardson, writer of the Gazette's Broadside blog, has taken the time to draft an implementing ordinance for Issue 300. And it actually looks pretty good to me. It's a little irregular, taking pointers on policy-making from the media. But what the hell; anything that will help us through our present impasse is worth looking at.

One potential virtue of Richardson's ordinance, as I read it, is that it makes clear that Issue 300 cannot override the City Charter on several key matter. Conflicts between Issue 300 and the City Charter are one major sticking point. Council is making a good faith effort to comply with the "will of the voters," as we interpret it -- we've ended the stormwater enterprise and begun the phasing-out of PILT. But we can't approve an implementing ordinance that doesn't clarify now-vague definitions. Nor can we approve an ordinance that's in conflict with the charter.

Talks are taking place between city staff and Douglas Bruce this week, to see if differences of opinion on such matters can be resolved -- something a few of my Council colleagues believe is impossible, given the bad blood between Bruce and the city. But I hold out hope that a reasonable accommodation (note that I did not use the word "compromise") can be achieved. I'll probably be disappointed.

If not, I'm prepared to vote on an ordinance that is as clearly written, and as close to a compromise (without violating the Charter), as possible. If Bruce doesn't like it, and refuses to be reasonable, let the legal battle commence. Maybe that was an unavoidable outcome, given the diabolically vague way this ballot measure was written. But no one can say the city didn't do everything in its power to avoid that outcome.

Thanks for weighing in, Seth. We can use all the suggestions we get. I'll circulate your draft among my colleagues and key city staff.

The debate over the legality of medical marijuana was settled by Colorado voters way back in the year 2000, when they wrote partial legalization, for medical purposes, into the state Constitution. But voters didn't and couldn't settle the question of whether medicinal marijuana actually helps people, and works as advertised -- something that opponents of legalization continue to raise doubts about. Hundreds of thousands of Americans seem to think MMJ helps them in some way: thus the explosion of dispensaries and grow operations in states where it's legal (which include New Jersey, as of yesterday). Yet doubters and scoffers still abound, who believe this is all a massive scam, perpetrated by potheads who just want to get the law off their backs.

One major reason the science remains unsettled, and the debate rages on, is the federal government's "just say no" policy on the study of medical marijuana, spotlighted in this story in today's New York Times. The hurdles the feds have erected to MMJ-related research allow legalization opponents to continually raise doubts about efficacy even while blocking studies that might help settle the question.

Talk about a massive scam.

Here's an excerpt from the Times:

"Despite the Obama administration’s tacit support of more liberal state medical marijuana laws, the federal government still discourages research into the medicinal uses of smoked marijuana. That may be one reason that — even though some patients swear by it — there is no good scientific evidence that legalizing marijuana’s use provides any benefits over current therapies.

Lyle E. Craker, a professor of plant sciences at the University of Massachusetts, has been trying to get permission from federal authorities for nearly nine years to grow a supply of the plant that he could study and provide to researchers for clinical trials.

But the Drug Enforcement Administration — more concerned about abuse than potential benefits — has refused, even after the agency’s own administrative law judge ruled in 2007 that Dr. Craker’s application should be approved, and even after Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in March ended the Bush administration’s policy of raiding dispensers of medical marijuana that comply with state laws.

“All I want to be able to do is grow it so that it can be tested,” Dr. Craker said in comments echoed by other researchers.

Marijuana is the only major drug for which the federal government controls the only legal research supply and for which the government requires a special scientific review.

“The more it becomes clear to people that the federal government is blocking these studies, the more people are willing to defect by using politics instead of science to legalize medicinal uses at the state level,” said Rick Doblin, executive director of a nonprofit group dedicated to researching psychedelics for medical uses."

How the scientific debate plays out is of secondary importance to me, since I'm of the school that says adults should be free to use whatever herbal, pharmaceutical or spiritual remedies they choose, as long as they educate themselves about (and take responsibility for) any adverse consequences, and as long as they harm no one else in the process. I know people who swear by vitamins, others who turn to herbal elixirs, still others who dance around trees during the Winter Solstice, searching for health and happiness. Some sit near light boxes to fight Seasonal Affective Disorder. I once knew a chiropractor who prescribed coffee ground enemas as part of a "cleansing program."

There's a lot of quackery out there; a lot of snake oil, in different packages, being sold, with and without a doctor's prescription pad. There's a lot of searching for answers, and cures, for our physical and psychological maladies. I just happen to believe that government in a free society should play a minor role in policing such activities. If some Americans are turning to medicinal marijuana for comfort, what business is it of mine, or of government, to tell them they can't -- or to tell them that this really doesn't work, even though they think it does?

That's a bigger question for me than whether the science is settled.

But as long as critics of medical marijuana continue to hang their objections on science, it's only right that they work to facilitate, not block, research in the field. The federal government supports research on virtually everything else, from the mating habits of fruit bats to the childhood origins of road rage, yet it enforces a virtual ban on MMJ-related research.

What, except for stubborn political prejudice, explains this stupid double standard?

Had lunch with utilities CEO Jerry Forte last week. We talked about CSU's efforts on renewables, including wind power and biomass, which the enterprise needs to meet state renewable energy production mandates. Forte seemed especially upbeat about biomass, describing several projects that are underway or being studied. But the potential problem with biomass, as I see it, is a future bait and switch on the part of fickle green extremists, who claim to support one energy solution on Monday, only to oppose it on Tuesday.

The risk of this is high with biomass, I told Forte, because anything that involves the cutting and commercial use of trees -- even dead, beetle-blighted trees -- sends the wackos right through the roof. If CSU is counting on national forests as a potential source of supply, it ought to anticipate snags, I warned. Red tape, litigation and protest routinely derail even minor timber projects. Access to federal lands has been greatly curtailed since the Clinton years, which is why most companies that relied too heavily on federal timber sales (as opposed to private tree farms) are now out of business.

Forte seems sure that he's got the supply problem handled. But the other danger is that an energy technology that currently has the blessing of alternative energy advocates, and can be counted against existing renewable energy production quotas, can suddenly fall out of favor, given the fickleness of energy faddists. A utility can invest tens of millions in a technology that suddenly becomes taboo. What today counts as a renewable, for purposes of meeting mandates, suddenly may not meet the requirements. It's a game of high stakes poker, in which the rules can keep changing, based on the whims of a demented dealer.

Just the other day, for instance, this story in New West presents a litany of complaints against biomass, including (not surprisingly) that it involves cutting trees -- complaints that will reach a noisy crescendo if biomass gets big enough to threaten forests. We'll then see a bait and switch, in which the rug is pulled out from under those who've invested in the technology. I hope CSU doesn't find itself in that boat.

Radical greens aren't interested in solving the nation's energy problems, after all; they hope to perpetuate them. They want to severely restrict energy access, production and consumption, in order to force Americans to adopt more environmentally-correct lifestyles. Affordable and plentiful energy is part of America's problem, in this view, because it encourages the three evil Cs: consumption, consumerism and capitalism. Only prolonged energy scarcity will bring about the economic and social revolution that greens seek. That's why every reasonable and realistic answer to the energy crunch -- clean coal, nuclear power, domestic drilling, oil shale development -- is roundly rejected, in favor of niche technologies that just won't get us there.

I hope CSU's biomass efforts succeed. I just worry about the old bait and switch.

Sometimes I get really annoyed with Denver Post columnist Vince Carroll. I guess it's a case of pundit envy.

He keeps writing the columns that I would be writing and should be writing, if only I had the time (and the skill). He did it again this week with a piece on New Energy Economics, a field of theory that has nothing to do with Real World Economics, as Carroll points out. But trying to reason with people on so-called "green energy" is like trying to get a Jihadist to join a kibbutz. It's a discussion, as Carroll points out, in which reason doesn't apply and trying to make sense is a waste of time.

Here's an excerpt:

Maybe he needn't worry about making sense. A surprising number of Americans seem to believe the normal rules of economics and government investment don't apply to clean energy — that subsidies, for example, create more jobs than they destroy. Recently, when an Associated Press-Stanford University survey asked people whether policies to combat global warming "would cause there to be more jobs, fewer jobs or wouldn't affect the number of jobs," 40 percent said more jobs, 33 said "no effect" and only 23 percent said "fewer."

The most sensible answer — "government industrial policy is almost never an efficient way to allocate resources, so I'm guessing job growth will be slower as a result" — wasn't even an option.

Most commentators who support growing subsidies for clean energy dismiss the possibility that the money might do as much or more good invested, say, in other cutting edge technologies where the returns would be higher. Or, if they're like The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, they simply ignore the inevitable trade-offs. Friedman tirelessly promotes the idea that "building a clean-power economy" at government direction and support will make us "stronger, more innovative and more energy independent" — without ever asking the question, as George Mason professor Don Boudreaux points out, "compared to what?"

As Boudreaux explained on his blog, "How can Mr. Friedman be so sure that the benefits of windmills, solar panels, and battery-powered electric cars will exceed the costs of making — will exceed in value that which must be foregone to make — these green fetishes a reality?

"Of course, he cannot be sure. Not even close. Like so many other pundits, Mr. Friedman simply ignores, or arbitrarily discounts, the costs of turning his oh-so-lovely daydreams into quotidian actuality."

Last week, The Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey Ball reported that "government spending and price supports accounted for about one-third of the roughly $145 billion invested worldwide in clean energy in 2009 . . . ." Little wonder that under the Obama stimulus plan, "renewable energy producers are eligible for cash grants totaling 50 percent of the cost of projects they do this year — however high those costs go."

At what point does this gusher of subsidies become a scandal?"

Not any time soon, apparently.

It's not just the subsidies, but the government mandates that are helping to prop-up an "industry" that can't stand on its own, and an "economy" that makes no real market sense. Carroll points out that members of the Church of New Energy Economics, Colorado Chapter, are preparing to push for even higher statewide renewable energy production quotas this legislative session.

Heaven help the common ratepayers of Colorado if they succeed.

One pet peeve of mine is corporate welfare, as most readers know. And I've been especially hard on film-maker "incentives" -- more accurately called "Hollywood handouts" -- given that the industry isn't hurting and recipients almost all flunk the means test.

The Tax Foundation is out with a new report on the topic, "Movie Production Incentives: Blockbuster Support for Lackluster Policy," which I hope will get wide circulation up at the Colorado Statehouse. Bills have been introduced in the last few sessions, as I recall, that threatened to take us down the same road. This report might help be a deterrent if they reappear this year.

Some of the 44 states that jumped on this bandwagon are now jumping off, either because their giveaways were too generous or they realize that gaming is going on. Others have come to see that the long-term economic benefits are negligible or nil. Dreams of becoming another Hollywood just aren't panning-out as promised.

Says the introduction:

"Based on fanciful estimates of economic activity and tax revenue, states are investing in movie production projects with small returns and taking unnecessary risks with taxpayer dollars. In return, they attract mostly temporary jobs that are often transplanted from other states. States claim to boost job training with MPIs, but these tax incentives often encourage individuals to gain skills that are only employable as long as politicians enact ever larger subsidies for the film industry. Furthermore, the competition among states transfers a large portion of potential gains to the movie industry, not to local businesses or state coffers. It is unlikely that movie production incentives generate wealth in the long run. Most fail even in the short run. Yet they remain popular."

That popularity stems from two factors, from what I can tell: desperation and delusion. Neither serves as a sound basis for rebuilding an economy.

Most readers of this blog already are pretty dialed-in to the pulse of the city (or so I would like to think), which means you're probably all aware of "the Bartolin letter," written by Broadmoor CEO Steve Bartolin, which has generated quite a buzz since landing in my email box right in the midst of budget season. The Gazette's Dan Chacon has a good blog post on the letter today, for those who need updating.

Chacon's post speaks for itself, but leaves readers to ponder a question: "Did City Council snub The Broadmoor's CEO?" The short answer to that question, in my opinion, is "no." The longer answer is as follows.

Did Council respond to the letter in a unified and speedy manner? No. But some of that had more to do with timing than any ho-hum attitude on Council's part. I phoned Mr. Bartolin in response to the note and we had a friendly and constructive chat. I urged him to share the letter with colleagues, though he seemed reluctant, fearing, I suppose, that it might seem like he was butting-in. I think Bernie, Tom and a few others responded to him directly, but I don't know for sure.

Remember: the note arrived in the frenzy of budget battles and rate case debates. These were consuming all our time (not to mention fraying our nerves). Nothing proposed in the letter could have been acted on immediately. The holidays followed -- and most of us were happy to shut out the noise for a few weeks. There was some hallway chatter about the letter, but it wasn't until after the New Year, and the last few weeks, that I began measuring interest in more formally taking Bartolin up on his offer of assistance. All whom I spoke to on Council at least seemed open to the idea.

I began drafting a letter, which I hoped my colleagues would co-sign, suggesting that Bartolin form a business practices advisory group, made up of local business pros, that could help the city review our internal operations, as well as ensure that Colorado Springs is as business-friendly as possible. But I didn't get the draft done before Joann Hauser stood up Tuesday, asking what we on Council were going to do about the letter. If our answers were less-than-decisive, it was just because nothing formal had been agreed upon. The exchange resulted in Chacon's blog post, and I think he's working on a follow-up. That brings us up to the present.

I'll share a draft letter with colleagues tomorrow (Friday) and give them a weekend to read it, think about it, offer editing changes, etc. Early next week, if a majority are on board, we'll send it to Mr. Bartolin.

What happens then? We'll see.

The not-in-my-backyard movement that once focused on stopping sewage treatment plants and rendering factories has morphed over time into something much more troubling -- and much more dangerous to private property rights. Now almost anything proposed -- even a faith-based university campus -- will have so-called "neighbors" up in arms, claiming the right to exercise a veto.

But that's the slippery slope we step out on when we effectively collectivize property rights, and create conditional property rights, through the use of zoning laws and other mechanisms. A world without zoning is a frightening concept to many people -- especially those prone to NIMBYism. They prefer order and regimentation over freedom. But that's far less frightening than a world without meaningful property rights, in my opinion, which is where we're headed unless we start drawing the line against NIMBYism.

When a ski bum can face prison time for daring to defy the feds, and for being "openly hostile to the government," this country is definitely on a downhill slide toward tyranny.

The intolerance of the individual; heavy-handed law enforcement; rules and regulations rigidity; eviction of the people from "public lands;" creeping authoritarianism: A lot of what's wrong with this country can be found in this story from Sunday's Denver Post. The real "danger to the community" isn't an eccentric ski bum who lives in a truck, but those -- like U.S. Attorney Michelle Heldmyer -- who are turning this otherwise harmless man into a criminal.

Is this really still the "land of the free"?

It's hard to read this story and think so.

Who do I back for Governor? I'm undecided. But one quality I'm looking for, and longing for, is someone with the courage to stand up to Washington when Washington acts in ways detrimental to Colorado.

I want someone like Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, who is taking Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to task for new regulatory proposals that will further stymie energy production in the West, killing jobs and depleting state coffers. Gov. Bill Ritter should be raising similar objections, but he and Salazar are birds of a feather. Both care more about creating a mythical "new energy economy" than dealing with the energy economy we actually have. Both see a need for more energy industry regulation, when over-regulation is the problem. Both have adopted the rhetoric and attitudes of zero-drilling groups. Both back policies that create energy scarcity, then turn around and blame "big oil" when scarcity leads to crisis.

Freudenthal is a Democrat, but party allegiance doesn't matter when it's time to defend the interests of Wyoming. Ritter never in my memory has stood up against, or talked back to, Washington. And here's just one result: the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is an endangered species in Colorado, but it isn't in Wyoming. And that's mainly due to Freudenthal's vigorous opposition to this bogus listing.

Will Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper cross swords with Salazar and the Obama administration when Colorado's t interests demand it? That's highly unlikely, given the endorsements he's won.

Just what Colorado needs: another invitation to fight over water.

State Rep. Sal Pace, a Democrat from Pueblo, apparently doesn't believe there's enough water-related conflict in Colorado. That's why he'll introduce a bill in the 2010 session that seems designed to ratchet tensions to new highs. The measure will prohibit district-to-district water transfers unless the recipient can negotiate a "mitigation agreement" with the originating district addressing ecological and economic impacts. It invites one water district to shakedown the other, in short -- which may explain the appeal in Pueblo -- despite the fact that these are private transactions between willing buyers and willing sellers.

Measuring the alleged ecological or economic impacts of water transfers can be a tricky business, since this often confuses chicken with egg. Most rural areas are economically depressed not because residents are selling water rights; residents are selling water rights because rural areas are economically depressed. Cash transfers from urban areas to rural areas -- which is what this is all about -- may make rural folk feel less like victims, temporarily. But it won't revive the agricultural sector or address its root economic problems. Like many other forms of government intervention -- farm subsidies, price supports, ethanol mandates, milk quotas -- this will be a temporary crutch, not a long-term answer.

Pace's bill will erect new barriers to a statewide water market, drive up costs for water users, gum-up water transfers in red tape and create more conflict -- while doing little to enhance the long-term viability of rural economies. It penalizes water sellers as well as water buyers, since sales could be delayed or derailed if mitigation agreements can't be agreed upon, or if they end up in court.

The freedom of people to sell or buy water will be impaired, which amounts to an impairment of their water rights -- which are really property rights. And we all suffer when these rights get watered down. So let's all hope Sal Pace's bill goes gurgling down the drain.

Douglas Bruce has a fairly reliable ally in the editorial page of the Colorado Springs Gazette. But when even an ally can't clearly and concisely explain the true meaning of Bruce's latest ballot baby, Issue 300, it illustrates why City Council is having similar difficulties.

In Bruce's paranoid world, any hesitation or equivocation on Council's part, in implementing 300, is part of a dark conspiracy to thwart "the will of the voters," as he interprets it. I believe Council wants to abide by the "will of the voters" -- I certainly do. We've signaled our desire to do so in numerous ways. But today's unsatisfying and inconclusive attempt by The Gazette to clarify 300's meaning, in anticipation of tomorrow's discussion on the issue, shows that this is harder than it sounds.

The editorial tries to make sense of 300 not by referencing the actual ballot language (which is maddening vague), but by citing campaign rhetoric. But campaign rhetoric is just that -- rhetoric. It's spin, designed to galvanize support or opposition. It's unreliable as a guide to what the voters really meant when they voted for 300, since we don't know whether they pulled the lever in response to what they saw on yard signs or what the ballot language actually says. And the ballot language is open to interpretation, as today's editorial confirms.

It's irresponsible to write an implementing ordinance based on a yard sign, or some words of wisdom Bruce put down in a letter to the editor. And we on Council have a duty to say so if something in 300 conflicts with the City Charter.

The editorial labors mightily to make sense of it all, but concedes in places that 300's language is "ambiguous" and "difficult to discern" -- which lends credence to the possibility that Council might honestly be conflicted about how to proceed, not plotting a coup. Finally, it concludes by calling on citizens to make their wishes known to council, lest we attempt to exercise our own judgments on the matter, based on our own interpretation of what this disaster of a ballot measure calls for. The wheels that squeak loudest should carry the day, according to the Gazette, which gives certain advantages to the blustering Mr. Bruce.

"The wording of Issue 300 leaves plenty of room for all of this ambivalence, and therefore the need for City Council to discern the will of voters. It’s imperative the citizens who voted for 300 examine the city’s proposed law, in order to determine whether it comports with their intentions. It is the council's job to provide a level of service the majority of citizens want, and nothing more. Let City Council know exactly what you wanted when you voted in favor of Issue 300, because the full intent of voters remains unclear. Left with this uncertainly, the council will do what it thinks is best."

But being bombarded by rehashed campaign rhetoric clarifies little, for the reasons described above. We can't read the minds of the more than 40,000 people who supported 300. We must ultimately rely on the words themselves (or on the judgment of a court, if it comes to that). And even the Gazette concedes they're confusing.

Thousands of words have now been written and said about issue 300, yet its meaning evades even Bruce allies. This seems proof enough that Bruce -- not City Council -- botched the job. There's a certain warped genius in it, though. Write a ballot measure in secret code, then become the absolute authority on deciphering it.

Government is commonly assumed to be the only entity that can tackle a major problem like the medically uninsured. And that's too bad. There's too little awareness of, and appreciation for, the non-governmental entities that, instead of looking reflexively toward government for answers, already are out there, on the front lines, dealing with the challenge on a daily basis.

This is part of what I call the "do-it-ourselves sector." And we have a very active Do-It-Ourselves Sector in Colorado Springs, as the opening of The Lord Cares Pharmacy illustrates. The pharmacy is the brainchild of Marcella Ruch, "who founded the free safety-net clinic Mission Medical and has also organized free surgeries for the poor," as the Gazette reports. "The pharmacy is being run by Open Bible Baptist Church under the Rev. Jefferson Martin. Open Bible also runs a free medical clinic."

"Through donations and pharmaceutical companies’ patient-assistant programs, TLC will help supply medicine to people 18 to 64 who are at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines — $21,660 for an individual and $44,100 for a family of four — and have no insurance.

Hours will be Monday, Wednesday and Saturday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Patients must make an appointment to determine eligibility before receiving medication, according to a news release. The pharmacy is located at 3204 N. Academy Blvd.

To make a donation, volunteer or inquire about eligibility, call 596-4449."

Ruch and Rev. Martin are typical do-it-ourselfers: they see a problem, they see people in need, and they jump in, instead of waiting for guidance from Washington. While the politicians are talking the talk, these people walk the walk. But the new pharmacy is only one of many such efforts in this city.

Another outstanding example is the Peak Vista Community Health Centers , run by the remarkable BJ Scott, which I'll be visiting Wednesday in my capacity as a city councilman. Scott will be one of the speakers at Friday's Food for Thought Luncheon, along with local health care policy expert Steve Hyde. They'll be talking about the challenges of tackling this issue at the grassroots level. Register for the lunch by following this link.

Americans who really care about the uninsured can wait around for a Washington "solution," such as it, or they can tackle the problem locally, right now, by supporting efforts such as these.

California is a petri dish for breeding bad governing fads, so I was surprised today to read about a good idea taking root in the Golden State -- one worth emulating elsewhere. It's called the "parent trigger." According to this editorial in the San Jose Mercury News, it promises to shift the power over public schools away from reactionary teacher unions and hidebound educrats, by permitting parents to actually vote for better schools. Here's how it works, as explained by the paper:

"The [parent trigger] concept was developed by the grass-roots group Parent Revolution in the Los Angeles Unified School District. If a majority of parents in a failing school petitions for an overhaul, the district must do something — replace administrators, convert to a charter school or make other major reforms.

By law, tenured California teachers can convert their school to a charter if a majority of them vote for it, and that has happened dozens of times. But teachers unions and other groups opposed giving parents the same right. One group called it the "lynch mob" provision — an odd choice of words, given that it would empower parents primarily in minority communities where failing schools abound.

For years, the alliance between Democrats and teachers unions has stopped major reform, which is why it's so astonishing that the trigger survived the legislative meat grinder. Some supporters thought it might be negotiated out of the final bill. Credit Democratic Sen. Gloria Romero, the bill's author, and Parent Revolution for a strategy that turned traditional alliances on their head.

Ben Austin, the executive director of the parent group, argues simply that school boards, administrators and the Legislature must give at least as much weight to parents' concerns as to those of the powerful teachers unions. Trigger proponents framed the choice — unions or kids? — and then dared lawmakers to defy them . . ."

. . . The trigger is likely to increase parental involvement and to push administrators and school boards to act before parents demand it. If it leads to real improvement, it will increase public confidence in schools and perhaps persuade voters to pay more in school taxes."

California isn't the first place I normally point to for bright ideas. But in this case, I'll make an exception. Maybe it's an idea Colorado might want to import -- after it clears quarantine, of course.

A lot is being written and said these days on the subject of medical marijuana -- too much for even a blogger to keep up with. But you can always count on Denver Post columnist Vince Carroll (who used to run the editorial page at the Rocky Mountain News . . . . I'm still grieving the loss) to cut through the usual cant with a bracing dose of clear thinking.

He delivers again today on the issue of medical marijuana dispensaries, which some claim aren't permitted under Amendment 20. The reasoned and realistic assessments of Carroll and fellow Post columnist Bill Johnson are a welcome counterpoint to the surprisingly shrill, rigid and less-than-"progressive" positions taken by the Post's editorial board, typified by this recent call for a return to "sanity."

I sent Carroll the following note in response to his column, just to let him know what we were doing here in Colorado Springs.

"Your column prompted me to put in this plug for the way we are handling the MMJ issue in Colorado Springs, where I now serve on City Council. Local law enforcers (our DA especially) were pressing council to "do something" about the alleged crisis in the Springs -- some seem inclined toward the John Suthers "solution," which is to try to cram the genie back in the bottle. But we are trying another path, by inviting various MMJ stakeholders into the regulatory process, in an effort to get their buy-in on what the city does. It shows an open-minded side of Colorado Springs that some might find surprising, given our conservative reputation. I hope we can serve as a model for how the issue should be handled statewide.

The task force's work -- we hope to present something to council in about three weeks -- may not at the end of the day produce something radically different from what other communities are doing. But our rules, if approved, will have been crafted with the full participation of those who will have to follow them, not imposed from on high or rejected altogether by the "just say no" crowd. And we hope that will lead to greater compliance, more public acceptance and better outcomes for all involved."

There's news. Then there's manufactured news. This KRDO report by Marshall Zelinger, an otherwise solid reporter, strikes me as the latter.

My Bat phone didn't ring yesterday either, alerting me to the fact that a commercial airliner was making an unscheduled stop in Colorado Springs because a passenger was acting oddly. And I, for one, couldn't care less. It seems that federal and local law enforcement officials handled an unexpected and fast-moving situation with admirable precision and professionalism -- that's the news story here. That they didn't take a timeout to call me and my colleagues about it is understandable. Whether council members were kept abreast of the situation is of secondary or tertiary importance, in my opinion.

At 11:30 -- when the Bat phone should have rung, but didn't -- I was just starting a meeting at my office. What difference would it have made -- what difference could I or anyone else on council have made -- had we been receiving up-to-the-minute reports on what was occurring? Maybe I could have leaped into a nearby phone booth, or summoned the Batmobile from stately Wayne Manor. But I haven't seen a phone booth in years. The Batmobile is in for service. And this meeting, though boring, was important.

Or maybe we on council could have rushed out to the airport, to form a welcoming committee, hoping that this show of Colorado Springs hospitality would convince AirTran corporate brass to make this a company hub. We could have handed shaken passengers promotional materials as they deplaned, urging them to return to Colorado Springs on their next vacation. We might have gotten our mugs on camera, looking gravely concerned and thoroughly in charge.

And we would have gotten in the way, creating unnecessary drama and distractions.

The real news story here is that the professionals acted professionally in a potential emergency -- and that they don't need cues from or consultations with City Council to swing into action. That we weren't given all the details until the mini-crisis was over just isn't very important.

City Council couldn't afford to fund community centers through 2010, but we were able to buy them 3 months time, on condition that they explore new partnering opportunities and more self-sustaining ways of operating. This isn't an easy task, given that these centers serve some of the poorest neighborhoods in Colorado Springs. The ability of clients to pay more for the services they offer is limited. Piecemeal efforts were underway in the final weeks of 2009, and even through the holidays, but we must pick up the pace now if we're to have a shot at success.

Toward that end, beginning next week, neighborhood meetings have been scheduled at four centers, for the purpose of explaining the situation, brainstorming ideas and drawing wider attention to the partnership initiative. The meetings will be held from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the following centers.

Westside Center: Wednesday, Jan. 13

Hillside Community Center: Tuesday, Jan. 19

Deerfield Hills Community Center: Wednesday, Jan. 20th

Meadows Community Center: Wednesday, Jan. 27.

We expect good attendance from the surrounding neighborhoods but I encourage any interested person or organization, from anywhere in the city or county, to attend. What might these new partnerships look like? That's yet to be determined. We're re-thinking the community center concept, more or less from scratch. It's an opportunity for creativity, experimentation and -- I know it's a cliché -- out-of-the-box thinking. Those with questions can e-mail me at spaige@springsgov.com, or call one of my city numbers at 210-5741.

No one ever accused the Salazar boys of lacking ambition: Link, link, another link. .

Bill Ritter's body isn't even cold and former senator, now-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar seems to be angling for the job -- after just a year at Interior. Maybe we should start calling him Ken "job hopper" Salazar. He wasn't exactly a Senate veteran when he was tapped to run Interior (in fact, his list of senate accomplishments could comfortably fit on a 3 by 5 card, with plenty of white space to spare). Aside from racking up record-breaking frequent flyer miles, his short tenure at Interior was uninspiring. "Highlights" include his unilateral shutdown of dozens of completely legal and legitimate oil and gas leases in Utah, in a bow to zero-drilling zealots, and his theft through eminent domain (or the threat of eminent domain) of land needed to pave the way for the Flight 93 Memorial in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

One bright spot was his removing of federally-reintroduced wolves in the Northern Rockies from the endangered species list. But that stands in sharp contrast to his proposed expansion of critical habitat for the mythical Preble's meadow jumping mouse here in Colorado, even as mice that happen to live across the Wyoming state line remain off the endangered species list.

Now the ever-ambitious, under-accomplished Salazar wants to be governor. It's amazing how far wearing a cowboy hat will take you in politics.

There would be some continuity between Ritter's administration and Salazar's, however. Both men seem viscerally opposed to developing domestic oil and gas (and oil shale) resources -- stances that have helped turn the Rocky Mountain energy boom into a bust -- and both are shameless hucksters for "clean" and "green" energy panaceas that no educated person believes will satisfy the nation's energy needs. (Follow this link for a more detailed assessment of Salazar's record on energy issues.)

I'm not sure Salazar will bend over for unions with quite the same glee that Ritter has. But he's a Democrat, even when wearing a cowboy hat. He knows which side of his bread is buttered, and by whom.

The inventiveness with which politicians conjure up euphemisms has always amazed me. It's entertaining up to a point -- the point where it crosses from merely dishonest to overtly Orwellian. It's almost always a backlash-avoidance mechanism -- a way for politicians to sell the public something they wouldn't support if couched in more honest terms. The only thing more amazing is how frequently this works.

On the silly side of the spectrum is Tuesday's decision by the Fort Collins City Council to jack-up traffic fines for bicyclists, while calling them "traffic calming surcharges." Such "surcharges" already face motorists nailed for certain infractions. This change was made in the interest of equity -- to ensure that drivers and bicyclists get equally gouged by the city.

I doubt those slapped with the higher fines will be calmed by the phony nomenclature. Whether collecting higher fines will really have a "calming" effect on Fort Collins traffic is also doubtful. But at least the city is being honest about one thing: proceeds from the "surcharges" will be used to help pay the salaries of the cops who write the tickets.

Contrary to the impression one might get from reading The Gazette, City Council will make no major decisions today on the fate of Memorial Health System, when we meet jointly with Memorial's board. Today we're just talking about what to talk about -- about how to conduct a balanced, inclusive and fruitful community conversation on the issue, as per the recommendation of the Sustainable Funding Committee. What might come of all this is anyone's guess. There's no reason for people to get distraught. Any major change will only come after a lengthy debate, and can't happen without voter approval.

It's probably no mystery: I'm predisposed toward selling the health system, with certain caveats. The price must be right, obviously. The proceeds must not be squandered, but wisely stewarded. Reasonable provisions should be made on indigent care. But my perspective may change as the conversation unfolds, and as new facts and arguments come to light. That's the whole purpose of a community conversation, after all -- to come together, to reason together, and to let the best arguments prevail.

Denver Post reporter Lynn Bartels gave a decidedly snide reception to a new report from Americans for Prosperity, "Killing the Golden Goose: a Report on Colorado's Economic Future," by picking out a few nits in an otherwise valuable, 71-page effort. Bartels apparently feels the report lays too much blame for Colorado's slide toward Californification on Gov. Bill Ritter and statehouse Democrats (though, being the party in charge, I'm not sure where else that responsibility should rest). She indulges in a bit of overt editorializing, too, by writing that "The report reads like a conservative manifesto," in that it lauds TABOR, is critical of labor unions and calls for the repeal of the autopilot spending mandates in Amendment 23. She then points out several alleged "errors," neither of which seem major to me.

I don't read enough Lynn Bartels bylines to know whether she's similarly dismissive of the "liberal manifestos" routinely turned-out by left-leaning policy groups. But I've seen a lot of these reports get much more respectful treatment in the Post. Whether Denver Post reporters customarily comb through these reports, searching for errors and discrepancies to highlight, isn't something I've studied. It's hard to say, therefore, whether this is just equal opportunity media cynicism, or political bias. But I'll start paying more attention in the future, since it seems that there might be a double standard, betraying a bias, at work.

Judge the merits of AFP's report for yourself by downloading it here. I think it's an excellent resource, with some worthwhile recommendations for keeping the state off the slippery slope toward California.

Two locals (Douglas Bruce and Jeff Crank, who runs AFP's Colorado chapter) also make cameos in the story, which LLO readers might find interesting. Here's the relevant excerpt:

"The report credits TABOR as the reason Colorado is not in worse shape in this recession, and it blasts Democrats for attempting to circumvent it with fee increases and such that have not gone to the voters.

"On taxes and spending, we've seen over the last couple of years an assault by people in both political parties, and I'm not specifically talking about legislators or those who are holding public office," Crank said, adding the business community is guilty, too, of trying to undermine TABOR.

Under questioning, Crank said his group has not taken a position yet on three proposed ballot measures that would slash at least $1 billion annually in state taxes, roll back property taxes statewide and dramatically limit government's ability to construct new buildings.

Critics claim TABOR author Douglas Bruce is behind the measures, which would cripple government.

"Our goal isn't to strangle government," Crank said. "It's to make government as lean and as strong as possible in the areas that it needs to perform, like the area of transportation infrastructure."

Crank said Coloradans need to separate Bruce from TABOR.

"I'm a fan of TABOR. I'm not a fan of Doug Bruce," Crank said. "I think Doug Bruce in so many ways has made the (anti-tax) movement about him. When you start to make it about you as a person, you take the focus off what is really important and that is the movement."

Bruce said he had no comment."

No comment from Bruce? That by itself is newsworthy.

Brian Lamb, the founder and CEO of the C-SPAN networks, is one of the great (though unheralded) Americans of our time, in my opinion. That most Americans don't know or care who he is doesn't mean he hasn't done them an invaluable service, by creating a set of cable channels that give average people unprecedented (and unbiased) access to the inner workings of Washington, D.C. It comes to them direct, without any "mainstream media" filter. It comes to them straight: Lamb carefully picks his on-air personalities not just for their high degree of intelligence and civic literacy, but for their notable lack of personality and political agendas. People speak in full sentences on C-SPAN, not sound-bites. And it comes to Americans free, courtesy of responsible cable providers.

Now the normally low-key Lamb is courting potential controversy by trying to do Americans another huge favor: He's asking Congress to open House-Senate CongressCare negotiations to C-SPAN cameras, which would give the people an unprecedented look into the inner-inner-workings of Congress -- taking us right into the backrooms where the deals are cut. That's why it's highly unlikely Congress will comply with Lamb's request.

"As your respective chambers work to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate health care bills, C-SPAN requests that you open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage," Lamb wrote in a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders. "President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation’s editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation’s health care system. Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the Chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American. We hope you will give serious consideration to this request. We are most willing to employ the latest digital technology to make the cameras, lights and microphones as unobtrusive as possible."

The more unobtrusive C-SPAN can be, the better, in my opinion. Maybe some of the conferees will forget they're being recorded, drop the phony veneers and become what they really are behind closed doors, in unscripted action. The network's presence might confer an even greater benefit, however -- a blessing, really -- if the presence of cameras serves to reduce or eliminate the sort of back room deal-cutting, logrolling and earmark-chasing that normally marks such sessions.

One public interest will be served by pushing back the frontiers of government transparency. Another will be served if that transparency fosters more restraint, caution and circumspection on the part of conference participants, resulting in a better piece of legislation than we would see if the cameras are excluded. The bill will still stink. But it may stink a little less.

The Congressional switchboard is at 202-224-3121 if you want to weigh-in on the issue. It's not just Congress that needs to support this proposal, though. President Obama said during a 2008 presidential debate that he would be "broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are," if this piece of legislation ever came to pass. Now is the time for Obama to make good on that promise.

Most Americans have heard of the EPA. Others may know something about the ESA. But when it comes to sorting through the alphabet soup of important federal acronyms, NEPA flies below the radar screens of most Americans. That will have to change, however, if the National Environmental Policy Act -- the law that sets the procedures according to which virtually all federal land use decisions are made -- isn't to become another vehicle for advancing the Obama administration's radical climate change agenda.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that the White House "is poised to order all federal agencies to evaluate any major actions they take, such as building highways or logging national forests, to determine how they would contribute to and be affected by climate change." It's a step "long sought by environmentalists," according to the story -- which means it's something reasonable people should fear. NEPA already is a major contributor to the red tape, "analysis paralysis" and endless litigation that bogs-down federal rulemaking and ties-up federal courts. This will exponentially aggravate that problem.

Reports the Times:

"Environmentalists say the move would provide new incentives for the government to minimize the heat-trapping gas emissions scientists blame for global warming. Republicans have opposed it as potentially inhibiting economic growth.

The new order would expand the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, a landmark statute that turns 40 today. The act already requires federal agencies to consider environmental impacts such as land use, species health and air and water quality when approving projects.

By formalizing a requirement to consider effects on climate -- a step some agencies already take -- the administration would introduce a broad new spectrum of issues to be considered. It could also open up new avenues for environmentalists to attack, delay or halt proposed government actions. The environmental impact statements originally required by the act have become routine battlegrounds for environmentalists, developers and others.

Under the order, agencies would need to account for whether such factors as predicted rises in sea levels would affect proposed new roads along shorelines; or whether, because of temperature changes and species migration, clear-cutting a patch of forest would result in new types of trees replacing the originals."

Make every NEPA action contingent on an assessment of alleged climate impacts and you'll tie the country in Gordian knots nearly impossible to untangle. It's a recipe for more bureaucracy, more lawsuits, more conflict, more paralysis -- at a time when the federal government needs to be more agile and more responsive, not less so. This is another anchor on the U.S. economy, a barrier to domestic energy production, another hurdle Western states must clear in responding to the forest health crisis. We should be streamlining, reforming or repealing NEPA, not vesting it with more power.

Obamatons deny that this broad new mandate will slow federal rulemaking or put a stranglehold on the economy. But how could it not? That's about as believable as saying that a trillion dollar health care overhaul won't increase the deficit.

Then there's a Constitutional question. Like the Obama administration's recent decision to have EPA regulate CO2, this seems like an attempt to institute a national climate change agenda via executive action, without the involvement of Congress. A majority in this Congress isn't likely to raise many objections, it's true. But one party rule won't last forever, and the long-term damage this sort of unilateralism could do to our system of checks and balances is something else worth considering.

There are now more than 5 million people living in Colorado. And that will illicit a lot of teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing by the pessimists and the growthaphobes and the got-miners (as in, I got my nice little place in Colorado, but I don't want you to get yours). Today's Denver Post editorial epitomizes the Chicken Little reaction this chilling news evokes in some quarters.

The Post's editorial doesn't focus on the dangerous depletion of water, agricultural land and other natural resources that this wave of unkempt and unwelcome humanity supposedly will bring; that's the theme for another day. Today's editorial focuses on the calamity that supposedly looms if this increase in population isn't accompanied by a concomitant growth in taxing and spending and government. That one must beget the other is an assumption I would question. But that's the premise from which this editorialist works:

"Census projections show the state is expected to gain nearly 800,000 more people during the next two decades, growing significantly faster than the national average.

The growth we've already seen and the growth that is coming make for a compelling case for the need for better state financial planning.

Colorado policy makers must find stable funding streams for transportation (the $250 million annually from FASTER was just a start), higher education and other vital government services.

Think about what has happened over the last couple of years. Even with an influx of people — 40 percent of new Colorado residents moved here from somewhere else — the state is suffering a serious revenue problem.

Presumably, more people would equate to more revenue, but those people also tax government services as well.

The governor and state lawmakers have struggled to cut some $1.5 billion out of the state budget over two fiscal years, hacking away at higher education and K-12, instituting furlough days for state workers, and cutting services from mental health to Medicaid.

All of that came as the state was among the fastest growing in the nation.

The culprit, of course, is the state's tangle of spending mandates and revenue restraints. Far too much of the budget is off limits to cuts. Most anyone who pays even a little attention to Colorado's budget knows this."

It's not the inability to cut the budget that's really annoying to Posties and other TABOR-bashers. It's the inability to grow the budget, and to spend and regulate at will, that they see as a major impediment to creating a more "progressive" Colorado. But perhaps it's this lack of "progressiveness" -- this sense that Colorado retains sufficient "old West" roots to remain a place where freedom and the American dream can still be found -- which is key to the state's continuing appeal.

The constitutional constraints on state government the editorial decries -- TABOR is not specifically mentioned, but implied -- might be one of the things that make Colorado a draw to so many transplants (refugees from states like California, where taxpayers enjoy no similar safeguards against unchecked government growth). Lower taxes; fewer hassles; limited government; sensible people; reasonably sane politicians; an affordable American dream: these may be even more of a draw for transplants than the Rocky Mountain mystique. Make Colorado too much more "progressive" and it will become just like all the other states people are fleeing: New Jersey with mountains.

I'm not diminishing the fiscal and logistical challenges that continual growth will bring to Colorado. But the only real choice we have -- unless we're going to ban transplants and impose zero population growth mandates -- is to creatively rise to those challenges. I'm optimistic that we can and will do that -- hopefully, in a way that doesn't kill the spirit of independence and freedom that Colorado and the rest of the American West still promise.

The withholding or dispensing of federal funds to states, as a means of bending those states to Washington's will, has been the cause of much mischief in recent times. As a taxpayer, and a Federalist of the old school, I resent seeing my federal tax dollars used to bribe or bully or blackmail states into going along with Washington's program. It's almost always used as a tool of naked coercion, aimed at restricting, rather than expanding, freedom. But there are exceptions to every rule.

Barack Obama's "Race to the Top" initiative -- though it dangles federal funds out there as an inducement to states -- is different in several respects. The customary heavy-handedness and coercion are in this case absent, since states that don't want to join the "race" to reform their public school programs, per Washington's plan, won't be shafted for opting-out. They'll simply forego the opportunity to win these grants. Participation is voluntary, in short, not more-or-less mandatory. Plus, the goal in this case is aimed at expanding freedom, by increasing educational opportunity and school choice, instead of restricting freedom, by forcing compliance with seatbelt laws or some other federal nanny state directive.

Colorado Springs businessman and school reform advocate Steve Schuck has a good piece in today's Denver Post, co-authored by Pete Coors, explaining how participation in the "Race to the Top" will benefit Colorado's school kids -- and why we need to suspend our normal political and ideological differences and rivalries, in order to give it a shot. Here's the piece:

Competition for federal education funding forges unlikely alliances

By Pete Coors and Steve Schuck

As Colorado competes for Race to the Top funding from the U.S. Department of Education, Coloradans of all stripes have come together to build a plan that will literally redefine the way we address one of our most intractable challenges — how to better educate all our children.

When the interests of our kids, families, communities and businesses are on the line, we must subordinate our personal, historical agendas to the securing of their futures. The interests of our kids must trump partisan politics.

Colorado is applying for millions in federal funds to be used to transform our state's education system. Who can dispute the need to do so? Certainly not the low-income families whose kids are imprisoned in our worst schools and who account for the bulk of the 50 percent of Colorado's students who cannot read, write, add and subtract at grade level. Certainly not the businesses seeking well-educated employees. Is this a crisis? Does this call for dramatic and immediate attention? You bet.

Only because the need for education reform is so acute have unlikely bedfellows buried their differences on other issues and come together in support of Colorado's application for Race to the Top funding.

How important is winning this race to our families, to our business community, to our education community, to neighborhood and ethnic organizations, and to our political establishment? Enough to bring Democrats for Education Reform, Colorado Education Association, school administrators, Colorado Children's Campaign, Colorado Succeeds, Colorado Concern, Club 20, Action 22, Stand for Children, the governor's office, the state Department of Education, numerous chambers of commerce, and others under the same tent in support of what is best for our kids' futures.

Winning the Race to the Top is about more than federal dollars. It is about Colorado's economic competitiveness; it is about Colorado's families; it is about the half of Colorado's black and brown kids who enter ninth grade but who do not come out of the 12th grade.

The interests of our kids must trump partisan politics. Colorado is now in position to show the rest of the country our new, bold and innovative approach to improving the education of all kids, particularly those the system has been serving so poorly.

Thanks and congratulations to all those Coloradans who have put their collective shoulders behind this effort to demonstrate the creativity, dedication, collaboration and humanity that defines Colorado. Our mountains are high and majestic, and so is our commitment to better educate all our children.

Pete Coors is chairman of Molson Coors Brewing Company in Golden. Steve Schuck is chairman of The Schuck Corporation in Colorado Springs.

The taxpayer in me still isn't happy when Washington bribes states, even if they're being bribed to do the right thing (things they ought to be doing, in my view, without an inducement). The limited government advocate in me is wary of Washington's deepening involvement in public education, given that this, in my opinion, is more appropriately the job of state and local governments. But as long as this sordid practice is practiced by Washington, using it as a means of improving schools and expanding school choice makes it modestly less objectionable, in my eyes.

On principle, it's objectionable. But in practice, it might actually do some good for a public school system in crisis. The realist is me is willing to suspend by objections, temporarily, and watch what happens.

El Paso County claims it can plow snow for less than a private company can: link. That could put a quick end to a potentially promising experiment in outsourcing local government services. But one has to approach such cost- comparisons with caution.

Is this based on a true apples-to-apples comparison, accounting for the hefty benefits packages and pension obligations that come with having a public employee (and the people who manage those employees) do this work? Do such estimates account for the care and upkeep – and the eventual replacement costs -- of equipment (and facilities) the county otherwise wouldn’t need? And even if those numbers still seem to work in the county’s favor, does that automatically argue for keeping the work “in house”?

Cost is only one factor to be considered, after all. Also worth considering is the speed at which the work gets down, and the quality of the work. Are there ancillary benefits for the local economy, and the tax picture, of having these activities done by private companies? Unless we take all this into account, such comparisons are likely to be skewed.

Then there’s the philosophical question: is this a legitimate function of government – something that government ought to be doing, even if it can do it at less cost? What slippery slope have we placed ourselves on, in terms of expanding the size and functions of government, if we concede the argument that anything the government can do at less cost, the government should do? And what about “the distraction factor”? Wouldn’t governments at all levels be better at managing the fundamentals if they weren't also handling the peripherals?

What got me thinking about all this was a conversation I had with David Elmore. He’s the Business Process Improvement Manager with the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, which has had a managed competition program in place since the mid-1990s. Elmore, who uses Google searches to track outsourcing-related news stories, apparently sent a note to the Gazette reporter who did the snow-plowing piece. The note bounced around and landed in my lap. I called Elmore, curious about Charlotte’s story.

What he had to say was interesting – and possibly relevant to the future face of local government here, if we are bold enough to try something similar.

Charlotte, population 800,000, has had a managed competition program since the mid-1990s (as mentioned). A citizen advisory group, made up of local business people, decides which city services can be put out for bid. Other city activities can be “outsourced” (meaning farmed-out to the private sector without a competitive process) at the city manager’s discretion. The rules of competition are set down on paper by the city auditor, in order to ensure fairness – and to see that decisions are based on apples-to-apples comparisons.

The private sector isn’t always successful in getting the work, according to Elmore – the city wins roughly 80 percent of the contests. But many "city jobs" are now contracted out. Plus, the act of putting these services out for bid has a positive impact on overall city operations, since it compels city personnel to constantly reevaluate the way they do things, in response to competitive pressures. The goal isn’t simply lowering costs, according to Elmore, but adopting best practices across the city.

“What we’re really trying to do is to do things faster, better and cheaper,” he told me. There are ancillary benefits that come from the competitions, no matter who wins. Charlotte has linked its managed competition program to a bonus system, for instance, that rewards city workers who meet their contract obligations at below cost.

“Don’t get too caught up in who can do it cheaper,” Elmore told me. “What it should really be about is how the work gets done -- and is it in a way that will make it faster and better, as well as cheaper?” It’s important to look at the big picture, he says. If El Paso County’s plowing equipment is old and will soon need replacement, are those looming costs being factored into the equation? Plowing might cost slightly more in the short-term, if done by a private contractor, but the arrangement might save the county, long-term, if it mitigates the need to replace expensive equipment. “Why not go ahead and try it and see what happens?” Elmore suggests. “What do you really have to lose? Worst case scenario, you have to bring (the work) back in-house.”

That’s an attitude we could use more of in Colorado Springs -- where suggestions to bid out work are too often viewed as a threat to public employees or the bureaucratic fiefdoms in which they work.

More about Charlotte’s managed competition program can be found by following this link. Charlotte’s case was highlighted in The Reason Foundation’s “Innovators in Action” report in 2007: link. Here's the full report.

Colorado Springs should be open to such innovation even if it weren't in a budget crunch. But the fact that we are in crisis – that we must tailor city operations to function in a resource-scarce environment, potentially for years to come -- makes this even more of an imperative.

Echoing points made here several days back, The Denver Post today points an accusing finger at Amtrak for its part in sidetracking the Colorado Ski Train, just as it was about to begin its 70th year of service. Here's the Post, giving Amtrak another well-deserved kick in the caboose, just for good measure:

"Maybe we're just sore for sentimental reasons, but we blame Amtrak for this debacle. Amtrak made the financials unworkable by insisting that the private company that wanted to supply the train take out gold-plated insurance normally allotted to full-fledged passenger service.

Had Amtrak allowed Iowa Pacific Holdings — which already owns significant policies for its excursion trains — to rely on upgraded existing coverage, the first ski train of the season would be a reality.

Skiers and snowboarders like to take the train for the experience. The line allows families and friends to ride up at first light, get in a day of turns and return home après-ski style.

The original Ski Train began 69 years ago but seemed in peril this spring when its former operator, Denver entrepreneur Philip Anschutz, shut down the line and sold the train. Anschutz, who had been running the line at a loss as a gift to the community, cited high insurance costs.

Iowa Pacific thought it had reached an agreement with Amtrak, which enjoys a government-protected monopoly to operate intercity passenger trains, to continue the ski train as an excursion line.

After all, the train operates only on weekends and other select days, and no one takes it under the illusion that it is a more efficient or less expensive alternative to just hopping in a car and driving.

Iowa Pacific's Ed Ellis believes Amtrak wasn't interested in operating the train, and insisted on the higher insurance policy as a cynical way to kill the deal.

We see his point. Amtrak offered up other lame excuses for declining to sign the contract in the final hours last week. For example, Amtrak said its crews wouldn't get enough rest, even though Ellis came up with reasonable alternatives to solve this problem.

Amtrak also said the Rio Grande trains hadn't passed an inspection, but the needed fixes were minor.

Finally, Amtrak questioned Iowa Pacific's financial viability — which takes enormous nerve coming from a perennial financial sinkhole that relies on the public dole."

Who put Colorado's Ski Train out of commission, just days before it was about to begin it's 70th year of service between Denver and Winter Park? A federal judge did, technically. But the impasse that led to the lawsuit, which led to Wednesday's ruling that derailed the service -- perhaps temporarily, buy maybe permanently -- can almost certainly be traced back to federal rules and red tape.

The company that's trying to keep the trains running (Iowa Pacific), after the long-time operator (The Anschutz Co.) pulled out, was forced by rail line owner Union Pacific to crew the trains with Amtrak personnel. Why that should be a requirement, no media report explains. But that was probably the kiss of death for the Colorado Ski Train, since any operation involving Amtrak -- the train wreck of federal bureaucracies -- is bound to get bogged-down in union-mandated staffing requirements and federal red tape. And sure enough, that seems to have happened here.

Iowa Pacific, believing it had reached agreement with Amtrak, began selling tickets and promoting the service. That's when Amtrak began making additional demands -- one of which boosted the company's liability insurance requirements from $2 million to $200 million for the season. The safety of the trains also became an issue, with the company insisting that it meets all standards, while attorneys for Amtrak waved red flags. The most detailed coverage of the conflict can be found in The Denver Business Journal: here and here.

If you dig a few layers deeper, you'd undoubtedly discover many costly and unreasonable demands made on Iowa Pacific as a result of its forced partnership with Amtrak. Nothing is simple, affordable or efficient once the federal government is involved. The history of Amtrak testifies to that. Iowa Pacific may not be blameless in this situation. But my best guess, based on years of watching the federal government in inaction, is that the company is being railroaded by Amtrak, unions and federal bureaucrats.

This news generates mixed emotions. It's always tough to see an outstanding and innovative leader like The Classical Academy's Mark Hyatt moving on to something else, given the exemplary service he's provided to this ground-breaking institution. But when that "something else" is the top job at the Charter School Institute, where Hyatt can put his remarkable skills to work for the benefit of charter schools statewide, it lessens the pain of seeing him go.

The charter school movement in Colorado has made great strides, thanks in large part to the example of excellence set at TCA. But there's always a danger of retrenchment and retreat, as long as anti-school choice Democrats and their teacher union paymasters are in charge under the golden dome. Having a strong charter advocate like Hyatt in Denver is helpful, in order to prevent backsliding on the progress that's been made.

Good luck in your new challenge, Mark. You've earned top grades for your work here in Colorado Springs.

First came The Rubber Room, a scathing New Yorker expose of Big Apple school teachers who get paid not to teach. If you haven't read this story, you missed one of the best of 2009. Now the Los Angeles Times is wrapping-up a yearlong investigative series on the similarly-scandalous situation inside that city's school system. Here's the latest installment in what seems to me like a Pulitzer-worthy project, fittingly called "Failure Gets a Pass."

We all love to take shots at the "mainstream media," by which many critics also mean the "liberal media," but this kind of pull-no-punches reporting, which spares no sacred cows, may help redeem my faith in the besieged craft called journalism.

IBM probably spends more than $35,000 a year on ballpoint pens and paper clips. So does anyone really believe that the city of Boulder landed a new IBM service center, and the 500 jobs that go with it, because of $35,000 in tax "incentives" it will give the company?

The Boulder Daily Camera seems to believe it, judging from its diligence in drawing these causal connections. "IBM gets $35,000 business incentive from Boulder, will add 500 jobs," reads the headline. And Boulder city officials may also choose to believe it, since it seems to justify this obvious misuse of public money. But does anyone else really, truly, honestly believe that a corporate behemoth like IBM made this decision based on a penny-ante $35,000 handout from the city?

You'd have to be a PhD to believe anything that far-fetched.

The company has been a presence in Boulder for years. It already has a "campus" there. It made this move based not on the tax rebates, but because it makes compelling business sense, unrelated to this payment. The company apparently is shameless enough to take "free" money when "free" money is offered: the widespread bidding for jobs with public funds has created a mercenary culture inside many board rooms. But no sensible person would in this case connect one event with the other.

I'm not saying "incentives" never matter. In some cases, they may make a difference, at the margins. But other factors still matter more -- like the fact that IBM already has a campus in Boulder. Corporate executives have become very shrewd about collecting "incentives" for choices they would probably have made anyway, without them.

If folks in Boulder want to believe that this $35,000 offering played a pivotal part in the decision, and congratulate themselves on their genius for economic development, who's going to pop their big green balloon? Certainly not the top brass at IBM, who are laughing about this all the way to the bank.

The Washington Post has a lengthy write-up today on escalating tensions between the International Olympic Committee and the United States Olympic Committee, which might be of some interest to local readers, given this city's recent "investment" in the latter. Nothing here sets-off alarm bells, necessarily, though some of the tensions, according to the story, seem rooted in perceived management problems inside USOC:

"For the last decade, the USOC has housed a cast of largely ineffective or controversial leaders who have been unable to make peace -- let alone friends -- in the world of international sport. The one who made inroads, former Olympic wrestler Jim Scherr, was urged by the USOC board to depart the post of chief executive officer last spring, to the dismay of many sport leaders.

There have been 10 chief executives and chairmen and six chief marketing officers since 2000. On top of that, few U.S. officials hold positions of real power in international Olympic sport organizations, making it difficult for U.S. sports leaders to network effectively. There are five IOC members from Italy, yet only two from the United States, and no Americans head international governing bodies for Olympic sports.

Officials say the USOC's isolation and its officials' inexperience contributed to management missteps this year that possibly killed Chicago's bid well before the October vote. The biggest, most say, occurred when discussions over renegotiating controversial financial deals between the USOC and IOC stalled this past spring and were tabled, infuriating many IOC members."

The other thing that jumps out of the story is that the USOC isn't exactly hurting for money . . . .

"Because Congress in 1978 gave only the USOC the right to use the Olympic rings in the United States, the IOC was forced to cut a pair of special deals for U.S. marketing and television rights in the late 1980s that have become increasingly contentious: The USOC receives 20 percent of the revenue from the IOC's top sponsor program while the rest of the national Olympic committees combined also receive 20 percent (U.S. officials say that after the IOC lops off administrative fees, the U.S. portion is closer to 13 percent), and 12.75 percent from the U.S. broadcasting deal (the international sports federations, other national Olympic committees and IOC split 38.25 percent).

Those two deals provided about 52 percent of the operating income for 2005-08 for the USOC, which unlike other national Olympic committees, receives no money from its government. In the last Olympic quadrennium, the USOC got more than $300 million from the IOC; the rest of the more than 200 national Olympic committees combined got $373 million."

. . . which again raises questions, in my mind, about whether this cash-strapped city couldn't have, shouldn't have, negotiated a better "deal" on the headquarters project, by asking USOC to chip in half the costs, at the very least. I have no empirical evidence to prove it, but I suspect that this giveaway by the city, coinciding as it did with our significant budget problems -- this wild act of generosity by a city that was crying poor -- was a major factor in the sinking of 2C.

Saying the right things while doing the wrong thing: that's the time-tested method for Colorado Democrats wanting to maintain their "centrist" or "moderate" credentials. The art of being a Colorado Democrat is to vote like any other Democrat, but to look like you've been dragged into it, kicking and screaming.

Sen. Michael Bennet may be a political greenhorn, but he's learned fast about how to play this duplicitous game.

You can't come right out and be a flaming liberal in Colorado; we're not quite California yet. So most Democrats who hold statewide office, or serve in Washington, have to play it both ways, by voting the liberal line (as Bennet did on this debacle of a CongressCare bill) even while offering objections, concerns and caveats (as Bennet did on this same bill) -- all of which is designed to reassure folks back home that you haven't gone completely off the reservation. As long as you say one thing, while doing another, you'll continue to be lauded as a "centrist" and a "moderate" by The Denver Post and other opinion-shapers in the state. And that's the only endorsement many Coloradans need to keep pulling the lever next to your name.

Mark Udall is playing a similar game with the debt limit. His party, the party in charge of two branches of government, has been spending wildly and recklessly (yes, yes, I know Republicans did the same when they were in charge), with few objections from Udall. Now, however, Udall is striking the pose of a debt hawk, which generated the desired news coverage from the Denver media:

"Convinced the country's rising debt has reached critical levels, U.S. Sen. Mark Udall said he's considering voting against a temporary increase in the federal spending limit necessary to keep the government running past New Year's.

Given the Democrats' razor-thin margin in the Senate, a 'no' vote by Udall would put in jeopardy a delicate agreement with the U.S. House of Representatives, which last week voted to raise the debt ceiling by nearly $300 billion, enough to keep the government functioning until February.

Udall is one of just two remaining Democratic holdouts in the Senate, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner personally called him Friday to explain the serious ramifications if the debt ceiling isn't raised.

Among them, the federal government wouldn't have the money to issue Social Security checks or pay interest on its debt.

"I told him that I couldn't commit to him today to vote for the debt-ceiling increase. We agreed to continue to speak and that's where we left it," Udall said.

"If you take that attitude that every time we get in this position that we'll kick the can down the road, then we never get a concrete set of steps to deal with it," Udall said."

If Udall is really "convinced" that "the country's rising debt has reached critical levels," he could make a stand against overspending on any given day in the U.S. Senate. I assume Udall voted for the $626 billion military appropriations bill that cleared the Senate Saturday -- even though the bill was larded with an estimated $4 billion in congressional earmarks. I would also be willing to bet that a few of those earmarks had Udall's name on them. How does that vote square with his grave concerns about the national debt?

I'm sure the senator understands the connection between budget deficits and the national debt. Yet he apparently hopes, rather cynically, that the good people of Colorado can't make that connection -- and that they won't see that his rhetorical hand-wringing over the debt isn't reflected in his day-to-day voting patterns in the Senate. He's playing the game, and playing it masterfully. And he and other Democrats will keep playing it, until more Coloradans begin calling them on it.

Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson isn't the flashiest of pundits; bombast isn't his forte. But in terms of delivering on the substance, and shining an economically-literate light on events, he's one of the best, in my opinion. Today he savages the health care bill that squeaked by the Senate over the weekend, as well as a president whose ego seems to be making policy.

Also a must-read is the piece by Post colleague Dana Milbank, whose description of events leading up to the bill's passage proves that the old cliche about legislating and sausage-making is wrong. Sausage-making looks good, and appetizing, by comparison.

What an invaluable resource for reasoning people the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal continues to be -- countering the general dumbing-down of media and the simpering namby-pambyism that dominates the opinion sections of most American newspapers. Particularly insightful and timely have been a series of pieces on the subject of climate change, which I'll link to below, for those who don't make the WSJ a regular stop on their reading list.

Here a respected biologist calls for reconsideration of the somewhat rigid, romanticized way we look at nature.

Here Patrick Michaels -- a man who has suffered at the hands of the eco-McCarthyists -- explains how the alarmist camp of climate researchers managed to "manufacture" the myth of a scientific "consensus."

Here Howard Bloom argues that climate change is just nature's way.

Here the "skeptical environmentalist," Bjorn Lomborg, calls for a smarter response to climate variation.

At a moment when all the country frequently seems on the verge of mass insanity, it's comforting to know that there's at least one place to turn where reason and critical thinking still can be found.

One silver lining to a fiscal crisis is that it intensifies the hunt for inefficiencies, redundancies and government waste of all sorts. Thus we have the City Manager wisely terminating an overtime pay policy that has been in practice for at least 12 years, without a reassessment or major revision until now.

The city's personnel policies weren't closely-enough scrutinized for savings opportunities in this last round of budget cuts. Most of the focus was on pay and furloughs. But Council in 2010 should undertake a broad and systematic review not just of what we pay people but of other personnel practices that might quietly be bloating the city's bottom line.

We'll officially wrap-up our work on the 2010 budget Monday. It's been an ordeal. But we'll need to start this broader look at city operations soon thereafter -- to begin working on the 2011 budget, in essence -- if we want to lessen the pain we'll have to inflict same time next year.

"Sidestreets" columnist Bill Vogrin did a write-up on the city's new partnership efforts yesterday. It was well-done, but just a little pessimistic for my tastes. I posted the following in the response section of the on-line Gazette:

"Why strike such a pessimistic tone, Bill?

The centers may be "gasping their last breaths," as you say -- or they could be getting a new lease on life, if the partnership experiments we've undertaken gain traction.

The good news (and interesting story) here is that centers that would have "gasped their last breath" at the end of this month have been granted a 3 month extension, buying them time to find new partners and adopt new operating models. The experiment may fail, but it won't be for lack of effort, or an unwillingness to innovate. And it's better than the alternative -- which was closure only a few weeks from now.

Brian Kates and many other people, inside and outside of city government, are working hard to make the most of this challenge. And it's unfortunate, judging from the tone of this piece, that you seem to be writing these efforts off, just as we're getting started. Given the novelty of this approach, and the short time we've been working it, I think we've made considerable progress.

It looks likely that we'll keep the Starsmore Center and Helen Hunt Falls visitor center staffed next year, thanks to the assistance of a local parks group; a coalition is forming to do the same for Rock Ledge Ranch; city aquatics facilities are developing an exciting new business model; and similar efforts are underway at the community centers. A lot of people are interested in this, even with all the distractions of the holiday season. And I'm guardedly optimistic that some of these efforts will bear fruit.

Organizations or individuals interested in being a part of this initiative should drop me a note at my city email: spaige@springsgov.com. We need ideas, energy, donations, volunteers, inspiration, creativity -- all the things this city has in abundance. We'll be holding meetings at the centers in January, to brief neighbors on our progress, gather new ideas and recruit potential partners. Those partners might be non-profits, churches, businesses, neighborhood groups, clubs, coaches, youth groups, educators, other governmental entities -- anyone, in short, who has a good idea that can help make these facilities more self-sustaining.

This probably won't happen through the actions of a single benefactor (though if one's out there, and reading this, please give me a call), but through the efforts of various organizations and individuals, pooling their talents, creativity and resources. Keeping community centers open will require community-wide involvement. But we don't have time to spare, so interested parties need to contact me -- spaige@springsgov.com -- soon.

Good report, Bill -- just a little on the gloomy side. Have a little more faith: maybe this news story will have a happy ending."

Vogrin, in a response, posted the following:

"Councilman Paige,

Thanks for your comments.

I am just being realistic. The private/public partnership idea sounds great. But I've seen the response in Denver where that city spends $11.6 million on 29 community centers, according to the Denver Post.

They tried to generate interest in private/public partnerships. At first, 62 non-profit groups expressed interest. But only one submitted a formal proposal to actually run a center.

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13981421#ixzz0ZuxzWIWL

They've been wrestling with this issue for at least three years. Appointed a task force to study it. Held 21 community meetings. I guess I doubt Colorado Springs can do in three months what Denver has been unable to accomplish in three years.

Hope I'm wrong.

Bill Vogrin"

The Denver Post report Bill cites is worth consulting and considering (I posted a link to it on our news aggregators Saturday, and have been meaning to blog about it). But rather than take Denver's situation as a reason for "realism," or pessimism, I think we should learn from it and avoid making similar mistakes. One major reason so few partners have stepped forward up there, according to the story, is the daunting approval process they must endure, which intimidates and turns-off many of them. With that in mind, I've asked our Parks Department people to simplify and streamline our own RFP process, so we don't overwhelm potential partners with a bunch of "must-dos" and "must-haves" that may not be necessary. Denver's situation and ours aren't analogous. But we can and should look at what they've done and learn from their efforts.

One cynic likened the exercise to "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic." Perhaps. I think it's more like taking the deck chairs and hastily assembling a life raft.

This news flash out of Pueblo today: a Democrat kisses-up to organized labor.

Such "buy-American" proposals may help Ritter stay on the good side of organized labor. But they are costly to taxpayers, impractical in implementation and don't address the real problems plaguing America's manufacturers and producers -- namely, the onerous regulatory rules, high taxes and relatively high labor costs with which they are burdened, compared with their foreign competitors. If Democrats really care about helping American companies compete, they might begin by addressing the root causes of production's flight from American shores. They might begin my acknowledging that they, and the policies they champion, have been a big part of the problem.

Bill Ritter isn't the only politician to play it coy on Piñon Canyon expansion: to insist that he isn't slamming the door on the Army, even as he slams the door on the Army. It's a game played by some of the most influential politicos in the state, of both parties, with virtual impunity. But the least the governor can do, when he's here showing support for the troops, is explain why that support doesn't extend to the expansion of their training areas. Ritter's "no comment" just doesn't cut it. In fact, it's insulting. But thank you, Gazette reporter Tom Roeder, for asking the impolite question -- a question Ritter needs to be asked every time he comes to town, acting as if he cares about this community.

"Douglas Bruce’s acquittal on a trespassing charge . . . won’t necessarily change the Colorado Springs Police Department’s policy on where people can gather signatures on a petition," The Gazette reported Friday.

But maybe it ought to.

I wouldn't automatically read the acquittal as a ringing repudiation of the city's petitioning policies, which were changed abruptly, and quietly, earlier this year, setting up the latest dust-up with Bruce. The jury probably reached its verdict based not on Bruce's tedious speechifying, but on more pedestrian, nuts-and-bolts questions, like whether he and a cohort were asked to leave by Costco managers before the police were summoned and citations were written. But I'm uncomfortable with the rather stealthy way the city altered these policies, without the approval of City Council, and with it's willingness to bend to the will of Costco on an issue so critical to the electoral process in Colorado.

If Costco wants to bar politicking on its properties, it probably has the right to do so, ultimately. I think the company does its community and customers a disservice by adopting such a policy, but it certainly has that right, when push comes to shove. Where the city erred was in not being protective enough of the public's right to petition, and in making this policy change without adequate public process or formal input from City Council.

This helped fuel suspicion that the policy change was aimed specifically at Bruce (even though I've yet to see convincing evidence of that) and part of a vendetta. That the City Attorney polled members of City Council about whether the city should re-charge Bruce with trespassing, after the original tickets were dismissed on a technicality, only reinforced that impression. I'm still shocked at the lack of judgment this showed.

All this handed the defendant (Bruce) plenty of fodder for weaving conspiracy theories and planting doubts in jurors' heads. The city couldn't have done any better at playing into Bruce's hands.

This city has been notoriously reluctant to admit when it's wrong (it's been as stubborn as Mr. Bruce, in that respect). This contributes to public perceptions that city leaders are arrogant and out of touch. But in this case, in my opinion, the city was/is wrong. It should reconsider its policy on petitioning.

Costco might ultimately prevail in its desire to close storefronts to signature-gatherers. But this shouldn't take place with the city's passive acquiescence. My suggestion is that the policy be brought back before City Council for vetting, review, approval or rejection. We can hear from the company. We can hear from petitioners. We can better understand, and debate, the legal rationales behind the city's position. City Council can consider all this and endorse or reject the policy change, living with the consequences.

That's the way this ought to have been done in the first place. We're seeing another example of how taking shortcuts comes back to haunt you.

P.S. I approached City Attorney Pat Kelly today, asking about the possibility of bringing this policy question before council for evaluation, amendment or reversal, and her response surprised me. Council has no real say in such matters, Kelly told me (assuming I understood her correctly). Such policies are dictated by case law and the desires of private property owners. She would be happy to provide background materials on the policy change, and perhaps a briefing at some future date, I was told. But I was left with the impression that Council's influence over this matter was negligible.

That's a little surprising, since there's very little that takes place inside the city that Council can't influence if it chooses to. Kelly may be correct, but I'm going to do more research before I give up on the possibility.

"Seth Richardson," who pens the Broadside blog at The Gazette, doesn't see what the big deal is about the Templeton Gap floodway situation -- about the fact that an immediate phaseout of the stormwater enterprise could force thousands of homes and businesses in the area to buy flood insurance they don't otherwise need. He chides City Council for its "ineptitude, incompetence and lack of imagination" in dealing with the issue, with the help of his 20/20 hindsight. The answer to this problem is so obvious, so simple, says Seth, that even a blogger can figure it out.

All we on Council need to do is slap something on next year's ballot creating a "Templeton Gap Floodway Improvement District," which would impose mill-levy increases on impacted properties. This money would pay the estimated $4.5 million it will take to shore-up the levee. Then we on Council should go out and "engage in some serious advertising to the residents to demonstrate the economics of failing to pass the ballot issue." And if they don't pass it, they and they alone live with the consequences. How complicated can that be?

Why floodway residents would listen to what we "incompetents" on Council have to say about the need for a special district is a mystery. These folks voted in the majority to end the stormwater enterprise, and free themselves from the "rain tax," only weeks ago. That they would turn around and support a mill-levy increase next year (a new "rain tax"), on advice from their allegedly-inept City Council, is doubtful. But maybe Seth can take on the task of selling the concept, in between blog posts. Why it's Council's job to promote the virtues of the district is unclear, since a majority on Council (including me) opposed Issue 300, anticipating that it would have nasty consequences. I'm not going to spend next year cleaning-up after Doug Bruce. I have my hands full now, trying to comply with his incomprehensible ballot language.

The other major flaw in Richardson's simplistic solution is that most of the city's stormwater problems are interconnected -- which argues for a holistic, rather than piecemeal, solution. We're dealing with a network of floodways, washes, ditches, culverts and spillways, all of which flow into the Fountain. The T-Gap floodway is only one of many interlinking issues we face. Some bridges crossing Sand Creek could become unstable if they aren't strengthened, according to briefings we received. That work will also go undone if we drop the enterprise Jan. 1. If the bridges become unstable, traffic across the creek could be severed or restricted. That's a problem for the entire city, not just folks near Sand Creek.

Maybe we should create a Sand Creek Floodway District to deal with this problem. But maintaining the safety of roads and bridges is the responsibility of all residents, not just those living nearest to where they might fail. So who's responsibility is this? Following Seth's model, we should chop the city into a dozen different stormwater districts, which would deal with their specific, localized problems in a haphazard fashion. But the system as a whole would suffer, since it's only as reliable as its weakest point. A failing system will have significant repercussions downstream -- and could be used by governments and regulatory agencies to slow or stop progress on SDS, since better management of Fountain Creek is a condition of many permits and approvals.

Maybe Seth doesn't give a damn about SDS, or about how the sudden death of the stormwater enterprise might drive up costs or delay construction. After all, according to his theory, it's unfair to impose costs on everyone for a pipeline that will disproportionately benefit water users in newer parts of town. If those folks want their water, they should just go out and build their own pipe, leaving the rest of us out of it. But I think we need to move forward on the project. I would like to see costs and delays minimized, it at all possible.

Unlike Richardson, I have a responsibility to consider this bigger picture when taking a position on the stormwater issue. It isn't just a theoretical blogging exercise for me anymore. No one was as angry about the way the stormwater enterprise was created than I was. But that doesn’t justify shutting it down in a sloppy, wasteful, short-sighted way.

This was one issue that factored into my support of a two year phaseout of the stormwater enterprise; completing work on the Templeton Gap levee would have saved homeowners and businesses in the floodway millions of dollars in unnecessary insurance premiums. But there will be other unpleasant, costly and divisive consequences of an immediate shutdown -- none of which could have been fully anticipated by people who pulled the lever for Issue 300, given the vague and open-ended way it was written.

Did any of them understand that voting "yes" might mean they would soon be buying flood insurance? Did they think about how an abrupt end to the program might impact the permitting and approval process for the Southern Delivery System, some of which is contingent on how we manage flows down Fountain Creek? Did they fully grasp the fiscal impacts of phasing-out PILT payments from the enterprises? And what about the divisive debate to come, and potential lawsuits that loom, over what to do with the $13 million in unspent funds left in the stormwater account? How will that fight bring this divided city together, or help us "get beyond" the issue?

I seriously doubt voters understood any of this when they pulled the lever for 300. Most of these consequences are only now becoming apparent, after the vote, and weren't much discussed during the campaign. A majority of voters saw a yard sign or flier somewhere, promising an end to the "rain tax," and that was good enough for them. The "we said stop" crowd, led by Doug Bruce, doesn't want to hear or consider any of this, of course. They say they voted for an immediate end to the enterprise, because that's what the yard signs said, dammit! We on Council must comply! That the ballot language said no such thing, and doesn't make this explicit, and can be read to mean different things by different people, is beside the point, in their opinion. And now a majority on Council have bought into this "reasoning" or bowed to the pressure.

I didn't anticipate all the repercussions either, but I recognized the potential for future problems -- for this controversy and confusion -- in the measure's vague wording. That's why I opposed it.

One school of thought says that half-informed voters get what they deserve. H.L. Mencken once defined democracy as "the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." And now many supporters of 300 are going to get it, good and hard. Those living in the Templeton Gap area will learn an important lesson, according to this school of thought, if they are forced to go out and buy costly flood insurance because the stormwater program goes down. Maybe they'll read the fine print more carefully next time. And what about the additional millions it will cost CSU ratepayers if the end of the stormwater enterprise holds up approvals for, and construction of, SDS? Won't that make all the squawking over the "rain tax" look a little penny wise and pound foolish?

But I'm not interested in punishing people for poor ballot choices, if I can help it. As a responsible person, who finds it impossible to read the "will of the voters" in Bruce's perversely-obtuse language, and who has a duty to consider the larger costs and consequences of an immediate shutdown of the enterprise, I still believe a two year phaseout was the better way to go.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar gets a gold star on his forehead today from the Denver Post for directing some $40 million in federal funds to battle beetle blight in Colorado, Wyoming and South Dakota. But it's a nice gesture that comes 10 or 20 years too late to get ahead of the problem. The money might help manicure dead forests. But it comes far too late to prevent them from dying.

It's impolite to look a gift horse in the mouth, I know. But one can't help wondering why Salazar is riding to the rescue only now, after millions of acres in the state are ready to fall over or go up in flames. Throwing $40 million at the problem now might help, at the margins. But unless Salazar also does something to slash through the red tape that ties federal agencies in knots, and calls on his friends in the environmental movement to stop their knee-jerk opposition to the active management of public lands, it won't even have a marginal impact.

Take Interstate 70 over the mountains and you'll see the destruction. It will make you sick and angry. The toll this will take on the state's ski industry and tourist economy is still only vaguely understood. It will be huge. This catastrophe -- which Salazar calls the "Katrina of the West" -- didn't just burst on the scene last year, however. It's been evolving for decades, as a result of natural and man-made causes. The Yellowstone fire of 1988 -- more than 20 years ago! -- ought to have served as a wake-up call, signaling that the crisis was upon us. Every forest expert, in and outside government, knew what was afoot. But, in what I consider one of the major scandals of the last century, nothing was done about it, as a result of bureaucratic and political paralysis.

It's suggested by some that this couldn't be averted -- a popular position among those in government, Congress and advocacy groups who stood by and allowed the crisis to develop. Another convenient cop-out is to blame it all on -- what else? -- global warming. But the root causes of this situation lie in the mismanagement of federal forests: a century of short-sighted fire suppression policies (which created ideal conditions for wildfire and disease), followed by a paralysis in dealing with those conditions (thanks to federal red tape and lawsuit-happy green groups).

To say this was inevitable is a way of dodging responsibility. We shouldn't let those responsible get away with it.

No national columnist hits the nail as squarely on the head as consistently as Charles Krauthammer. He does it again today, with a piece about the EPA's attempted takeover of the U.S. economy, through the proposed regulation of CO2.

Of particular interest to me, though, since it echoes my own views on the subject, is Krauthammer's assertion that environmentalism has become "a new religion" -- but a religion that differs in significant ways from most others, and poses a greater danger to our political and economic liberties, because it is embraced by the state and has socialist underpinnings.

Here's the sound of the hammer hitting the nail:

"Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means more than a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.

This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.

Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet."

All totalitarian movements need a grandiose mission statement; a goal big enough to justify their abuses of power. Some have marched under the banner of racial purity; others under the banner of the proletarian revolution. In the name of "saving the planet" -- what mission could be more important than that? -- almost any abuses of political or economic liberty can be justified. It's that awareness that explains my strong aversion to the new religion called environmentalism -- and my belief that Americans, just as they insist on a separation of church and state, must also demand the separation of cult and state.

An editorial in today's Pueblo Chieftain makes some minor news of its own, by admitting, somewhat begrudgingly and belatedly, that water quality criticisms leveled against Colorado Springs in recent years might be just a tad hypocritical, given the steel city's reluctance to clean up its own act in that regard. While Colorado Springs has worked hard and spent lavishly to put its house in order, Pueblo has done little to upgrade its own wastewater facilities, all the while painting this city as a bad actor on water quality issues. This dirty little secret spilled out into the sunlight last week, when a major spill occurred directly into the Arkansas. It's now apparent to everyone that the emperor has no clothes, in the words of the editorial:

"Puebloans have rightly criticized Colorado Springs for its egregious sewage spills into Fountain Creek. The Springs has been by far the largest polluter among all Colorado cities.

But the emperor cannot ride through town with no clothes. Pueblo must clean up its act to be a good neighbor to the communities downsteam along the Arkansas."

I take no delight in the spill. The fact is, accidents occur with even fully modernized systems, despite every precaution. But perhaps this incident will bring a little balance and realism to the one-sided water quality debates that have raged between the cities. Perhaps, if we start from the premise that no one is blameless and everyone shares responsibility, we can get past all the shaming and finger-pointing that's gone on. Perhaps The Chieftain cracked open the door to that more constructive and honest dialog with today's editorial.

Friend and former Freedom Communications colleague Steven Greenhut had a typically-trenchant piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. It's focused on the public sector pension crisis in California but has lessons to impart wherever overly-generous pension promises are becoming unsustainable liabilities.

If Colorado wants to avoid becoming California, we need to ask whether the seeds of similar problems aren't sown here. And it's an issue we need to confront at the city level too, as painful as that might be, politically speaking. The sooner we deal with it, the easier it will be to deal with. I've heard Mayor Rivera on several occasions say that the time has come for the city to deal with the issue. I'm with him on that. We're not in California's shoes now. But unless we make necessary adjustments soon, we someday might be.

I'm planning to have Greenhut out as a Food for Thought Luncheon speaker sometime early next year. I'll get the word out as details become available.

Economist Milton Friedman famously said (or is supposed to have said) "there's no free lunch." Media mogul Rupert Murdoch says something very similar, in a slightly different context, in today's Wall Street Journal. The implications of this seemingly simple message are profound, not just for the economy at large but for a media industry transitioning from old paradigm to new. The future of news aggregators like the one featured on LocalLibertyOnline.org might also hang in the balance.

Murdoch is bullish on the future of journalism, at a time when many are drafting its obituary. That's encouraging. But the success of the new media won't rest on advertising revenues, as the traditional model did. The new model will require readers to pay for what they now get "free" on the Internet. That's where the lunch thing comes in.

Murdoch says the new media will have to work harder to give news consumers the content they really want. But that’s only half the bargain. Here's the hitch:

"My second point follows from my first: Quality content is not free. In the future, good journalism will depend on the ability of a news organization to attract customers by providing news and information they are willing to pay for.

The old business model based mainly on advertising is dead. Let's face it: A business model that relies primarily on online advertising cannot sustain newspapers over the long term. The reason is simple arithmetic. Though online advertising is increasing, that increase is only a fraction of what is being lost with print advertising.

That's not going to change, even in a boom. The reason is that the old model was founded on quasimonopolies such as classified advertising, which has been decimated by new and cheaper competitors such as Craigslist, Monster.com, and so on.

In the new business model, we will be charging consumers for the news we provide on our Internet sites. The critics say people won't pay. I believe they will, but only if we give them something of good and useful value. Our customers are smart enough to know that you don't get something for nothing.

That goes for some of our friends online too. And yet there are those who think they have a right to take our news content and use it for their own purposes without contributing a penny to its production. Some rewrite, at times without attribution, the news stories of expensive and distinguished journalists who invested days, weeks or even months in their stories—all under the tattered veil of "fair use."

These people are not investing in journalism. They are feeding off the hard-earned efforts and investments of others. And their almost wholesale misappropriation of our stories is not "fair use." To be impolite, it's theft.

Right now content creators bear all the costs, while aggregators enjoy many of the benefits. In the long term, this is untenable. We are open to different pay models. But the principle is clear: To paraphrase a famous economist, there's no such thing as a free news story, and we are going to ensure that we get a fair but modest price for the value we provide."

Will spoiled news consumers agree to pay news producers for what they now receive, and replicate, for virtually nothing? That's unknown until media companies move aggressively to restrict content to paying customers only. Some of this is done on a small scale now, but most content is still out there for the taking. Already-shaky media companies are reluctant to throw up toll gates on the "information highway" when the competition is giving it all away. Everyone sees that the freebies must end. But all the major players are standing on the edge of the pool, wondering who’s going to jump first.

Murdoch's new paradigm, if it gains ground, also has the potential to dramatically change the so-called blogosphere, given how many blogs and websites depend on re-posting mainstream media material. We at LLO post links to relevant news stories on our two aggregators. I frequently link to news stories in this blog, and sometimes re-publish verbatim excerpts as reference points (as I'm doing in this post). This is arguably a benefit to the originating news source, if people click back through the links. But it also raises copyright questions that can’t be ignored. We in the blogosphere tend to think of it as borrowing, but Murdoch calls it “theft.” And I think many of the points he makes are well-taken.

But this presents a problem. I’m one of “these people,” one of these "friends online," Murdoch references in the piece. If I had to pay to insert a link, or republish an excerpt, or pay to access the myriad news sites I now view for nada, the cost of doing this will increase considerably, possibly making it impossible. So what Murdock is proposing would impact (and possibly ruin) this and millions of other blogs and websites, which currently serve as a sort of shadow media, dependent, for the most part, on content provided by the “old media.” Many “new media” sites take glee in bashing, badgering and discrediting the “old media.” But that’s dangerous and self-defeating in my view, given that the old media remains the baseline that most of us still use as a common reference point.

The new media may someday become as trusted and reliable, as a source of hard news, as the old media was in its heyday. But now, in its infancy, it’s still reliant on conventional news producers. We’ve been enjoying a Golden Age of news and information exchange, made possible by a virtually “free” web, where reams of content can be accessed at the click of a mouse. But that moment of freeloading may have to end, in order to preserve the professional information gatherers otherwise known as journalists.

If they go extinct, all you’ll have left is a tower of bloggle.

Radicals of all stripes find welcoming and eager ears on American college campuses (some even burrow in and earn tenure); it's almost as if parents, taxpayers and tuition-payers feel obligated to expose impressionable minds to both the best and worst of ideas, assuming students can tell the difference. But many students can't tell the difference -- which is why activist-turned-"educator" Annie Leonard received a warm reception at last week's appearance at Colorado College.

Leonard's video, The Story of Stuff, "details in a simplistic, almost childlike way, the linear journey that stuff takes to get to our homes and the journey it takes when we toss the stuff out," reports The Gazette. But the film's "childlike" style is designed to deceive. It actually delivers a much more adult message, leveling a wide-ranging critique of capitalism, consumerism, industrialism and Americanism, tied-up in a bright green ribbon to lower a viewer's guard.

Leonard once worked for Greenpeace. The group's extremist ethos permeates the film. "Stuff" was bankrolled in part by The Tides Foundation, which gives generously to radical causes. A quick read of the transcript, or viewing of the film, reveals that "Stuff" is much more than just a primer on resource extraction and mass consumption. It's a context-free broadside against the American way of life, full of fear-mongering distortions and political editorializing. Many of the "facts" presented are debatable. The transcript has footnotes, but most lead back to dubious, ideologically-loaded sources.

If The Story of Stuff were confined to YouTube, and it's creator to the college lecture circuit, it couldn't do too much harm. But the film is being shown in many U.S. schools, where captive and unwitting audiences are clueless about its hard-Left subtext. The New York Times reported in May that the film is jumping from the Internet into the classroom, with little resistance. It's something parents and school administrators need to be aware of.

The Times:

"More than 7,000 schools, churches and others have ordered a DVD version, and hundreds of teachers have written Ms. Leonard to say they have assigned students to view it on the Web. It has also won support from independent groups that advise teachers on curriculum choices. Facing the Future, a curriculum developer for schools in all 50 states, is drafting lesson plans based on the video."

One Montana school district banned the film, following complaints from an alert parent, according to the Times. But the public school establishment seems to be embracing the film as a legitimate teaching tool. More from the Times:

"In January, a school board in Missoula County, Mont., decided that screening the video treaded on academic freedom after a parent complained that its message was anticapitalist. But many educators say the video is a boon to teachers as they struggle to address the gap in what textbooks say about the environment and what science has revealed in recent years.

“Frankly, a lot of the textbooks are awful on the subject of the environment,” said Bill Bigelow, the curriculum editor of Rethinking Schools, a quarterly magazine that has promoted “The Story of Stuff” to its subscribers and on its Web site, which reaches about 600,000 educators a month. “The one used out here in Oregon for global studies — it’s required — has only three paragraphs on climate change. So, yes, teachers are looking for alternative resources.”

Environmental education is still a young and variable field, according to Frank Niepold, the climate education coordinator at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. There are few state or local school mandates on how to teach the subject.

The agency is seeking to change that, but in the interim many teachers are developing their own lesson plans on climate change, taking some elements from established sources like the National Wildlife Federation and others from less conventional ones like “The Story of Stuff.”

Whether endorsed by curriculum committees, or infiltrating our classrooms one DVD at a time, courtesy of teachers who don't recognize it's political overtones, The Story of Stuff is mind pollution of a toxic kind. Parents need to learn whether their kids are seeing it in school. They should demand that schools stop showing it, unless balance, context and counter-arguments are offered in response. It's left-wing indoctrination, not education -- something as out of place in the classroom as Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, which many U.S. schools passed off as a serious lesson in climate science.

Peddling this kind of "stuff" to college students is one thing; imposing it on K-12 kids is quite another.

I haven't seen a news story about his passing (which isn't too surprising, given how out of touch The Gazette's news department is with the conservative movement in this very conservative town), but an obituary appeared today for Dane Nowels, a man well-known among liberty groups in the area. It's rare for an obituary to stray too far into the realm of ideas, or politics, but Dane's does -- and I know he, as a life-long learner and teacher, wouldn't have had it any other way.

Here's an excerpt:

"As a natural leader and Party Vice-Chairman, Dane made an enormous impact on the El Paso County Republican Party in the two years in which he headed Outreach Programs. He led the efforts encouraging minorities, youth, young adults and businesspersons to join, fund, and actively support local and state candidates who espouse a strong national defense, limited government, spending, and taxes that stifle economic progress and job creation. He supported traditional American values based upon the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights particularly the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

A voracious reader and active member of the Pikes Peak Economics Forum, Dane eagerly spoke to and debated area high school and college students about his passionate belief in free market economics, and our Constitutional given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit happiness. He publicly applauded the benefits of positive incentives provided in Capitalistic, competition driven markets and denounced the denigration and punishment of individual achievement through heavy taxation and overt redistribution of wealth from those dedicated to achieving The American Dream; to the 46% of wage earners who pay no income taxes as espoused by liberals and progressives."

Dane's memorial service will be at 1 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 18, at the First Presbyterian Church, located at 219 Bijou Street. "In lieu of flowers," reads the obituary, "Dane's friends may contribute to the organizations he strongly supported: - The Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition, PO Box 17253, Colorado Springs, CO 80935-7253 - The Pikes Peak Economic Forum - The El Paso County Republicans, 205 Sutton Lane, Colorado Springs, CO 80907."

That was Dane: a champion of ideas, freedom and worthy causes, right to the very end.

Ever wonder why folks in Pueblo always seem two or three moves ahead of Colorado Springs in the water wars? Maybe it's because the Steel City's daily, The Pueblo Chieftain, makes reporting on these important issues a priority, while The Colorado Springs Gazette is either behind the curve or leaving readers in the dark -- acting as if all news of importance to Colorado Springs stops at the Pueblo County line.

What occurs south of that line -- especially on water issues, but also on Fort Carson's expansion plans at Pinon Canyon -- is as important to Colorado Springs as it is to Pueblo. Yet readers of the Gazette are less-informed on such matters than readers of The Chieftain, which puts the Springs at a disadvantage, vis-a-vis Pueblo. It pains me to say this, as a former Gazette employee, but the paper is dropping the ball on coverage of things that really count. Its editors and executives then wonder why readership is off.

Just today, for instance, the Chieftain ran four or five stories of consequence to Colorado Springs -- stories that Gazette readers are clueless about. Our daily, meanwhile, used precious page space to explore the plight of amphibians and trends in holiday parties. Here's the news Gazette readers missed.

Story 1: Environmental groups want a greater say in water quality issues along Fountain Creek.

Story 2: A Fountain Creek corridor "master plan" (costs and regulatory impacts unknown) is in the works.

Story 3: Springs officials give assurances to Fountain Creek District on stormwater issues (something we in the Springs ought to know about).

Story 4: Gary Barber selected to head Fountain Creek District.

Story 5: Major spill points to wastewater problems in Pueblo.

It might be argued that this is over-reporting by The Chieftain. How many boring old water stories can a reader stand, some might ask? Fair enough -- I'm not saying The Gazette should match The Chieftain story-for-story. But what's going on downstream, along the Fountain especially, is extremely important to this city, since the creek serves as discharge point for virtually all our stormwater and wastewater. Control the creek and you control water flows through the city. Progress on the SDS pipeline -- a billion dollar investment -- is connected to water management issues in the Fountain. The new Fountain Creek District has taxing and regulatory powers that are still only vaguely understood. How this city deals with its stormwater challenges -- or doesn't deal with them -- is a topic of intense interest down south, among folks who have the power to make our lives difficult if they decide to.

Springs residents can't afford to be clueless about any of this, and the city is at a disadvantage in the water wars when they are. So I would respectfully ask the news department at The Gazette to get with the program and start assigning reporters to stories that matter. I know there have been staffing cuts at the paper. Some really solid talent has been eliminated. But it's all a question of prioritizing, in my opinion. The Chieftain's coverage can sometimes cross the line into crusading. But a crusading newspaper is arguably more interesting than one that appears detached and complacent.

The fate of amphibians is vaguely interesting. But the future of this water-dependent city is of much more urgent importance. I shouldn't have to turn to The Pueblo Chieftain to find out what's really happening in -- and to -- Colorado Springs.

Do the self-styled clean water warriors at The Sierra Club have a double standard when responding to sewage spills? We're about to find out.

The highly-litigious green group cost Colorado Springs Utilities more than $1 million in legal bills recently, after joining in on a frivolous lawsuit brought by grandstanding Pueblo DA Bill Thiebaut (who was ousted from the case after a federal judge ruled that he had exceeded his authority). But now comes news of a major sewage spill by Pueblo, directly into the Arkansas River -- a spill comparable in size to one that spurred the lawsuit against Colorado Springs -- and all we hear from the group is a mild rebuke.

From today's Gazette:

"The Sierra Club, while not threatening a lawsuit, pledged to make sure the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment investigates.

“We would of course insist the city of Pueblo be held accountable for any violation of the Clean Water Act that has occurred and it’s pretty evident that one has,” said Ross Vincent, chairman of the Sangre de Cristo Group, based in Pueblo.

While the organization once directed its ire at Colorado Springs, he applauded Utilities’ improvements to its system, and said it is time Pueblo begin updating its own.

“It needs a lot of work and it’s going to cost some money and people in Pueblo are going to have to come up with it and figure out how to make it happen,” Vincent said."

Vincent says he'll "insist" that Pueblo be held accountable for any Clean Water Act violations that occurred. But that means nothing if not backed up by action. And meaningful action evidently isn't in the cards when Pueblo is the culprit, highlighting the double standard at work. The Sierra Club evidently recognizes that Pueblo is far behind Colorado Springs when it comes to modernizing wastewater infrastructure. But Pueblo so far has gotten a pass, while we in the Springs have been painted as a villain. It would have been nice -- and far less costly and time-consuming -- if The Sierra Club had been this understanding with Colorado Springs.

But perhaps some politically-motivated downstream DA will try and make a name for himself by suing Pueblo. The Sierra Club may at that point swing into action, since the group long ago abandoned hands-on conservation work, and any semblance of reason or common sense, in favor of extremist thinking and knee-jerk litigating.

The reputation of climate scientists has taken a hit lately, even if a few Obama administration deniers still insist that the Climategate affair is much ado about nothing. But all the focus on the infamous hacked e-mails has overshadowed news of a more overt act of fraud, perpetrated by another "highly-respected" climate scientist -- a case that underscores the danger of putting such people on pedestals.

The accused, NASA climatologist Mark Schoeberl, got a slap on the wrist, as compared to more run of the mill felons, presumably because his long service in government and testimonials to his otherwise good character from colleagues -- including one Nobel Prize winner! -- held sway with the court. His defenders (like the defenders of monkey-wrencher Tim DeChristopher) argued that he wasn't motivated by low motives or ignoble greed, but acted out of an overzealous (but noble) desire to help protect the planet. Whether justice was served, I leave to your judgment.

Here's the story, as told by one of my favorite websites, GovExec.com:

NASA scientist avoids jail in procurement case

A prominent NASA scientist, who has admitted directing thousands of dollars in sole-source agency contracts to his wife's company and failing to report the income on a financial disclosure form, has been spared a prison sentence. The U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Md., on Tuesday sentenced Mark Schoeberl, 60, of Silver Spring, Md., to one year's probation and a $10,000 fine.

Schoeberl, who was a senior manager and a well-known atmospheric scientist at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland before he retired earlier this year, pleaded guilty in September to one felony count of conflict of interest. At Tuesday's sentencing, Schoeberl, who spent 30-plus years with the agency, expressed remorse for his mistakes and admitted an error in judgment.

Three scientists, including two who still work for NASA, also addressed the court and requested leniency for Schoeberl. More than 50 other scientists, included one Nobel Prize winner, submitted letters praising his character and credentials. Schoeberl's attorney Jacob Frenkel said the sentence was a reflection of his client's "enormous contributions to world atmospheric sciences and anticipated valuable continuing work in support of climate change research."

Prosecutors agreed Schoeberl did not deserve to go to jail, noting in court documents that he quickly accepted responsibility for his conduct, had no criminal history and had a lengthy record of service at NASA. Schoeberl was the chief scientist of Goddard's earth sciences division, which conducts climate research, and the project scientist for the Aura mission to study the Earth's ozone layer, air quality and climate.

Schoeberl's position enabled him to guide funds budgeted for the Aura mission. According to the plea agreement, in mid-2004 Schoeberl began inquiring about ways to direct work to his wife Barbara's company, Animated Earth, a small business that develops and distributes Earth Today, an exhibit displaying near-real-time earth science data. The couple previously had collaborated on a host of projects and presentations for NASA and court documents indicate that the relationship was well-known at the agency.

Prosecutors said Mark Schoeberl initially encountered resistance to a plan that would have directed a $20,000 appropriation to Animated Earth, but later convinced a colleague to approve the funding. In May, Schoeberl prepared a document that justified Animated Earth as the only contractor eligible to bid on a new award for maintenance on kiosks that the company previously had installed on NASA grounds. In June, he provided another sole-source justification directing NASA contracting personnel to award a $60,000 software contract to Animated Earth.

Schoeberl's 2007 financial disclosure form did not include the more than $50,000 in contracts his wife's firm earned that year. Between fiscal 2006 and fiscal 2008, Animated Earth was awarded more than $190,000 in NASA contracts, all without competition, according to data on USASpending.gov, a federal Web site that aggregates date on contract spending.

Frenkel argued that Schoeberl was not motivated by financial gain but rather by a belief that Animated Earth's software was the best product available for earth science education. "Unfortunately, his appreciation of the efficacy and value of the product, and his encouragement of its use, was inconsistent with his professional position at NASA because Dr. Schoeberl's job included responsibility for administering the educational function associated with the satellite program he supervised," the attorney wrote in a sentencing memo he prepared for the court.

"Once a NASA lawyer instructed Dr. Schoeberl that he, in substance, should not even be communicating about Earth Today, it was too late; by then the incidents supporting use of the software already had occurred." In Nov. 20 sentencing correspondence to the court, prosecutors said the government does not seem to have suffered a financial loss because "Animated Earth appears to have completed the work that it contracted with the federal government."

Nontheless, Frenkel said NASA has refused to pay an outstanding bill to Barbara Schoeberl because of the criminal case. The Goddard Space Flight Center did not respond to a request for comment. In the wake of the criminal charges against Schoeberl, agency lawyers reportedly issued a memo to staffers advising them of ethics rules and post-employment restrictions, Frenkel said in his court filings. He said several NASA employees subsequently came forward about similar ethical conflicts. Schoeberl, who has received numerous awards from the space agency and written more than 150 published articles, now finds himself out of work and "radioactive" to potential employers, Frenkel said. "The atmospheric science program has been his life and he has no desire to abandon it," he said.

Why this story received so little media play, in contrast to Climategate, is curious. Maybe fraud undertaken in the name of lining one's pockets is less interesting than fraud undertaken in the name of a cause. But it amounts to the same thing, in my opinion, since climate alarmists are guaranteed to garner more funding, more power, more media attention and adulation than scientists who take a more skeptical tack. No one ever won a government grant, after all, by arguing that everything's alright with the world.

Now here's a novel idea for those bickering and back-biting governing bodies that just can't get along.

There's nothing like a long weekend away at a romantic five-star resort, and some quality time with a top-notch marriage counselor, to smooth over those rough spots and get you back on track, where you need to be, all pulling the wagon in the same direction. And because journalists can't be excluded from the fun, they've been invited (a bit belatedly), too -- even if that dampens the sense of intimacy and warm feelings the retreat is designed to create. On Sunday afternoon, just before returning to Denver, they'll all stand beside Lake Broadmoor, hand holding hand, and raise their voices in a chorus of "Kumbaya."

And the taxpayers back home should be throwing up, wondering why the hell they're paying for all this.

Although I'm only vaguely aware of its origins, there's a deep distrust between the city and the county -- a distrust that could easily scuttle a golden opportunity for the two entities to build a better relationship, and cooperate on something worthwhile, if it's not handled carefully.

The county recently offered help in keeping The Pioneers Museum open, in recognition that the city's fiscal situation might land the facility in mothballs. It sounded promising enough to me, as a naive newbie -- like just the sort of partnerships the city will have to embrace if it's going to get through the budget crunch. I was shocked, therefore, (and not very happy) to see the city spokesperson belittling the idea in the Colorado Springs Business Journal, before we on Council had even been briefed on what was in the works. I sent off an e-mail expressing my disapproval of the dismissive attitude (and asking whether the city spokesman was authorized to make such boat-rocking statements). It was my first taste of how deeply ingrained the distrust is.

There was a city/county meeting on the matter Monday, at which city officials heard details of the proposal for the first time. And much of what we heard wasn't very detailed. This started things off on the wrong foot, since some of my colleagues (along with a number of senior city staff) felt disadvantaged by the arrangement, in which county officials came prepared with a plan and agenda (some of which was debated in a closed-session), while city leaders were forced to react to what we heard on the run.

The timing of such discussions is ideal in one sense, terrible in another. The city’s fiscal situation makes the county’s offer potentially attractive. But no one likes to negotiate from a position of weakness, or while under duress. This can make the county’s proposal feel less like an offer of help, and more like an attempt to take advantage. Some of the statements made at the Monday meeting, if I read them correctly, made it seem like the county wanted total ownership of the building and grounds or no assistance would be forthcoming. That sort of inflexible, hardball rhetoric and attitude – along with the fact that the meeting was on county turf -- may understandably have put city leaders in a defensive and edgy posture. Let’s hope future discussions are handled with more finesse.

The situation wasn't completely comfortable, but I saw nothing wrong with having city and county staff begin working through the devilish details. There will be opportunities to apply the brakes later, I felt, if the terms of the agreement aren't mutually-beneficial. But some of my colleagues seemed more suspicious, as if they were being lured into a trap. It felt a little like a poker game, in which all the cards aren't on the table. There's a feeling among some city officials and staff that the county may have something up its sleeve. One rumor is that county leaders want control of the museum so they can shunt exhibits off to the side and create nice new offices for themselves. Another rumor suggests that the county might sell the building once it regains control -- a scenario I find implausible, given the public firestorm this would create. Such suspicions may prove unfounded once detailed discussions unfold. But until everyone's cards are on the table, this is the level of suspicion that's out there.

Some promising and innovative shared-services initiatives are underway between the city and county, which can help reduce redundancy and save money on both sides. I fear those long-overdue efforts could suffer a setback, and city-county relations could take another hit, however, if the Pioneers Museum discussions fall apart over a lack of candor and trust. It's imperative, therefore, that both sides lay all their cards on the table up front; that they give territoriality a rest and go out of their way to understand the other side's perspectives and concerns; that there are no hidden agendas that pop up to sour the deal, and widen the trust gap, at the last minute.

More than just the fate of the Pioneers Museum is riding on the process. It's imperative that both sides proceed in a way that builds -- not undermines -- mutual confidence and respect. I'll be sharing these thoughts with the county administrator when I meet with him later today. I approach the Pioneers Museum negotiations as a blank slate -- as someone unburdened by city-county conflicts and rivalries of the past. That explains my enthusiasm for moving forward with discussions. I hope my expectations of a positive outcome -- and my willingness to trust -- don't prove naive.

Sad and shocking news came this morning about the loss of a true friend of the liberty movement in the area: Dane Nowels. He apparently died of a heart attack at home.

Dane is probably best known as the former President of the Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition, and as current vice chair of the El Paso County Republicans, but he was a man of many interests and passions, who knew Austrian economics as well as he knew how to break world records in a tractor. A patriot and freedom-fighter of the first order, Dane was a steadfast supporter of Local Liberty Action and The Limited Government Forum. But more than that, he was just a great human being, who brought energy and optimism to those lucky enough to have known him.

We'll miss Dane a lot.

I'll post funeral arrangements as they become available.

That there might be a money motive behind climate change alarmism is usually dismissed by true believers. Scientists operate in a world of facts and hard data, it's assumed, standing apart from the rest of mere mortals, who act subjectively and selfishly, swayed by self-interest. The growing ClimateGate scandal hopefully will shatter, once and for all, that rather naive perception.

Alarmist-in-Chief Al Gore's profit motives already have been pointed out. But everyone knows he's a political huckster (and a former theology student who found a new religion), not a scientist. But scientists too are human -- all too human, as these e-mails reveal -- making them subject to all the baser motives, petty rivalries and herd-think with which the rest of us struggle. Ideology, political considerations and a craving for celebrity (think NASA's James Hansen) can also color their objectivity and work. Simple greed just earned one NASA climate scientist conviction for a more overt sort of fraud, even if his important contributions to science, and testimonials from colleagues, got him off with a slap on the wrist.

This isn't a slam on scientists, or on science, just a long-overdue acknowledgment that they don't always belong on the pedestal on which we put them. And the sooner Americans recognize this, the safer we'll all be from the dangers of science in the service of political extremism.

The Wall Street Journal has two related pieces on today's Editorial Page -- link and link -- I would highly recommend.

Not so long ago in America, finding a note attached to the front door, announcing that your property was being seized to pave the way for a new football stadium, wouldn't have been credible enough to elicit more than an incredulous shrug. But such highly-improbable abuses of eminent domain became all-too-plausible after the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous 2005 Kelo ruling -- which explains the genuine alarm that swept neighborhoods near Baylor University last weekend in the wake of a Friday night prank in which faux eviction notices appeared on hundreds of homes.

Reports the Waco Tribune:

Who are "the deniers" now?

The publication of some pretty damning e-mail exchanges between members of the Alarmist School of climate research (e-mails suggesting that they colluded in cooking the books and conspired to freeze-out and discredit members of the Skeptical School) has spawned a new breed of "denier" -- those in journalism and in government who deny the scandal's implications and want to charge ahead with a regulatory overreaction, as if these revelations change nothing.

So wedded are some people to the alarmist interpretation of climate variability, apparently, that nothing will shake their faith -- not even evidence that some of the high priests have been fudging on "facts." It's more evidence that environmentalism has evolved into a secular religion -- the one religion officially sanctioned by the state, perhaps because it enlarges, rather than challenges, state power.

We Americans are careful about upholding a "separation of church and state." Maybe we should think more about maintaining a separation of cult and state.

Douglas Bruce is a man of many vocations: crusader, landlord, lawyer, lovable lout (lout n. An awkward and stupid person; an oaf. See Synonyms at boor). But his skills as a lexicographer (lex-i-cog-ra-pher n. One who writes, compiles, or edits a dictionary) leave something to be desired.

Bruce came to City Hall Tuesday loaded for bear. But his blunderbuss misfired, splattering egg on his face, because of his failure to consult a dictionary. Bruce repeatedly took me to task during the session for allegedly misusing and misreading the word "hereafter" in yesterday's blog post (glad you're a reader, Doug). It's the adverb connecting Issue 300's two sentences, which Bruce says is synonymous with "immediately" -- as in, thou shalt immediately end the stormwater enterprise, sayeth The Lord. But it actually means something else, which turns Bruce's reading on its head.

Here's how "hereafter" is defined by the highly-reputable Merriam-Webster dictionary:

¹hereafter

Pronunciation: \hir-ˈaf-tər\

Function: adverb

Date: before 12th century

1 : after this in sequence or in time
2 : in some future time or state

Now, let's take the correct definition of "hereafter" and place it in Issue 300 (with the edits highlighted in bold).

"Excluding sales and use taxes forwarded from enterprise customers, all enterprise payments to the city shall phase out in eight or fewer equal yearly steps starting in January, 2010, with all yearly savings passed on as reductions to each customer bill in dollar amounts as equal as possible. After this in sequence or in time, all loans, gifts, and subsidies between an enterprise and the city or another enterprise are prohibited."

Read this way -- the correct way -- Bruce's ballot measure 300 can certainly be interpreted as meaning that all "loans, gifts, and subsidies between an enterprise and the city" are to be prohibited after the conditions of the first sentence are met. And the first sentence grants the city up to 8 years to comply with those conditions. Issue 300 mandates an immediate end to the Stormwater Enterprise, according to Bruce. But that's not what his ballot language says. And the ballot language is what voters approved -- not Bruce's bumper stickers, or his yard signs, not his statements to the media, nor his strained, after-the-fact explanations of what 300 really, truly, honestly means.

The mere fact that he keeps having to explain himself underscores the incoherence of the ballot language.

Bruce cleverly broke Issue 300 into two paragraphs when he made his presentation to Council, suggesting that they deal with different issues. But the sentences were bundled as a single paragraph on the ballot, making the connection clear. Bruce admitted yesterday that 300 conforms with the "single subject rule." Yet now he says the sentences deal with separate issues -- the first, a phase-out of PILT payments from all city enterprises; the second, an immediate end to the Stormwater Enterprise -- which would seem to violate the rule. It all seems like an ex post facto rationalization to me; of Mr. Bruce trying to read more into the measure than he wrote, in an effort to take advantage of the confusion he created. And I doubt average citizens understood the implications when they voted for it.

It's this incoherent wording and inconsistent argumentation that's creating confusion and controversy, not some nefarious effort by Council to circumvent the will of the voters. And the blame for this rests squarely with Bruce.

Hereafter, Mr. Bruce, please do the city a favor by keeping it simple. And please get your facts straight before throwing stones.

It may have been my toughest decision since being named to City Council. What to do about the stormwater enterprise?

Consensus seems to have come on the question of whether Issue 300 applied to the enterprise, though nothing in the ballot language made that explicit and the city attorney believes that interpretation could be challenged in court. But a second question remains: Did the voters want immediate termination or a phase-out in 8 years or less? Much depends on how one reads the following sentences.

"Shall an initiated ordinance be adopted by the City of Colorado Springs to read as follows: Excluding sales and use taxes forwarded from enterprise customers, all enterprise payments to the city shall phase out in eight or fewer equal yearly steps starting in January, 2010, with all yearly savings passed on as reductions to each customer bill in dollar amounts as equal as possible. Hereafter, all loans, gifts, and subsidies between an enterprise and the city or another enterprise are prohibited?"

Douglas Bruce says this requires immediate termination. It’s that not clear to me. The word "hereafter" could easily be interpreted to mean that all "loans, gifts, and subsidies between an enterprise and the city" will be prohibited after a phase out of enterprise payments in eight annual steps or less. Then there’s the question of whether a culvert constructed by the enterprise qualifies as a “gift” to the city -- and whether the average voter interpreted it as such. It's confusing, to say the least, but the city can only get a legal clarification by going to court, something most on council want to avoid, if possible. That leaves us wandering in a minefield.

Bruce prides himself on being a stickler for detail and language. But so am I. And I don't think 300's intent is as self-evident as Bruce says it is. Ex post facto explanations from the author have no force of law; nor do they serve as a reliable basis for implementation. The words that were approved by voters are all we have to go on. And they are open to broad interpretation, thanks to the author.

300’s budget implications for the city and two of its major enterprises demand that we act. But because we can't read the mind of everyone who supported 300, and because it was so poorly written -- and because it's the wording of the measure that legally matters, not what the author says it means -- it falls to Council to interpret the "will of voters" as best it can. There’s an honest difference of opinion on that.

Yesterday afternoon, after a lot of public debate and private anguish, I supported a two-year phase-out, which I believe respects the will of the voters, while ending the enterprise in a responsible and orderly fashion. Four colleagues supported halting the program at the end of the year. Some of their arguments were compelling. But I believe a two-year shutdown was the more appropriate course of action, given the implications to the city if several key stormwater projects are simply dropped.

If left unaddressed, erosion at several overpasses along Sand Creek could threaten the stability of the structures, leading to bridge and road closures that could tie certain parts of the city in knots. Shoring-up a levee on the Templeton Gap floodway is also critically important to hundreds of homes and businesses in the surrounding floodplain. A failure to do so means that these homes and businesses will be required to purchase flood insurance, unnecessarily costing them millions of dollars. Folks living or working in that floodplain, if they voted for 300, probably had no clue about the impact it would have on them. A few on Council seem to take the attitude that these people get what they deserve, but I doubt that many voters understood the full implications of what they were voting for.

A two-year phase-out should allow the city to complete this critically important work, improving public safety and saving homeowners and businesses millions of dollars in unnecessary costs. I thought it was a reasonable compromise, under the circumstances.

This situation is ironic, to say the least. I strongly opposed Council’s hasty and ill-conceived creation of the stormwater enterprise, back when I was editorializing at The Gazette. I decried the dishonesty of calling a tax a “fee.” And this still bugs me today. I never questioned the need for a citywide stormwater initiative. But I strongly objected (and still do) to the tone-deaf way this was approved, by side-stepping a vote of the people. The anger and public dissent this caused haunt the city to this day.

Yet here I am, a few years later, sitting on City Council -- and having to help clean up the mess that an earlier Council made, over my objections. The stormwater enterprise is going away, in keeping with the will of the voters. I'm comfortable with that. It's just a question of approach. A two-year phase-out allows for an orderly clean-up, as opposed to a haphazard shutdown that could result in an even greater mess.

It wasn’t an easy call. But that’s why we on council get paid the big bucks.

There still may be three or four people in city leadership I haven't met with, as part of the getting-to-know-you process that every rookie councilman undergoes (meetings that take on added urgency, no doubt, when the budget ax is hanging over everyone's head). But I'm also anxious for some sit-downs with the folks at El Paso County, given the interesting and innovative things they're doing over there.

Just today, for instance, The Gazette reports that the county is contracting out some snow removal services -- something I think the city should be doing. County leaders also are confronting their pension challenges, according to today's Gazette -- something that has to be high on the city's agenda too.

I understand that there are significant differences, as well as some rivalries (mostly petty, from what I can gather), between county and city. But in these two areas, and perhaps many more, the county seems to be setting an example the city should follow.

I've been delighted to learn, since coming aboard, about the shared services initiative underway between the city and the county. Fleet maintenance is one area where the two will partner, for instance. But I think such efforts need to be broadened and accelerated. El Paso County also has stepped forward, offering help with the Pioneers Museum -- something that will be the subject of a city/county meeting on Nov. 30. That, too, is a positive, in my opinion.

Such examples of cooperation are welcome, obviously, but maintaining a healthy rivalry isn't all bad either -- if the two governments are competing to bring more innovation and efficiency to local government. Right now -- and this is a surface assessment, admittedly -- I sense that the county is pulling ahead in that competition. I'll be doing what I can to see that the city takes up the challenge.

I support the idea of a city-Douglas Bruce "summit" to discuss the meaning and intent of Issue 300, though I'm doubtful it will bear fruit, or lead us toward resolution, if Bruce uses it as another opportunity to bluster, dictate, posture and pontificate.

There's genuine confusion about 300's meaning and implications, stemming from the convoluted and weird way it was written. That lack of clarity was one reason I opposed it. Misreading the measure's intent will have implications that go beyond the fate of the stormwater enterprise, or the fiscal impacts related to the loss of PILT payments to the city, because 300 can be read as contradicting the City Charter. That raises deeper constitutional questions, since initiated ordinances can't willy-nilly be used to override the City Charter. It's that, more than anything else, that has members of Council concerned, and anxious for legal clarification.

Whether we can get clarity without going to court, and creating more controversy, is the crux of the problem. No one on Council is eager to go to court, from what I can tell. All on Council want to respect the will of the voters. But the will of the voters and the pathway to implementation are unclear, given the vagueness of the measure and the constitutional issues it raises. Perhaps it would help to sit down with Bruce and talk these issues through -- some of us thought it was at least worth a try. If he uses the occasion to bask in his victory and dictate terms, this almost certainly will end up in court. But no one can say City Council didn't try a more reasonable approach.

This ballot measure is a mess. It's open to umpteen potential interpretations (if you doubt it, just ask a friend or co-worker what she thinks it means). Bruce can tell us what he meant when he wrote 300. He can show us bumper stickers, press clips or yard signs to support his claims. But since we can't read the mind of every voter who supported it, all that really matters, and all we ultimately have to go on, is the wording of the measure itself. And that's as clear as mud.

It's probably going to take a judge to sort it out. But I thought there was value in city officials at least talking with Bruce, outside a courthouse setting, in an effort to avoid another legal battle, if we can.

Bowing to pressure from Sen. Michael Bennet and others, the U.S. Army will decline to appeal a court ruling that has the potential to curtail training activities at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. It's a decision that could come back to haunt Colorado, and Colorado Springs especially, the next time a commission is asked to close bases or downsize America's military footprint. (Why I have to read The Pueblo Chieftain to stay on top of such critical developments, instead of the The Colorado Springs Gazette, is a continuing frustration of mine -- but that's a blog post for another day.)

The rancher-activists who brought this suit -- which deals not with the proposed expansion, but with operations at the existing site -- are gleefully waiving their cowboy hats and yelping "yippee." "We keep winning all the battles (with the Army) but it's the war over Pinon Canyon that we're worried about," one of their leaders told the Chieftain. But the "victories" will be Pyrrhic ones if this lawsuit, and all the continued (at this point, manufactured) controversy over expansion destroys Fort Carson's value and standing as a training facility, making it vulnerable to downsizing or eventual disappearance.

It was one thing to fight expansion -- I actually had some sympathy for the ranchers back when this all began. But now the activists (who, like many of these types, become somewhat addicted to it) seem intent not just on blocking expansion but on curtailing training activities at the old site. That goes too far in my book. But rather than calling for some sort of cease-fire, or negotiating a compromise, supposed-leaders like Sen. Bennet chose to jump aboard the anti-Army bandwagon, irresponsibly playing politics with the issue.

The Army may one day look for more hospitable confines in which to train. And the activist-ranchers who turned the Army into the enemy will once again be able to use these supposedly-precious lands for chasing cattle. They can continue living out a 19th Century lifestyle in splendid isolation, and economic stagnation, unfettered by modern intrusions or inconveniences, like having to ready fighting men and women for combat on an expanding battlefield. They'll have won every battle against the Army -- but Colorado as a whole, and the readiness of U.S. fighting forces, will be the ultimate casualties.

There's nothing some folks in Pueblo seem to like more than a good old water war. Usually the hostilities are directed outward, at "that city up north," Colorado Springs, or at out-of-basin water users like Aurora, which stand accused of "drying-up" Arkansas Valley agriculture. But a water war of the different sort has broken out in the Steel City; this one over the management of public pools. It might be instructive for Colorado Springs, as we look for creative ways to operate, and to deliver services, in a reduced-revenue environment.

At some point in the not-too-distant past, Pueblo turned over management of four public swimming pools to the YMCA -- in just the sort of partnership we might want to explore here in Colorado Springs, given that our pools are slated for closure next summer, the victims of budget cuts. This particular partnership seems to have gone sour, judging from today's report in the Pueblo Chieftain, highlighting some potential pitfalls with such arrangements. But potential pitfalls are no justification for not taking the plunge -- for not exploring similar arrangements here, which we can craft with more care and foresight, by keeping Pueblo's experience in mind.

Could the YMCA, or some other organization, assume responsibility for operating our city pools next summer? Perhaps, perhaps not. I haven't (yet) talked to anyone at the YMCA to find out. But it's certainly something worth talking about. It's easy to find reasons why such arrangements won't work -- naysayers can point to Pueblo as a cautionary tale. But we're not going to get the city through this fiscal crunch by listening to naysayers, or letting surmountable barriers stand in our way.

Pueblo demonstrated that a private organization can manage public pools. That should give us optimism. The arrangement didn't work perfectly. But an imperfect arrangement that keeps pools open is preferable to no pools at all, in my opinion. We can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good -- or the good-enough -- as we explore innovative ways to get us through the budget crunch.

Senator Michael Bennet may be a political novice. But he's already learned how to play politics with the Pinon Canyon issue.

Bennet recently urged the U.S. Army to drop its appeal of a court ruling that challenged the validity of environmental impact studies done at the Southern Colorado training facility. He's also been assuring Pinon Canyon critics in Pueblo and points south that a congressionally-mandated freeze on funding for any expansion-related work will remain in place, with his strong support. At a time when most U.S. Senators are working feverishly to safeguard home-state military facilities against future closures, ours are taking the future of Fort Carson for granted, by lending moral support to those bent on undermining Carson's capabilities.

All the Army is doing, with this legal appeal, is defending the due diligence it's done in regard to environmental impacts at the existing site. This comes in response to a lawsuit from outside groups wanting not just to block expansion, but, now, to curtail training activities at the old site. Yet Bennet says the Army is the aggressor.

From the Nov. 10 Pueblo Chieftain:

"In a letter to new Army Secretary John McHugh sent Tuesday, Bennet said the appeal would only deepen the conflict between the Army and Southeastern Colorado residents over the expansion of Pinon Canyon. Saying Matsch's ruling was clear on the inadequacy of the environmental report, Bennet said the Army's best choice if it wanted to improve its relationship with area residents would be to drop the appeal.

"Yet the Army's decision to move forward with more litigation sends a hostile message to the farmers and ranchers in Southern Colorado: The Army is more concerned about winning than repairing this relationship over the long-term," the letter said. "It's time to put an end to the adversarial relationship between these Colorado residents - my constituents - and the Army. The first thing you should do on that front is drop this lawsuit."

It's wrong at this point to paint the Army as the "hostile" party in this dispute. It's simply defending its stewardship of the existing facility against a lawsuit brought by the true aggressors in this case. The Army's been on the defensive, and on the losing end, in virtually every skirmish since word of an expansion plan leaked out. And every effort it's made to explain itself or mend fences in Southern Colorado has been met with hostility, paranoia and legal or legislative overreactions.

This conflict escalated not because the Army wouldn't take "no" for an answer, but because no one in a "leadership" position in Colorado -- not the governor, nor our senators, nor our other members of Congress -- had the will or courage to call a cease-fire, become an impartial referee and broker a compromise. Instead, like Bennet, our so-called leaders have played politics with the issue, content to pit one side against the other in a simplistic morality play, with the long-term fate of Fort Carson hanging in the balance.

Such pandering may be working for Bennet, politically-speaking. But does it serve the state's best interests? Definitely not.

Some talented and hard-working journalists lost their jobs Friday, in the latest RIF at The Gazette. I was sorry to get the news. Every name I recognized was someone I respected -- but particularly painful was seeing my former editorial page assistant, George Lewis, on the list.

George was at the paper for more than 25 years: he worked his way up from the paste-up room to the editorial page, with various stops in between, through dedication, resourcefulness and a willingness to improve and adapt. He served as the section's institutional memory, and demonstrated his adaptability (and patience) as second-in-command to three editorial page editors (each of whom had a different style and approach). George brought continuity to the chaos; he was the glue that held the small but critical section together. He was likable enough, and had been around long enough, that no one on the "news side" held his work on the "opinion side" against him.

He wore numerous hats, handling everything from layout to copy-editing, letters selection to editorial-writing. He did it all with professionalism and good humor. His patience would sometimes fray late in the day, or right before the weekend, when deadlines loomed and the workload weighs heaviest -- our little "leper colony" in the corner of the newsroom was not a profanity-free zone. But he had a better touch with readers than I ever did, and an ability to put the work (and stresses) behind him when he walked out the door.

Antelope hunting and cowboy action shooting are two of George's off-campus passions. He was the go-to guy on Second Amendment and drug legalization issues when I ran the pages, but had a much greater range, as a writer and thinker, than that. A well-deserved retirement was nearly within reach. But his number came up Friday, along with 10 others. The quality of the product can't help but suffer with these departures.

George's exit means a lonely job will become even more so for Editorial Page Editor Wayne Laugesen, who now becomes a "department" of one, operating under a publisher who neither understands nor respects the paper's editorial traditions. Wayne can handle it, no question. He's calm under the gun and has the courage of his convictions. But George's presence brought a brothers-in-arms camaraderie -- a unity of purpose that must have been felt by defenders of The Alamo -- that can't help but be missed. It certainly made my tenure at the paper much more enjoyable.

The Colorado Springs Independent could have sent a reporter to the first meeting of the city’s Medical Marijuana Task Force, because it certainly ranked as newsworthy. Instead it sent class clown Rich Tosches, who stayed true to form by deriding the process and participants.

The dismissive attitude is odd, given the growing ad revenues (growing -- get it, Rich?) the Indy receives from the MMJ industry. Portraying participants as a bunch of potheads, and those leading the effort as Cheech and Chong (you’re dating yourself, Rich), may draw guffaws from those who think Rich is the funniest thing since Soupy Sales. But it’s unfair to a community working hard to overcome such stereotypes.

I would have expected a more enlightened attitude from all the high-minded “progressives” (high-minded – get it, Rich?) who work at the Indy. But they never fail to fall short of expectations.

Medical marijuana patients, growers, caregivers and dispensaries turned out in force last Thursday, because they want to be part of a constructive solution and make Colorado Springs a model for “the city that did it right.” Indy readers deserved to get the facts about how the process will unfold, and what the group hopes to accomplish. But Tosches and his so-called editors couldn’t be bothered, so I’ll provide the facts.

The task force will meet every other week or so between now and late January, working on regulatory proposals to put before City Council. A steering committee will be named next week, with representatives of various stakeholder groups, but general meetings will also be held, to ensure that all interested parties have a say. Those with ideas about how to improve the present situation, or wanting to be considered for the steering committee, should send something in writing to spaige@springsgov.com.

Rich began as a journalist, from what I hear, but devolved into a frustrated comedy writer – the kind who never hit the big time but is happy to headline at the Laugh Factory in Gary, Indiana. He desperately wants to be hip, but is headed for hip replacement, judging from the staleness of his shtick.

The unwillingness of a majority on City Council to budge on the issue of pay cuts for city workers left us little choice last night but to niggle around the edges of the City Manager's budget, resulting in a disappointing outcome, and a missed opportunity, in my opinion. Restoring police and firefighter positions was all that some on Council seemed interested in. We could have done a lot more -- and a lot better for the city as a whole -- if we'd had the collective courage to tackle the pay issue.

I also supported some public safety add-backs. But I also hoped we could find enough revenue to keep the parks watered, keep park restrooms open and possibly help soften the body-blow facing transit (paratransit particularly). That's not Sean The Libertarian talking; it's Sean The Appointed Representative of District 3 -- who must play with the cards he's been dealt. But much of that was predicated on colleagues embracing a 5 percent cut in pay, along with 2 weeks furlough. When that was removed as an option -- and even a 3 percent cut fell along the wayside -- the options narrowed. All that was left then was scuffling over scraps.

I believe public safety is important. It meets my definition of a legitimate function of government. But the reflexive, unconditional support it enjoys from some on Council makes me slightly uncomfortable, because it seems like such an easy out, if not a cop-out. Last night, it effectively removed every other consideration, every other option, from the table. I'm not sure the entire city was served well as a result.

I did manage to convince my colleagues to fund community centers, Rock Ledge Ranch, The Pioneers Museum and the Starsmore Center -- all of which were on the chopping block -- through the first quarter of next year. I appreciate the support they gave this idea. My hope is that the 3 month reprieve will be used to forge some innovative new partnerships, which can see these institutions through the rest of the year. It may not work. But it's worth a shot. And the city will have to embrace more of these "third way" solutions in the months ahead if it wants to avoid the same kinds of budget cuts next year that we approved last night.

Forgive the pause in posts: I've been too busy being on City Council to blog about it. But it was an eventful week, with another one looming. I'll try to cover a number of bases, and bring readers up to speed, in the next few posts.

The city's budget process reaches critical mass tomorrow, with a markup session at which Council members will haggle and horse-trade over devilish details. We've been briefed by various stakeholders, in and outside of city government, on the importance of saving everything, from transit routes to police positions. But everything can't be saved. We've studied the City Manager's suggested cuts -- totaling about $30 million -- with an eye toward which ones we can tolerate and which ones we can't. It all gets hashed-out Monday, at the informal meeting, when we have to spell out our priorities, win converts to our positions, if we can, and find ways to pay for the things we want to protect.

I approached the process not as a libertarian, following theory, but as the representative of District 3, weighing the practical impacts these cuts will have on my constituents. I'm stuck with the city as it is, not as I would want it to be, or as I would have designed it. There are services the city provides that I, as a libertarian, may not judge a legitimate function of government or wise use of resources. But that's largely beside the point, at least in the short-run.

I can't undo what earlier Councils have done (at least not immediately). Some of the services they promised people were unsustainable in a severe economic downturn. I'm stuck now with having to break those promises, and with cutting those unsustainable services. As an appointee, who didn't get a single vote in the district, I feel an obligation to maintain some level of continuity with the past -- and to break those promises as gently as possible. That made my initial budget decisions more practical than ideological.

As someone new to the markup process, and the politics of the process, I undoubtedly fudged a few things. But I had no choice but to plunge in, learning as I go. My markup reinstates various cuts to fire and police; I support full maintenance for city parks; I oppose closing the Pioneer's Museum; I try to protect two community centers in my district. I fund these "add-backs," in part, with a temporary 5 percent pay cut for all city employees, as well as 2 weeks of furlough for non-police and fire personnel. This will be unpopular in certain circles, to say the least. It runs counter to the anti-pay cut position of the City Manager and many in senior city leadership. It may not fly, at least in that form, with most of my Council colleagues.

But pay cuts and furloughs have been widely used by the private sector, as it struggles to survive the economic tailspin. Numerous American cities and towns are using them too, in response to their own budget woes. It's not something I enjoy proposing. But bridging the budget gap becomes extremely difficult without having something like this in the mix. It needs to be on the table, along with everything else.

Thursday marked the first meeting of the medical marijuana task force, and it gave me reason for optimism. The downstairs conference room we reserved couldn't hold the crowd, so we met in Council chambers. It was standing-room-only, signaling the intense interest there is in this topic. We were working without a blueprint, and making it up as we went, but it went well.

Attorney Cliff Black updated us on the latest legal developments, since the situation is changing almost weekly. And a task force plan and timeline emerged -- a tribute, I think, to the willingness of participants (patients, caregivers, growers, dispensary owners, academics, concerned citizens) to put aside differences and work toward common solutions. If the medical marijuana community isn't part of the solution, and a party to the process, a "solution" will be imposed from on high, I pointed out. That's almost always a recipe for heavy-handed and extreme approaches. It's clear that most participants understand this and want to act as responsible members of the community.

Whether that unity of purpose will told together as the process moves forward, and the devilish details are debated, only time will tell. But for now I'm optimistic.

A majority agreed to the creation of a steering committee, made up of selected representatives of various stakeholder groups (including local government, the police and the District Attorney's office). The steering committee will work on refining and reality-checking regulatory proposals submitted in writing, which will be brought before general meetings for debate and feedback, leading to further refinements. We'll be meeting every other Thursday between now and January 25 or 26, when we hope to bring proposals to City Council.

Those with regulatory proposals, or who want to serve on the steering committee, should send me an e-mail at Spaige@springsgov.com. Please indicate what stakeholder group you represent. The deadline for submissions is this Friday, Nov. 13.

Skepticism remains about how task force proposals will be received by others on City Council. Some feel that the city simply wants to crack down on participants and isn't interested in working collaboratively toward constructive solutions. While we couldn't offer guarantees, Tom Gallagher and I reassured doubters that our colleagues would approach task force recommendations with an open mind. And I don't see why they wouldn't. If the resulting proposals make sense and win the consensus support of most stakeholders, I can't see anyone objecting. This City Council has plenty of other issues to deal with. I think it would be delighted to have one more hot potato removed from its plate.

There seem to be a few takeaways from Tuesday's election results; none of which are particularly profound, but some of which are worth noting.

Given the strong anti-government mood that's out there, as well as this anxiety-producing economy, any tax hike that landed on the ballot was probably bound to fail. The timing was just terrible. But its chances would have improved, in my opinion, if it had been more modest in scope (maybe half of what was sought), specific in purpose and -- very importantly -- included a sunset provision, against the day that the economy bounces back and sales taxes begin to flow again. It's almost an iron law of local elections: don't ask voters for a blank check. Jan Martin ignored that law and paid the price.

Gazette reports suggest that distrust of City Hall may have played a part in the outcome. There also seems to have been a backlash against the perceived use of "scare tactics" by 2C supporters. The first problem has been years in the making, it seems to me, dating from at least as far back as council's hasty creation of the stormwater enterprise, and compounded by the first USOC debacle and the secrecy and hasty decision-making surrounding both USOC deals, among other matters. Each recent round of city budget cuts has been portrayed by most city leaders as the end of the world, yet the world didn't end. That opens a credibility gap. The city's now in the position of the-boy-who-cried-wolf. The wolf may actually be at the door this time, but the public is skeptical.

The lesson, I suppose, is to better calibrate the rhetoric to conform with the reality.

The passage of 300 -- a measure I opposed -- is a direct and ugly result of council's corner-cutting on the stormwater issue. We needed to bolster our stormwater infrastructure, in my opinion. But I have consistently objected to the way it was handled. I believe it would have been approved by voters, had council taken the time to make the case and put it on the ballot. But some on that council doubted that voters would make the right choice. In the rush to placate critics downstream, who potentially stood in the way of SDS, a majority on council alienated and angered folks closer to home. The distrust of voters demonstrated back then is haunting the city today, with the passage of measure 300.

The voters have spoken and I’m not going to argue with them -- or question their motives and judgment.

I take no satisfaction in the outcome; it would have made my life a lot easier if 2C had passed. But it’s a reality and we have to step up and make the city work on a reduced revenue stream, possibly for a number of years. We’ll take the steps necessary to balance the budget this year. But unless the city undertakes a major review of how it does business, and embarks on a top-to-bottom re-engineering effort, we’ll be back a year from now, in very much the same boat.

We have no choice but to fundamentally change the way the city does business. I plan to play a constructive role in that process.

"Sean Paige, he's really a Doug Bruce clone," Councilwoman Jan Martin told the Colorado Springs Independent this week. "The difference is he's younger, he's better-looking and he's more articulate. All of which make him more dangerous."

Nice sound bite. But my supposed mentor doesn't seem to think I'm much of a clone, judging from an interview he gave CSAction.org, which has been posted on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsSWnha25UE.

I agree with Bruce on some matters, disagree with him on others. But I think and act independently.

Unlike Martin and other knee-jerk Bruce-bashers, I make an effort to be rational in my reactions to Bruce, by not allowing his charming personality to cloud my judgment about his proposals, ideas and actions. When I ran the opinion pages at The Gazette, we advised a "no" vote on the last four local ballot measures Bruce backed, if I'm recalling correctly. We grudgingly backed Ref. C, much to Bruce's displeasure (and to my regret, in retrospect, given its false promises). I am open to discussing tailored reforms or refinements to our city TABOR, where and when genuine problems are identified -- as Jan well knows, since she was party to related discussions only a few months ago. I oppose Bruce's latest ballot offering, 300.

Many of these positions haven't pleased Bruce. That's immaterial to me. When I think he's right -- and he is right on many issues and occasions -- I'll say so. When I think he's wrong about something, or barking up the wrong tree, I'll say so. Knee-jerk reactions by members of City Council cast the city in a reactionary, defensive and childish light. Reflexively rising to his bait invites unnecessary conflict and lays the predicate for costly lawsuits. Simplistic efforts to divide the city into pro- or anti-Bruce camps sow divisions that don't need to be there.

Maybe I can help bridge some of these divisions, or reduce the friction, since I respect both Bruce and my colleagues on City Council. But comments like Jan's -- and Doug's in the YouTube video -- make me wonder whether those tensions can ever be minimized.

I'm a little disillusioned with this whole City Council thing, to be honest. And it's not just from having my name dragged through the mud. During a getting-to-know-you session with Police Chief Richard Myers on Wednesday, I learned more about just how meager my powers as a member of council are.

Myers politely but firmly informed me that the police don't run license plate numbers at the request of City Council, don't fix tickets or excuse traffic violations for City Council and won't reveal confidential information about ongoing criminal investigations to members of City Council. Police resources are stretched a little thin at the moment, he explained, so the cops can't immediately swing into action, and send out an APB, each time a councilperson calls up, demanding that something be done about the teenagers playing loud music two doors down. Myers presented me with an official police patch in a packet of informational materials -- the first knick-knack for my still-barren City Hall office -- but he also made it clear that I, as a member of City Council, don't receive special treatment and can't deploy police manpower for personal errands.

What a let down! With so little pay, I at least thought I'd have the power to fix a traffic ticket or two from time to time. But I'm learning that there aren't as many perks to this gig as I imagined.

Actually, seriously, I was a little surprised that Myers had to say such things. None of these possibilities crossed my mind before he brought them up. But such requests must have been made, sometime in the past by somebody, if he felt compelled to do so.

It was a very informative meeting in other ways too. The conversations, with Myers and 3 of his top people, were candid and enlightening. I hope to go back for the cook's tour, and maybe ride-along with a patrolman or woman, once I get through (if I get through) this initial frenzy of activity.

Check the box beside another politician's rite of passage: being the target of a hit piece by the city’s “alternative” weekly (meaning it’s the “alternative” one turns to for shoddy and substandard journalism, I guess).

I’ve been attacked numerous times by the Indy since moving to Colorado Springs. The only time I’ve ever been mentioned is in a negative context. And I fully expected that this would continue after I became the accidental city councilman. Some of this “goes with the territory” of becoming a public figure. I understand that. But even I’m surprised at the depths to which the weekly stooped in its latest piece.

This is Google journalism at its worst. A wide and indiscriminating net is cast and assorted scraps of questionable reliability are hauled in, from which a distorted mosaic is maliciously assembled. It’s not even close to an accurate or honest account of who I am or what I’ve done in my life. Attempting to correct the record, point by point, would only lend credibility to something that has none.

The writers at any time in the past 3 weeks could have called or e-mailed me, asking for clarifications, past professional contacts or the facts. Instead, they saved up all the disconnected scraps of Google fodder they’d collected for one Inquisition-like interrogation, where they could fire a barrage of odd and insulting questions my way, expecting me to have 20/20 memory of events that took place years ago. Writer Pam Zubeck demanded that I not blog about that so-called interview (I’ve never before had a reporter issue me a gag order at the beginning of a discussion), and I understood why half-way through, given the unprofessional, off-point, insulting nature of the questioning.

For all the “investigating” the Indy did, and the Googling, facts that were right in front of their faces somehow escaped them. Anyone wanting to verify my internship at the NJC, for instance, could do so my looking at my SourceWatch entry: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sean_Paige. It’s only about the fifth or sixth thing that pops up. I’m still friends with people I met there, who would have been happy to talk with the Indy had the Indy been interested in talking with them. Zubeck never asked me for a name, or asked me about my internship. Better to leave the impression that it never happened.

Similarly, anyone seeking evidence of my writing work at Insight Magazine need only Google my name – dozens of articles will pop up. So what if a current Washington Times managing editor doesn’t remember me? I don’t remember him, if he even worked there at the time, and the magazine and news divisions worked separately. I stay in touch with many former colleagues, from the Times and other Washington jobs, and would have been more than happy to put the Indy’s reporters in touch with them. Yet they never asked me for any of this, preferring, instead, to leave the impression that there are mysterious gaps and discrepancies in my career.

I slapped together a resume, from memory, a few minutes before submitting paperwork for the council appointment. If I didn't get everything exactly right, that doesn't make me dishonest -- just a little disorganized (a fault which I readily concede).

Is some secretary currently answering the phones for John Sununu really going to recall who was a go-fer for the governor back in 1989? How ridiculous. But I could easily have gotten Zubeck in touch with someone who could have, or provided her with documentation, had she asked for this. She didn’t ask. And if Zubeck had bothered to ask me what work I did at the White House – she didn’t – I would happily have told her that it wasn’t as glamorous as it sounds. I put it on my resume because it happened. But that was a tiny sliver of the time I spent in Washington, relatively early in my tenure, and it isn’t something I make a big deal about, as anyone who knows me knows. There are things I did in Washington that had more impact, and of which I am much prouder. But the Indy reporters aren’t interested in any of that.

All they had to do was ask me a few questions and all the mysterious discrepancies would evaporate. But they didn’t ask, because their story is predicated on creating the impression there are mysterious gaps or fabricated falsehoods in my background. That’s called a smear, not journalism.

My lack of a voting record was also made an issue of. Here's a little context.

I voted before moving to Washington – though, again, the intrepid investigators at the Indy couldn’t confirm this, so it didn’t apparently happen -- but got out of the habit while there, mainly because I rented in places (D.C., Maryland, Northern Virginia) where good choices are lacking for any self-respecting conservative, and because I wasn’t initially sure how long I would stay. I became disillusioned with partisan politics, and a rudderless Republican Party, in the mid-to-late 1990s. Ronald Reagan is the last president I voted for because he’s the last one who met the standard. I was post-partisan before it was fashionable.

As a working journalist, and later, as an editorial writer, I felt like I wanted to stay above the partisan fray. No one can say I’m apathetic about the issues or the good of the country – the common criticism of people who don’t vote. I’ve been voting for the ideas and issues I care about for over 20 years, every day that I went to work. Is someone who musters the energy to vote once every two or four years doing more than the person who's made championing ideas and causes (and the country) his work? American are free – free -- to vote or not to vote, for whatever reason. It doesn’t make them any less a citizen or patriot. I’m currently registered as unaffiliated and will resume voting. In fact, I did so today.

Mine is a potentially interesting and entertaining life story, for anyone interested in telling it honestly and completely. I suppose that will have to wait for a later date, and better journalists. This was a muckraking exercise disguised as a “profile,” which seeks to discredit and degrade through innuendo and the cherry-picking of facts.

I’m proud of what I’ve accomplished in my professional life. Nothing was handed to me; it came through perseverance, hard work and a determination to do work that made a difference. That I was the school kid that no one labeled “the most likely to succeed,” but who managed to carve out a respectable career for himself, is something I’m proud of. People who know me, and know my work, respect and like me – that’s affirmation enough. That malicious strangers would go out of their way to distort, denigrate and discredit that is frustrating and hurtful.

My own brand of journalism can be pointed and hard-hitting. But I never went in for character assassination, snide insinuation, personal vilification or the sort of maliciousness one sees in this piece. But I’ve learned never to expect anything else -- or better -- from this particular publication.

I took a little ribbing today from colleagues over some mild critiques I made of the Gazette's coverage of Monday's City Council meeting, at which the police chief and DA briefed us on the medical marijuana situation in Colorado Springs. They were seeking some guidance from City Council on how to proceed. A few colleagues took delight in seeing the tables turned -- in having a journalist-turned-city councilman complaining about the media coverage. "See," a few said, "now you know what we used to call complain to you about."

But please take note: I didn't impugn anyone's motives or attribute it to some dark plot. That's because I know, first-hand, how such disconnects can occur in a collaborative, deadline-driven business like newspapers. I know how an ill-chosen headline -- "City aims to outlaw pot growers" -- can lead to hasty conclusions and an overreaction on the part of some readers. And I can understand in this case why the reporter came away confused. He or she wasn't alone. Almost everyone who sat through Monday's session could be excused for being a bit befuddled, given the legal, moral and regulatory ambiguities the situation presents.

Does federal law apply? Or should we follow what's in the Colorado Constitution? Are marijuana grows and dispensaries permitted under existing land use rules and codes, or will new rules have to be written? What should we do in the meantime? Where does state responsibility end and local authority begin? No clear answers to such questions were going to emerge from a single City Council meeting.

We're wandering new territory, where the new rules haven't been written yet. So I'll cut the reporter some slack if the story didn't quite jibe with my perceptions of what took place. I think many of us walked away a little unsure of where everything stood.

I had a brief conversation with Police Chief Richard Myers before yesterday's council meeting. He wasn't happy with my calling him a "hard-liner" in my last blog post, insisting that he was fine with whatever council decided on, including the "do nothing" option. I regret mis-characterizing his position. I just had trouble differentiating his position from the DAs, in terms of what was presented. They seemed to agree that this was creating a significant law enforcement challenge, which called for some city response. But maybe I missed the nuances. I apologize for that.

Readers who still have questions about exactly what occurred, and have time to re-watch the meeting, can do so at Springsgov.com: Here's the link. You might take a look at Tuesday's meeting too, since it came up for discussion again and efforts were made to clarify the city's position, given the misperceptions that are out there. Here, to save some re-writing, is a note I posted in response to the Gazette story and accompanying editorial:

"No disrespect to the authors of this piece, but I think it slightly misrepresents what went on at yesterday's meeting, in which I was a participant. This has led to some of the knee-jerk, half-informed comments of some people on this thread. Let me attempt to clear the air.

The story leaves the impression that I and others on council took a hard line on this burgeoning industry, but that's not the case. There was general agreement (though no actual voting) among most on council that dispensaries or grow operations that are in violation of city codes or land use laws should be brought into compliance, if complaints are made. Nobody could responsibly take the position that these operations should be permitted to operate outside existing law. That doesn't mean the city will be sending out people to shut down these operations -- just that it will respond as normal when and if complaints are made.

The police chief and DA came in advocating what seemed to me like a hard line, but city council took a much more measured approach, in my view, merely taking the position that medical marijuana operations that aren't operating according to city codes or land use regs be made to conform. That hardly constitutes a war on the industry. There were no firm decisions beyond that about how to proceed, due to ambiguities in state, local and federal laws on this matter. The door remains open to working with the industry to make this work in Colorado Springs.

Tom Gallagher and I agreed to begin meeting with representatives of the industry, in an effort to encourage self-regulation and make them partners in any solutions that emerge. I believe most city officials (and most of my colleagues on City Council) remain open to the possibility that we can find constructive and creative ways to make this work in Colorado Springs. We're going through a period of discomfort and disorientation at the moment, because we're in new and uncharted territory. But I didn't come away from yesterday's meeting feeling that the city is on some crusade against medical marijuana; we're just trying to maintain some modicum of order in what appears to be a chaotic situation, until new protocols, procedures and guidelines can be mapped out. That's my perception, for what it's worth.

Members of the industry who want to be part of the task force that's forming should phone or e-mail me: spaige@springsgov.com or 385-5470. Please join me in being part of the solution."

E-mails and phone calls have been coming in since the ad-hoc "task force" was formed on Monday. I hope to respond to most of them today. But Tom Gallagher and I will be hosting an initial meeting of the group at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 5, in the Pikes Peak Conference Room at City Hall. All interested parties should attend.

Police Chief Richard Myers will come before City Council later today, seeking guidance on how to deal with the bumper crop of largely-unregulated medical marijuana dispensaries and grow sites sprouting up across the city. Last week's decision by the U.S. Justice Department to throttle back on the enforcement of federal anti-pot laws in states that have partially-legalized set local police and politicians adrift in uncharted seas, without navigation points. Lacking guidance from on high, we must now find our own way. That's an unfamiliar and uncomfortable situation for almost everyone involved -- including for me, City Council's small-L libertarian, who must now deal with legalization as something more than an abstraction. But it's also a rare and exciting opportunity -- to do things our own way.

The New York Times has a good write-up today on the issue from the 30,000-foot view. The Fort Collins Coloradoan offers a more local focus, pointing out that some medical marijuana dispensaries are eager for some sort of state or local regulation. This will have to move to the top of the legislature's agenda next session. In the meantime, the issue lands squarely in the lap of local officials. That presents challenges -- but also an opportunity for local governments to show that they can deal with the issue creatively and constructively. That's the approach I hope Colorado Springs will take.

Chief Myers points out in his PowerPoint that the city is facing a regulatory Catch-22: "How do you legally regulate activity," he asks, "that is in violation of federal law?" It's a challenging question for which there is no easy answer. Myers will present a number of options for responding:

Do nothing

Regulate land uses

Strengthen building codes

Require business licenses

Enforce sales tax

I'm not sure which of these responses I'll support, if any. But I'm not an anarcho-libertarian: I don't think doing nothing is an option. Most pro-legalization folks support some level of regulation, as well as taxation -- in fact, that's frequently used as a major selling point for legalization. And there may be other, even better options, which the city could adopt in consultation with responsible representatives of this emerging industry.

This is an opportunity to not become knee-jerk reactionaries, but to respond with restraint, reason and common sense -- to show that we in Colorado Springs can deal with the situation constructively and creatively, making us a model that other cities, facing similar circumstances, can emulate.

I'll be doing what I can to make that happen.

Josh Penry has a lot going for him as a gubernatorial candidate. He's smart, articulate, youthful, attractive and conservative enough to appeal to common sense Coloradans. He's running against an incumbent, Bill Ritter, who is uninspiring, unimaginative and has a lackluster record, mostly more rhetorical than real, which leaves him vulnerable to attack on several fronts.

But Penry's major flaw, at least from my perspective -- a major reason why El Paso County Republicans may be a little wary of him -- is that he stoops to pandering on the Pinon Canyon issue. Penry has gone beyond just supporting measures in the state legislature that were designed to scuttle Fort Carson expansion -- votes that could reasonably be construed as pro-private property rights, but in some cases just amounted to piling on the Army. He's taken to pandering to the paranoia of southern Colorado's activist-ranchers by impugning the Army's motives.

From today's Chieftain:

"TRINIDAD - Josh Penry found a receptive audience Friday among Southern Coloradans opposed to the Army’s proposed expansion of its Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

“The Army needs to come clean with folks out here,” Penry said in meetings at Trinidad State Junior College and later in Walsenburg.

“Until the Army takes eminent domain and condemnation off the table,” the Republican candidate for governor said he will oppose expansion.

Penry, a state senator from Grand Junction, contrasted his stand on Pinon Canyon expansion with that of Scott McInnis, the former 3rd Congressional District representative who also is seeking to unseat Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter. Republican Dan Maes also is in the race.

“McInnis said it was not about private property rights and people who oppose the expansion are anti-military. That is irresponsible and reckless,” Penry said. “Fort Carson is important. So are private property rights.” The Army contends that Colorado Springs-based Fort Carson must be allowed to expand its Pinon"

I don't think Scott McInnis ever said (or even suggested) that the activist-ranchers who oppose Pinon Canyon expansion are anti-military, so that seems like a campaign season distortion. McInnis has kept an open mind on the issue, much to his credit, and he has criticized Ritter for signing Pinon Canyon bills that were short-sighted and seemed designed to take gratuitous slaps at the Army. That doesn't necessarily make McInnis the better choice for El Paso County Republicans. And these observations aren't meant as an endorsement, since I have my own beefs with McInnis, dating back to his unhelpful position on a federal bill that would have expanded Pueblo reservoir (the subject of another blog, perhaps). But his open-mindedness on Pinon Canyon certainly sets McInnis apart from the pack, where bipartisan pandering to rancher paranoia has been the norm.

Penry's demand that the Army "come clean" on its plans is where the pandering becomes evident, since it implies that the service has been less-than-honest about its designs in southern Colorado. The Army unquestionably botched the pr campaign on the Pinon Canyon proposal. It was too slow, as a hidebound bureaucracy, in making its case to the public. Its justifications for expansion were initially too vague and too slow in coming. That allowed the opposition to spin the issue its way, to nurse conspiracy theories, to paint the Army as a villain -- obscuring the fact that all the Army is trying to do is improve military readiness and bolster Fort Carson's capacity as a training area.

Penry also blurs important distinctions on the issue of eminent domain, by insisting that it be permanently removed from the table, even though the expansion of a military training facility -- if justified by a real need -- clearly falls under the traditional definition of a "public good," for which eminent domain might be used. I'm as strong a property rights advocate as there is. In an ideal world, I too would like to see the Army accomplish expansion with the cooperation of "willing sellers" only (and it has on several occasions signaled its interest in doing that). But I think it's important that the anti-Kelo backlash not lead us toward a blanket condemnation of all eminent domain, in all cases. It's in the U.S. Constitution for a reason. And although there's no question that this extraordinary government power is being misused and abused -- mostly at the local level, ironically -- there are times and circumstances when it becomes necessary.

Penry insists that he's not opposed to the expansion, "but rather to the use of eminent domain or condemnation to take private property for the expansion," according to The Chieftain. But his voting record and rhetoric on the stump paint a more strident picture.

Colorado needs a governor who (on this issue and others) can transcend party loyalty or regional differences and do what's right for Colorado as a whole. We need a governor who would be working to bridge the understanding gap between the Army and the rancher-activists of Southern Colorado, not widen it. We need a governor who would be working for a mutually-beneficial resolution, not playing to anti-Army paranoia.

Ritter failed that test of leadership on Pinon Canyon. Penry's pandering on the issue makes me think he would fail it too.

Quietly, methodically and persistently, Superintendent Mike Miles has been bringing much-needed change to the Harrison School District. D-2 may soon be the first school district in the state with a bona fide pay-for-performance plan, reports this morning's Gazette, which ties teacher incentives to improvements in student achievement. And that's only the latest of many reforms Miles has instituted since coming aboard.

Much of the credit for this quiet revolution must go to an open-minded school board and supportive parents, who seem to understand that Miles is motivated by a sincere desire to drag D-2 out of the doldrums it was in before he was hired, as well as a belief that students come first. It's wonderful to see D-2 becoming a leader in school reform, rather than a laggard. And I'm excited to see what innovation comes next.

One of the problems with blogging about being on City Council is that you're too busy being on City Council to blog.

That's my way of apologizing for falling behind in the chronicles of an accidental city councilman.

The normal work load of a city council member is considerable but not unmanageable, from what I can tell. But the demand for briefings and meetings multiplies when you're the new person on council, coming in during budget deliberations, with an ax hanging over so many heads. My popularity will wear off soon enough, as will the novelty. But for now it's meetings, meetings, meetings -- which gives me little time to blog about what actually goes on, or is said, at these meetings.

My first priority (and challenge) is studying the city's budget situation, weighing the various proposals that are on the table (including the City Manager's proposed cuts), considering proposals that aren't on the table but ought to be, and then deciding what I'll fight for and what I'll let go when we get to trade-off time. It feels a bit like you're a Gumby, being pushed and pulled in multiple directions. And your personal preferences and ideas must be balanced against what you judge to be in the best interest of the district you represent.

As an incoming council member, you're presented with a city, and city budget, not of your own making or design -- you have to deal with what is, not what ought to be or should have been if better decisions had been made in the past. There are things the city does that I, as a small-l libertarian, consider superfluous, non-essential or unaffordable. But once citizens get used to receiving those services, or become dependent on them, it's not easy just taking them away. Transit is a perfect example.

The city's transit system (meaning bus system, mainly) underwent a major expansion after the PPRTA was approved a number of years ago, when the city seemed flush with cash. Routes and hours of operation were expanded, beyond what was sustainable if sales tax revenues sharply fell. Now we're faced with having to reduce routes and hours of operation. I now become the "bad guy" for having to institute cutbacks. But maybe the real bad guys were the people who, in their irrational exuberance post-passage of the PPRTA, expanded the system beyond what was prudent, affordable or sustainable. And that's only one of many examples I could offer.

Would like to write more but . . . . you guessed it . . . more meetings beckon. Maybe this weekend I'll find time to share more thoughts on the budget situation. In the meantime, accept no favors from the city that it can't afford to pay for in the long-run.

Private landowners in Wyoming have pulled out of an agreement to host an experimental colony of black-footed ferrets on their properties, according to today's Casper Tribune, for reasons that should send red flags flying here in Colorado Springs. Fort Carson has volunteered to host just such a colony -- inviting significant problems for the base if environmentalists succeed in petitioning the animals onto the endangered species list. And that isn't the remote possibility it once seemed.

Here's the Tribune:

"State wildlife officials have canceled plans to reintroduce the black-footed ferret in southern Albany County because of landowner skittishness over a petition by environmental groups to give the animal more protection as an endangered species.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department intended to release about 60 black-footed ferrets, among the rarest animals in North America, during the next two months on private land in southern Albany County, said Bob Oakleaf, nongame species coordinator for the agency.

But the two landowners participating in the reintroduction now don't want the ferrets released on their land, Oakleaf said, because they're worried about a petition filed last month by three environmental groups seeking to have the animals living on public lands receive full federal protection as an endangered species.

The landowners, whom Oakleaf declined to name, fear that petition will eventually result in the ferrets on private land -- their land -- also being listed as an endangered species, causing the government to restrict road building and other activities."

Military training is another activity that ESA listings can (and frequently do) impact.

I've blogged before about the risks the Army was taking with this well-meaning but short-sighted project. It may be good PR, but it's also just plain foolish, to invite endangered species onto a military base, given the restrictions this can impose on training. Many American military facilities operate with significant handicaps as a result of having ESA-listing animals on-base. Why Carson would be inviting such headaches is baffling. It should find a polite but firm way to retreat, before the ferret petition gets any further along.

If a few Wyoming landowners can understand the implications enough to back away, why can't the brass at Fort Carson? No one wants to see the ferrets evicted. But the Mountain Post's military mission must take precedence over warm-and-fuzzy PR.

I wrote yesterday about the "disorientation," tension and "gray-area uncertainties" that occur whenever "freedom wins out over order, control and reflexive regimentation." Nothing exemplifies this better than the consternation medical marijuana legalization is causing Colorado Attorney General John Suthers -- an old-school anti-drug crusader, of "Just Say No" vintage, who may have trouble adapting to the new realities. Suther's negative reaction to news that the Obama Justice Department wouldn't automatically be busting medical marijuana dispensaries in states where limited legalization had been approved -- that it wouldn't continue a tactic the Bush administration used to impose one-size-fits-all federal drug rules on states -- shows how difficult the new reality will be for some people to accept.

From this morning's Pueblo Chieftain:

"Federal prosecutors were told Monday that the U.S. Department of Justice did not consider targeting of people who use or supply medical marijuana a good use of their time in the 14 states that have legalized medical marijuana.

The edict was part of a new policy saying federal drug agents will no longer arrest or prosecute people who are legally using, selling or supplying medical marijuana in the states that allow it.

But even in those states, law enforcement officials are not happy with the rules.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers responded to the latest Justice Department pronouncement with criticism of the way this state's law is worded.

“Colorado has seen a rapid proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries and patients since the Justice Department earlier this year announced it would not actively prosecute medical marijuana businesses - despite the fact that marijuana remains an illegal drug under federal law. “The U.S. Attorney General’s new medical marijuana policy, released today, while a clearer statement on the Justice Department’s policy, relies on the faulty assumption that Colorado has clearly defined laws on medical marijuana. In fact, it does not.

“Amendment 20, written by marijuana-legalization proponents, is very vague and contains no meaningful regulatory scheme. Dispensaries and grow operations, for example, are not mentioned in either Colorado’s Constitution or its statutes. This vacuum has given rise to problems I and other law enforcement leaders have highlighted over the past few months. This legal vacuum also has left Colorado’s towns and cities to grapple with the state’s burgeoning marijuana trade.

“For the U.S. Attorney General’s new policy to have any significance for Colorado, our state lawmakers must give clarification to Amendment 20 and create a regulatory scheme for the growing medical marijuana industry.”

Life was easier for Suthers in the black-and-white world of strict prohibition. The line between the "good guys" and "bad guys" was clear, making law enforcement decisions relatively clear-cut. States were relieved from having to draw-up more nuanced enforcement rules, as long as Washington imposed its will on states that strayed from the norm. But change has come and he should put his energy into creative adaptation, not rigid resistance.

The AG is right on one thing: the governor and legislature will have to carve out time in the 2010 session to draw up some (hopefully broad) ground rules for the management and oversight of medical marijuana growers and dispensaries in Colorado. In the meantime, that responsibility is falling to local governments. How much control the state should impose, and how much latitude should be granted to local authorities, is an open (and interesting) question. A regulatory vacuum now exists, creating a lot of discomfort for those who prefer control and regimentation. But that doesn't mean government has to rush in to fill -- and then over-fill -- the vacuum, as it usually does.

We're entering uncharted waters, so the new charts will have to be drawn up as we go. But that's kind of exciting and intriguing, in my view, not anxiety-inducing.

Voters in a number of states have approved medical marijuana laws in recent years, only to find federal drug enforcers effectively nullifying those measures by busting people who tried to prescribe, cultivate or distribute medical marijuana. It was a classic states' rights conflict, in which federal drug laws were being used by Washington to override modest legalization steps taken by states. Voters in many states (including Colorado) seem open to relaxing certain drug prohibitions, if it could do suffering people some good. But the Bush Justice Department held firm to its "zero tolerance" stance, using DEA raids to effectively force federal drug laws on everyone else.

But that (thankfully) is changing under the Obama administration, which is calling-off the DEA raiders (at least for now) as long as the medical marijuana dispensaries adhere to state law. Here's a write-up on the issue in today's Los Angeles Times.

It doesn't mean the DEA isn't monitoring developments in the nascent medical marijuana industry, or that it won't raid operations it thinks are fronts for the non-medical distribution of pot. But the new deference the Justice Department is showing states -- the new reasonableness and respect -- is in my view a positive development, reducing some of the frictions (and injustices) its formerly-hardline stance were creating.

Will this experiment in partial legalization be abused and exploited by bad actors? It would be naive to ignore the possibility. But that's a matter better dealt with at the state and local level than by the U.S. Justice Department. States that have medical marijuana laws are dealing with an analogous issue, as state and local law enforcers, and state and local officials, begin to work through the sometimes-prickly issues and dilemmas this legalization experiment presents. We'll have to wrestle with these issues in Colorado Springs as well.

These difficulties aren't an argument against the experiment -- major changes in longstanding policy always create tensions and gray-area uncertainties. They're just the normal (but temporary) disorientation that occurs when freedom wins out over order, control and reflexive regimentation. I'm just glad that the Obama administration -- for now, at least -- will be giving states the opportunity -- the liberty -- to deal with this themselves.

I'm pleased almost any time a "Page by Paige" blog entry generates a response. But especially interesting was one I received yesterday from former Colorado Springs Utilities CEO Phil Tollefson, reacting to a post I did ("My Achilles hair") about a Rich Tosches column in Thursday’s Indy.

Most of Tollefson’s note (posted below) details events that took place years ago – events of little relevance to most readers but which still loom large to Tosches, given the play he gave them in Thursday's column. But some readers might find Mr. Tollefson’s observations interesting, for the light they shine on Rich’s efforts to resurrect the controversy.

Wrote Phil Tollefson:

"For the record Sean, I don't believe I ever said anything to Rich Tosches about the Broadmoor "ordering" any editorials. Also, I firmly agree with your conclusion that Rich often appeals to the worst sides of human nature through sheer demagoguery in the guise of humor.

A few facts Rich has consistently chosen not to share about this situation over the years: 1. CSU purchased the Broadmoor water system in 1973. 2. The purchase contract required CSU to continue supplying water to the Broadmoor. 3. For decades, this obligation had been fulfilled by operating the system as it had always been operated-discharging from a finished water storage tank into a pond that supplied the golf course and charging a nonpotable rate. This arrangement, although obviously somewhat inefficient due to the use of treated water, was considered less expensive than the cost of repiping the system to furnish untreated water. 4. Further, the arrangement was not at all unusual in that Prospect Lake had always been kept full by discharging treated water, often well over 1 million gallons per day for years at a time. That may well still be the case today; I haven't kept up with any changes that may have been made. 5. When the drought impact hit, the idea of restricting the Broadmoor's use arose, but there was confusion as to whether and how the purchase contract would allow curtailment. Broadmoor legal counsel maintained CSU would be liable for any damage caused to the golf courses due to any illegal curtailment (potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars). We did decide the prudent course of action would be to continue serving the golf course for a few days until the lawyers could determine whether there was any liability. 6. A disgruntled employee chose to call Rich instead of asking utilities' management why we were continuing to furnish the supply. 7. Upon completing the legal review, appropriate changes were made to charge the Broadmoor and minimize deliveries. 8. Rich chose to ignore our explanations and castigate what we felt were prudent actions given the potential liabilities involved.

All this was publicly explained to, and accepted by, the City Council. Your editorials were accurate and fair in their treatment of the facts. With respect to the business of not including the Broadmoor on a list of requested top water users, again Rich seems to twist things to imply secret deals. CSU has routinely identified the largest water users by name in bond disclosures, etc forever. What we cannot do is disclose the actual amount of usage because of customer privacy requirements under State law. While it may not make much difference with a hotel situation, certain commercial customers regard such information as proprietary data about their operations that could give competitors unfair advantage. A utility can't choose which customers' data it will release and which it will not. Rich's reaction to this explanation was to tell his readers we were holding secrets at the Broadmoor's direction. Again, a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. We once offered to give Rich a guided tour of the wastewater plant, complete with a set of diving goggles and swim fins. He declined to accept any education in that circumstance as well. Congratulations on your successful candidacy. I will be interested to see how you continue to manage people like Rich."

The Indy’s Rich Tosches really knows how to hurt a guy. Like all polished muckrakers, he has a panther’s instinct for a target’s vulnerabilities. In my case, that's my hair.

Guilty as charged, Rich; I use too much hair product. But I was emotionally scarred as a kid (back in the pre-gel, pre-mousse, pre- pomade era) by a great uncle who ribbed me about the “coonskin cap” I was always wearing.

Former Chamber President Will Temby may have had stiffer fair, and Terry Storm’s is almost as perfect. But we would have to conduct dueling wind tunnel tests to be sure.

I’m still searching for a stylist I can trust with a makeover. But for now, and probably always, there’s only one man in town I trust to mess with mein coif. That’s Johnny, who mans the chair closest the door at a barber shop on S. Tejon (the owner insists on calling it a “salon” but the men who go th