September 2009

It's official. I dropped off my paperwork at City Hall a few hours ago, along with a detailed, point-by-point agenda that I hope will turn the search for Jerry Heimlicher's replacement into something more than an empty kiss-up contest. The mayor's office called a few minutes ago to say interviews begin on the afternoon of the 6th, which came as a shock, since I fully expected that my paperwork would be "misplaced."

So I'm still in the running, technically, though Vegas odds-makers say the Detroit Lions have a better chance of winning the SuperBowl than I have of sitting in Jerry's chair. No matter. Winning was never the goal or expectation. The point is to put some actual ideas forward and see if they'll stir up a little thought and debate. There's only one council seat at stake now. But a potentially pivotal city election looms in 2011, which could change the entire complexion of City Council. It's not my life's desire to be a politician; years working in politician central cured me of that bug. But it is part of my mission, as the head of Local Liberty Action, to put forward some thoughts and proposals that might help make the city elections of 2011 a contest of visions, not just good intentions.

"These decisions are too important to be mere popularity contests, in which platitudes and generalities suffice and cronies get the nod," as I wrote in my cover letter to council. "By putting a detailed agenda forward, I’m hoping others will follow suit, as we begin to prepare for the pivotal city election of 2011. Voters should have a choice, not an echo."

I wish all the other applicants luck. From what I know, there are some strong candidates out there (wouldn't it be nice to see so many qualified people come forward when council seats have to be won the hard way, and aren't just being handed-out?). I'll be interested to see what ideas others put forward. I hope council will break with tradition, defy convention, and make something other than a safe choice.

I'll post the Sean Paige platform in pieces, since it's lengthy. Those with questions or who need clarifications should feel free to call (719-576-9055) or e-mail (seanpaige@msn.com). I'm interested in your feedback, as always. Perhaps you have ideas I could add to the platform. It's a work in progress.

Rightsizing and Reform

I support moving more council meetings to evening hours, which would allow more working people to attend. I also support occasionally holding council sessions in outlying areas of town, in order to encourage wider participation.

I support putting all future enterprises, and all significant “fee” increases, to a vote of the people.

I support the city’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, but remain open to discussing tailored modifications and improvements to TABOR when a need is demonstrated.

I pledge to not let the work of the Sustainable Funding Committee go to waste, by becoming an advocate for the most sensible and achievable recommendations it put forward. I will oppose similar commissions in the future, until council demonstrates that it will take resulting recommendations seriously.

I support making the city auditor an elected position, which answers to the taxpayers, not City Council. I would like to see the auditor’s office exercise more independent and aggressive oversight not just over city government, but over city enterprises, operating much as Inspector Generals do at federal agencies. I support an increase in the office’s budget, and additional staff, to accommodate this expanded role. If the voters don’t support the idea of an independent elected auditor, I would push for the naming of a full-time Taxpayers’ Advocate on city staff, whose job is looking out for the taxpayers’ welfare and helping them resolve disputes with the city.

I believe council should be reduced in size from 9 to 5 members. I am reasonably open-minded on the issue of increasing council pay, if it is accompanied by downsizing and tied to an increase in responsibility and accountability. I am open-minded on strong mayor versus weak mayor.

I oppose the use of eminent domain to advance economic development goals, and for other-than-traditional purposes.

I will fight for an opt-out clause in existing or future historic preservation districts. Inclusion in such districts should be voluntary, not coerced. I won’t support any new historic preservation districts that don’t allow homeowners to opt-out.

Trust, Accountability, Ethics

I would work to restore public trust by insisting on more transparency and accountability in city government. Executive sessions should he held only in special and rare circumstances. I would oppose the sort of backroom negotiations we saw in the first and second USOC deals. I will be an advocate for strict adherence to the Colorado Open Records Act, and someone to whom citizens and the media can turn when they face hurdles in getting public information.

I would urge the city to undertake a review of its recently-altered policy on storefront petitioning. I would insist that any future changes of this significance be reviewed and approved by City Council.

I believe the city’s current ethics procedures, although only a few years old, are in need of review and improvement. One major flaw is the one year statute of limitations on allegations. There are others.

I oppose any public funding (meaning general funds or enterprise funds) for organizations that advocate on ballot measures or engage in politicking.

I support strict controls on the use of city resources and personnel for anything that might be perceived as political advocacy. Springs TV should confine itself to broadcasting and re-broadcasting council meetings or other pertinent events, but refrain from airing programs that might be construed as ballot-related propaganda. The city’s website should also be an advocacy-free zone, especially around election time, and confine itself to providing objective and factual information only.

I would insist that the city manager and senior city staff remain strictly neutral on political issues and ballot questions.

I support an ethics inquiry into whether the city attorney used city resources and staff to engage in advocacy work related to city ballot issues, as alleged.

Innovation and Efficiency

I would like to see the city explore the use of outcome-based budgeting.

I would like to see the city commission a study, by CH2MHill or other qualified group, on outsourcing opportunities in city government.

I support a bottom to top review of city codes and zoning rules, with an eye toward removing antiquated provisions, eliminating unnecessary hassles, reducing permit approval times and streamlining and simplifying everything.

I support the outsourcing of many more city services and operations, including road repair, snow removal and park maintenance. This would also allow selling off of unneeded equipment and consolidation of maintenance facilities.

I think an independent study of the city’s pension obligations should be commissioned.

I would like to see the city undertake a review of its equipment and vehicle fleet, looking for ways to eliminate unneeded inventory.

I believe the city should adopt the “Yellow Pages Test” when it comes to city services. If it’s something that can be found in the Yellow Pages, it’s probably something that the city shouldn’t be doing, or something it should be contracting out to the private sector.

I believe the city and county should consolidate functions, where and when that is practical and improves efficiency. I am open to the idea of a joint parks district, for instance.

I would encourage the city manager to institute an “Innovation Awards” program for city employees, which pays cash bonuses to city staff who offer ideas that markedly improve city services or save the city money.

The city should compile and publish an inventory of surplus properties, which should then be sold off.

City Enterprises

The city should begin seriously studying the monetizing of assets, and consider getting out of the energy, parking and hospital businesses. Big uncertainties about the future of healthcare providers and energy companies should lend urgency to this debate. The proceeds from enterprise sales, if wisely used, could help address a backlog in capital improvements, while mitigating the need for major tax increase.

I would urge the regular publication of a Citizens Shareholder Report on City Enterprises, a propaganda-free document that includes staffing levels, budget breakdowns, pension obligations, property inventories, debt obligations and other data that the citizen-shareholders will find useful. The report should include an independent assessment of the market value of each enterprise.

City Council should step away from its role as Utilities Board, and hand over those responsibilities to a more independent governing board, which answers to council but is staffed with people with real expertise in the field. I would also like to see more medical and business professionals on Memorial’s board, and see that board exercise more aggressive oversight over the enterprise.

I support a moratorium on the physical expansion of Memorial Health System, beyond the footprint it currently has. There no reason for a city enterprise to keep expanding. Money should be reinvested in quality of service and existing facilities, not expansion.

I would also like to explore the possibility of directing a percentage of enterprise proceeds back to the city’s general fund.

I would push for a more accurate and “holistic” accounting of SDS costs, which includes not just the cost of constructing the project, but additional obligations incurred in the effort to build political support for the pipeline.

I would like to see the city airport participate in the FAA’s airport privatization demonstration program.

Economic Climate

I support ending the business personal property tax and a rapid phase-out of the use tax, in the interest of improving the city’s economic environment – irrespective of what happens with the tax hike now on the ballot.

I oppose paying cash “incentives” to private companies. I define “incentives” broadly, to include offering companies a low-tax, low-hassle, low-cost environment in which to operate. If City Council focuses on creating the best job-creation climate possible in Colorado Springs, that should be all the “incentive” companies need, in my view. I think Colorado Springs should define good corporate citizenship as a willingness to pay one’s own way. In extraordinary cases, such as the USOC headquarters deal (see below), in which a majority on City Council approves significant public funds as “incentives,” voter approval should be sought.

I strongly support the USOC staying in town, but object to the first and second USOC deals on various grounds, including the secrecy, unnecessary haste and overly-generous and unbalanced terms of the agreements. I believe any funding outlay this significant, and the assumption of this much public debt, requires a vote of the people.

I support a top-to-bottom review of city codes and zoning rules, with an eye toward removing antiquated provisions, eliminating unnecessary hassles, reducing permit approval times and streamlining and simplifying everything.

I oppose Jan Martin’s tax proposal because it is excessive, permanent, ill-timed, anti-business and lacking in specific uses. I am not reflexively anti-tax, and remain open-minded on the need to change the city’s overall tax structure, but prefer, like many local voters, that tax hikes be modest, targeted, sunsetted and tied to something tangible.

Other Items and Ideas

I would make better airport access and improved east-west mobility a point of emphasis.

I think the city should explore the possibility of buying Banning Lewis Ranch, for use as an eastern recreational amenity and buffer against the city’s eastward expansion. One possible funding source for this would be the sale of Memorial Health System.

I believe Memorial Health System could use a “Voucher Care” program to reduce indigent costs, while continuing to assist people in need.

To address revenue shortfalls in the parks and recreation department, the city might partner with local school districts to develop a volunteer youth corps that helps maintain parks and other publicly-owned amenities.

The city should also explore ways to boost park revenues by using private concessionaires. Rock-climbing guides/schools at Palmer Park? Paid docents who guide nature tours of the parks' flora and fauna? Mountain-biking 101 taught in city parks by local bike shops? All could potentially increase revenue for the city by way of concession contracts, while also growing small businesses.

Sean W. Paige

Background in Brief

Relevant Work History

2007 to present: Exec. Director, Limited Government Forum

Exec. Director, Local Liberty Action

2002 to 2007: Editorial Page Editor, Colorado Springs Gazette

2001 to 2002: Editorial Director, Competitive Enterprise Institute

2000 to 2001: Warren Brookes Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute (Washington, D.C.)

1997 to 2000: Staff Writer and Columnist, Insight Magazine

The Washington Times (Washington, D.C.)

1994 to 1997: Spokesman/Communications Director, Citizens Against Government Waste

(Washington, D.C.)

1993 to 1994: Spokesman/Press Secretary, Alan Keyes for U.S. Senate

1991 to 1993: Media Analyst/Writer, Media Research Center

(Alexandria, Virginia)

1989 to 1990: Associate Editor, Daily Presidential News Summary

White House (Washington, D.C.)

1989 to 1989: Personal Aide to Chief of Staff John H. Sununu

Office of Presidential Transition

(Washington, D.C.)

1988 to 1989: Deputy Press Secretary, Rep. Robert Logomarsino (R-Calif.), U.S. House of Representatives

1987 to 1988: Intern, National Journalism Center

(Washington, D.C.)

Education:

BA English Arizona State University

Maybe there is a just God out there after all.

Four years after the U.S. Supreme Court approved the bulldozing of a New London neighborhood, so the city could hand the land to a company promising more tax revenue, the city has yet to profit from its act of theft. Instead, the cleared lots still stand vacant, like a gaping wound. The company, and all the promises it made, never materialized. New London is no better off today than before it embarked on this notorious abuse of eminent domain. The wages of sin . . . are vacant lots.

And I for one, in a slightly malicious way, hope the "Kelo curse" will continue to dog the city.

Here's the AP report on the 4 year anniversary:

Conn. land vacant 4 years after court OK'd seizure

NEW LONDON, Conn. — Weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters have replaced the knot of aging homes at the site of the nation's most notorious eminent domain project.

There are a few signs of life: Feral cats glare at visitors from a miniature jungle of Queen Anne's lace, thistle and goldenrod. Gulls swoop between the lot's towering trees and the adjacent sewage treatment plant.

But what of the promised building boom that was supposed to come wrapped and ribboned with up to 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues? They are noticeably missing.
Proponents of the ambitious plan blame the sour economy. Opponents call it a "poetic justice."
"They are getting what they deserve. They are going to get nothing," said Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the landmark property rights case. "I don't think this is what the United States Supreme Court justices had in mind when they made this decision."

Kelo's iconic pink home sat for more than a century on that currently empty lot, just steps away from Connecticut's quaint but economically distressed Long Island Sound waterfront. Shortly after she moved in, in 1997, her house became ground zero in the nation's best-known land rights catfight.

New London officials decided they needed Kelo's land and the surrounding 90 acres for a multimillion-dollar private development that included residential, hotel conference, research and development space and a new state park that would complement a new $350 million Pfizer pharmaceutical research facility.

Kelo and six other homeowners fought for years, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, justices voted 5-4 against them, giving cities across the country the right to use eminent domain to take property for private development.

The decision was sharply criticized and created grassroots backlash. Forty states quickly passed new, protective rules and regulations, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some protesters even tried to turn the tables on now-retired Justice David Souter, trying unsuccessfully in 2006 to take his New Hampshire home by eminent domain to build an inn.

In New London the city's prized economic development plan has fallen apart as the economy crumbled.

The Corcoran Jennison Cos., a Boston-based developer, had originally locked in exclusive rights to develop nearly the entire northern half of the Fort Trumbull peninsula. But those rights expired in June 2008, despite multiple extensions, because the firm was unable to secure financing, according to President Marty Jones. In July, backers halted fundraising for the project's crown jewel, a proposed $60 million, 60,000-square-foot Coast Guard museum.
The poor economy meant that donations weren't "keeping pace with expenses," said Coast Guard Foundation president Anne Brengle.

The group hopes to resume fundraising in the future, she said.

Overall, proponents say about two-thirds of the 90-acre site is developed, in part because of a 16-acre, $25 million state park. The other third of the land remains without the promised residential housing, office buildings, shops and hotel/conference center facility.

"If there had been no litigation, which took years to work its way through (the court system), then a substantial portion of this project would be constructed by now," said John Brooks, executive director of the New London Development Corp. "But we are victims of the economic cycle, and there is nothing we can do about that."

A new engineering tenant is moving into one of the office buildings at 1 Chelsea St., and a bio tech firm with as many as five employees is getting ready to move into an existing building on Howard Street, Brooks said.

Kelo, paid $442,000 by the state for her old property, now lives across the Thames River in Groton, in a white, two-bedroom 1950s bungalow. Her beloved pink house was sold for a dollar and moved less than two miles away, where a local preservationist has refurbished it.

Kelo can see her old neighborhood from her new home, but she finds the view too painful to bear.
"Everything is different, but everything is like still the same," said Kelo, who works two jobs and has largely maintained a low profile since moving away. "You still have life to deal with every day of the week. I just don't have eminent domain to deal with every day of the week, even after I ate, slept and breathed it for 10 years."

Although her side lost, Kelo said she sees the wider ramifications of her property rights battle.

"In the end it was seven of us who fought like wild animals to save what we had," she said. "I think that though we ultimately didn't win for ourselves, it has brought attention to what they did to us, and if it can make it better for some other people so they don't lose their homes to a Dunkin' Donuts or a Wal-Mart, I think we did some good."

Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, argued Kelo's case before the Supreme Court. He calls "massive changes that have happened in the law and in the public consciousness" the "real legacy" of Kelo and the other plaintiffs.

The empty land means the city won a "hollow victory," he said. "What cities should take from this is to run fleeing from what New London did and do economic development that is market-driven and incorporate properties of folks who are truly committed to their neighborhood and simply want to be a part of what happens," he said.

City officials insist that they had no ulterior motives in secretly changing the petitioning-at-storefronts policy, despite allegations by Douglas Bruce that this was designed to stymie him and thwart the democratic process. But this city has a history on engaging in vindictive, obstructionist actions aimed directly at its perceived nemesis. And revelations that the city attorney polled members of City Council before re-charging Bruce with trespassing, after the original citations were tossed, seem to confirm that there is a political dimension, and a personal element, to the city's actions regarding Bruce.

The Gazette editorial page raised an eyebrow over the issue Friday. Not only did the piece call Councilman Scott Hente a hypocrite for backing new trespassing charges against Bruce, even though Hente was once a habitual trespasser on the Manitou Incline. It highlighted the irregularity -- the impropriety? -- of City Attorney Pat Kelly polling members of City Council before deciding to write Bruce new tickets.

Here's an excerpt:

"Monday, after the judge tossed the Bruce case, City Attorney Patricia Kelly e-mailed City Council members, wondering whether to drop the case or pursue it again. Councilmen Tom Gallagher and Darryl Glenn expressed their desire for Kelly to drop it. “Refiling the complaint makes us look vindictive & petty,” wrote Gallagher.

The case allows Bruce to accuse the council of not respecting the constitutional right to petition government. Petitions are so sacred that a city directive told police to avoid trespassing citations against people circulating petitions on private property open to the public. The county has the same policy, but city officials changed theirs just as Bruce began circulating a petition for a ballot measure to reduce city revenue.

Other council members told Kelly to go get Bruce. “I support moving forward” wrote Councilwoman Jan Martin; “We cannot allow laws to only apply to those who don’t have a soapbox,” wrote Councilman Bernie Herpin; “I support moving forward,” wrote Mayor Lionel Rivera.

In response to the city attorney’s e-mail, Police Chief Richard Myers weighed in: “I strongly believe this is a law enforcement/prosecutorial matter, and as such, would ask that you proceed forthwith.”

“I’m with the chief on this one,” wrote Councilman Hente."

Though he denied hypocrisy on the trespassing issue, because he's now a reformed trespasser, Hente conceded the irregularity of Kelly polling council members on the Bruce issue. “I was mystified by that,” Hente told The Gazette. “In six and a half years on the council, I can’t think of another time we’ve been asked to weigh in on a criminal prosecution. Ms. Kelly asked our opinion, so I said ‘I support the chief,’ that’s all. But I am mystified that we discussed it.”

Hente was "mystified" by the City Attorney's actions, yet he and others on council went along with the exercise. Did anyone ask the city attorney what this was all about? Did anyone tell the city attorney this seemed improper? Will anyone on council hold the city attorney accountable for the latest in a series of misjudgments? Evidently not. That's just the way a majority on this council operates. And if details of this episode hadn't made the papers, no one in the public would have been any the wiser.

A majority on council supported writing Bruce new tickets. And that’s what happened. This shows there was a political calculation in the decision to pursue new charges. It means the city applied a different standard of justice for Bruce than it would have for an Average Joe facing similar circumstances. "This high-level concern about a questionable misdemeanor charge, for a crime Hente has committed routinely, smacks of malicious political prosecution of Bruce," said the Gazette.

Not only do Kelly's ill-advised actions raise suspicions about the city's motives; they may have opened the city to a much more serious legal battle, with Bruce claiming he was denied equal protection under the law -- that he was the victim of selective, politically-motivated prosecution. And it seems hard to argue otherwise.

Shut down the rumor mill. It's time to put the speculation to rest. Cancel the Tejon Street parade that was supposed to greet Monday's big surprise. The secret is out, thanks to dogged reporting by the Gazette. I'm going to officially apply for Jerry Heimlicher's vacant spot on City Council, joining a gaggle of citizens seeking a shortcut to the seat of power. This isn't all for the greater glory of Sean Paige, though. I'm putting forward a platform, an agenda, some actual ideas, which I hope will make this more than just a popularity contest for members of the city's inner clique. I harbor no illusions about my chances: the last thing most members of this council want is a colleague with an independent attitude, an inquiring mind and an alternative vision for the city. But at least it will make it more interesting, before the safe choice is made.

Let the battle of ideas, not just good intentions, begin.

Reports the Gazette:

September 25th, 2009, 10:28 am · 1 Comment · posted by dchacon

Sean Paige says he doesn’t have a “chance in hell” to be appointed to a soon-to-be-vacant seat on the City Council, but he’s planning to throw his name into the race anyway on Monday.

Paige, the former editorial page editor of The Gazette who now edits and blogs at LocalLibertyOnline.org, said he’s putting a platform together before applying for the District 3 City Council seat.

“I really think it’s important to not just run,” he said this morning. “I mean, everybody in this town just runs and says, ‘Well, I’m doing it to give back to the community.’ I think that’s one of the problems. They’re all well-meaning people, but they don’t have an agenda. They don’t have a plan. They don’t have a vision.”

Paige faces stiff competition.

At least 14 other people are vying for the District 3 City Council seat being vacated by Councilman Jerry Heimlicher, whose resignation is effective Sept. 30. Heimlicher and his wife, Mary Margaret, are moving back to their home state of Tennessee in November.

Paige, who recently blogged about a “faux candidacy,” said he doesn’t see himself as a politician.

“But I have been a critic for a long time (about) the way the city is run,” he said.

“As a critic, I get challenged, ‘Well, why don’t you do something?’ Well, this is an opportunity to take some people up on that challenge and say, ‘OK, here are some ideas. Do you like them? Or do you not like them?’ We’ll see what happens,” he said.

Paige said his candidacy is “sort of tongue-in-cheek.”

“I don’t think there’s going to be a chance in hell that they’re going to put me on, but I will be filing on Monday,” he said.

The deadline to apply for the seat is 5 p.m. Monday. The City Council will appoint Heimlicher’s replacement.

The seat must be filled by Oct. 30, but Mayor Lionel Rivera wants a candidate to be selected and sworn in by Oct. 12, the council’s first informal meeting in October.

The Daily Beast today ran a politically-incorrect portrait of author, pundit and recent Colorado Springs import Michelle Malkin -- "politically incorrect" in this case meaning that the piece is reasonable, balanced and even slightly sympathetic. For daring to humanize the much-vilified Malkin - who must rank with Ann Coulter on the list of people liberals love to hate -- writer Lloyd Grove will undoubtedly catch some flak. Grove describes Michelle as "charming, funny" and "vulnerable" -- adjectives that legions of Malkin haters will greet with incredulity. They don't want her humanized; they want her demonized. But that's just a measure of her dagger-like effectiveness as a writer, thinker and pundit.

What really drives them nuts, though, is her success. Malkin's latest book, "Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies," isn't just a bestseller. It has actually changed things for the better by bringing much-needed attention to the proliferation of "czars" under this administration (it now has 17 of them, according to one count). Who are these people? What powers do they wield? To whom are they accountable? How do they fit into the constitutional scheme of things? No one was asking these questions before Malkin took on the czars. I venture to think that Obama administration radical-in-residence Van Jones would still be on the job today had Malkin's book not spotlighted the issue.

A few members of Congress actually picked up that ball and ran with it. Maine Sen. Susan Collins (a liberal Republican) earlier this week tried to rein-in the situation a bit, by attaching language to a bill that would force czars to face congressional questioning before appointment. But Senate Democrats killed Collins' amendment, at the urging of the White House. It's not going away as an issue, though. The czars (like their Russian counterparts of old) have become symbols of an imperial and unaccountable Washington establishment, that lords over the rest of us like a bunch of tin-pot potentates. The word "czar" has no place in a country where the people are supposed to rule. And we have Malkin to thank for reminding us of that.

No one appointed me ambassador of Colorado Springs. But I'm sure I speak for many in the city when I say we're delighted that Jesse and Michelle Malkin found a sanctuary from left-wing lunacy (and lunatics) here. Many transplants are drawn here not just for the incredible scenery, bracing environment and excellent quality of life. They come because it's a city where the American dream is still accessible, because American ideas are still taken seriously. It's a city that refuses to run with the statist herd (much to the frustration of a few RINOs in city leadership). It's a city where government still serves the people, not the other way around. And that's part of what makes it a magnet for independent-minded individualists like the Malkins.

Instead of bemoaning the strongly conservative/libertarian bent of Colorado Springs, I think city leaders should embrace it, celebrate it, accentuate it -- making "freedom city" ("the American dream city") the "brand" we sell to the rest of the country. Let Boulder and Portland and Seattle serve as models for "command and control" cities. We should follow a different blueprint here, in which freedom, not control, is the guiding principle -- in which the American dream still flourishes because America's founding ideals are actually put into practice. Let affluent and elitist left-wing yuppies make Boulder and Portland and Austin their Meccas, their model to follow. By blazing a different path, in which government is strictly limited so economic and personal liberty can be preserved and enhanced, Colorado Springs will become a magnet for people (and businesspeople), like the Malkins, who value freedom more than government. And this would give us an identity and a "brand" that's in sync, not in conflict, with the values of most residents.

Of course the USOC is going to be flexible with the city about meeting second "deal" deadlines.

Wouldn't you be?

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as they say; one deal inked is better than any number of deals imagined. And it's not every day that a city hands you $53 in other people's money, and gifts you two new buildings, and a major upgrade to an existing facility, at no cost to yourself. The least you can do is show a little flexibility when the city blows through its first deadline.

And besides, there's really no urgency. That's just something supporters of the giveaway ginned-up in order to sell the deal and stampede the process along. The idea that others cities are lining up, with millions of dollars at the ready, just waiting to sweep the USOC off her feet is a bogeyman -- something the USOC and a few city leaders have used to (literally) scare up support for the deals. Now that it's worked, and the city is safely on the hook for $53 million, there's not such a rush.

I hate to quote myself, but I will. I predicted weeks ago that this Houdini-like city would manage to "narrowly escape" its latest "self-made mess." I predicted that the city

" . . will go back to the USOC and ask for an extension. The USOC will grant it, because it's really not going anywhere and only a fool would walk away from such a sweet deal. The court case will proceed. We'll learn a lot more about the difference between COPs and bonds. We'll learn that there really wasn't any need to ink a deal in one week's time. We'll see that the USOC is a reasonable and patient outfit, when it stands to be the beneficiary of so much taxpayer largess. We'll see that the process could have been slowed down, and that these sort of blunders might have been avoided if city leaders had been so inclined."

But the court case will not proceed, you'll say. Lindsay Fischer's legal challenge was dismissed. I read it in The Gazette. Your crystal ball needs polishing, Mr. know-it-all.

Two reliable sources tell me Fischer is almost certain to appeal the case, so the dark clouds haven't lifted yet. The question of whether the city is funding the deal with COPs or bonds (which would require a vote) could still get bucked to a higher court. I also learned today that Jim Marvin, who led an effort in 2005 to block any city action on a conventional center without a vote, has been talking to lawyers about language for another petition drive, aimed at forcing the city to put similar deals to a vote.

Neither action will stop the city from moving forward. But I think they're emblematic of the displeasure that's out there with the way both USOC deals were orchestrated and approved.

As a charter school supporter, I've watched with dismay as a once-respected area charter school network, Cesar Chavez, has spiraled into disorder, scandal and disappointment for parents, students and teachers. Here's the latest from today's Gazette.

It's too early to say exactly what went wrong. I hope some enterprising local journalist takes the time to tell the story in full. It appears there were problems in the network's upper ranks, which have now cast shadows over everyone below. But the disappointment of parents and students, along with independent efforts to salvage some elements of the network, indicate that the schools still have strong support among the customers, despite problems at the top.

The silver lining to every story of a charter school failure is that these schools are allowed to fail -- that they are held accountable for poor performance, unlike most conventional schools, that blithely carry on, in perpetuity, even when they aren't performing up to par. Such failures are rare. But they do occur. And that's okay. For every charter school that flounders and fails, three or four or five are flourishing. On balance, these school are still serving students well, as a mountain of new evidence shows, and despite what some blinkered critics say.

For charter schools, failure is an option. Maybe that's why so many succeed.

The Tax Foundation earlier this week released its annual, state-by-state business climate ranking -- a rating system closely tied to state tax policies. And as the Denver Business Journal reports, Colorado is holding its own in 13th position.

Reports the DBJ:

"The Washington, D.C.-based foundation is a nonprofit group that tracks fiscal policies at the federal, state and local levels.

The index ranks the 50 states based on the taxes that matter most to businesses and business investment: corporate income, individual income, sales, property and unemployment insurance taxes.

The states’ scores are weighted based on the relative importance or impact of the tax to a business.

The index measures how well a state’s tax system encourages investment by maintaining a broad tax base and low rates.

On the individual components of the ranking, Colorado rated highest — No. 6 — on property taxes. It rated lowest — No. 31 — on sales taxes.

In between were its ratings on corporate taxes (No. 12), individual income tax (No. 16) and unemployment insurance tax (No. 20).

Colorado also was ranked No. 13 on the fiscal-year 2009 list. It was No. 10 in 2008, No. 11 in 2007 and No. 13 in 2006.

The top 10 friendliest states in the Tax Foundation’s ranking were South Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, Nevada, Florida, Montana, New Hampshire, Delaware, Washington and Utah.

It deems the 10 least-friendly states as New Jersey, New York, California, Ohio, Iowa, Maryland, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Vermont.

“When policymakers are considering tax changes in their states, they should remember two rules: Taxes matter to business, and states do not enact tax changes – increases or cuts – in a vacuum,” Kail Padgitt, who authored the study, said in a statement on Tuesday. Padgitt is staff economist for the foundation.

13th place is respectable, but why settle for that? Let's work to put Colorado in the top 5!

Oh, that's right. We have a Democrat as governor.

Here's a link to the full report.

There are some Obama haters out there, to be sure. And some of that, at least on the far lunatic fringe, might well be tinged with racial hatred. But the grassroots backlash that's been building out in fly-over country is really a reaction to two things, economic turmoil and big government, as even the "mainstream media" is coming to understand.

It's natural that Obama has become the focus of the wrath, since 1.) he's obviously a big-government liberal (I don't dare use the "S-word") and 2.) Americans have been convinced (mostly by presidents themselves, and presidential candidates) that the president has control over the economy. The fact that he's black has little to do with it. It's the government, stupid, to borrow a Clinton-era phrase from the unctuously-reptilian James Carville. And the economy.

Two just-published pieces highlight the point, bases not on the suppositions of left-leaning media types, or the musings of addle-brained former presidents with a love of the spotlight, but based on scientific polling of actual Americans. Steve Moore writes in today's Wall Street Journal about the feeling among Americans that wasteful government spending is completely out of control. And a report by AOL News, highlighting results of a recent Rasmussen poll, shows that the backlash was building before Obama's election, and stems from a deepening public disgust with both major parties. The frenzy of spending and government interventions on Obama's watch simply served as the tipping point.

Reports AOL:

". . . Sixty-six percent of the 1,000 adults polled on Sunday and Monday said they were either very angry or somewhat angry about federal government policies. "People feel they're not being listened to," said Scott Rasmussen, president of the polling organization.

Skip over this content

The anger didn't start when the Obama administration came to power, according to Rasmussen. He pointed to polls that showed "people were overwhelmingly opposed" to President Bush's bailout of financial firms, yet the measure passed. The same was true for federal aide to automakers.

"It just fits into this same pattern of it really doesn't matter what we do. It doesn't matter what we say," Rasmussen noted. "That's what the frustration we saw in the town hall meetings was."
While President Obama has taken most of the heat lately, 60 percent of those polled said neither Democratic nor Republican leaders understand what the country needs.

"I think what people are looking for is different than what the politicians want to provide," said Rasmussen. "Part of the reason that the two parties are having a hard time ... is because they're not connecting -- they're not able to find a way to resonate with voters. They're just sort of missing the discussion."

Washington isn't the only target of populist anger, although fear of "big government" control is a common theme for protesters.

"You really have to throw big business into it as well," according to Rasmussen, who added that people don't trust the media, either.

It all adds up to a lot of frustration, he said, for voters who want to "get involved in the decision-making process in a meaningful way."

"I think there's a group of people that are reaching the point that they don't know what to do."

I've spoken at 2 tea parties and attended a third in Colorado, and, despite media insinuations about the dark and diabolical motives of attendees, my sense is that the Rasmussen poll hits the nail on the head, in terms of analyzing what's really behind the movement.

Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi hits a home run again today with this piece about another Obama administration radical-in-residence, Energy Secretary Steven Chu -- who says Americans need to be treated like unruly and irresponsible teens, whose carbon-chugging binges have to be curbed for the planet's sake. Chu's statements and positions might not be on par with those of former green jobs czar Van Jones. And Chu won a Nobel prize, which lends him credibility with the easily-wowed crowd. But they're nearly as outlandish. And they're not out of place in this green-leaning administration.

Stumbled across a very good write-up on The Law of Unintended Clunkequences today, by AOL Auto's Editor-at-Large William Jeanes: link. What I really like is Jeanes' suggestion to change the acronym of Cash for Clunkers from "C4C" to "P2P" -- short for robbing Peter to pay Paul. Echoes my point a few posts back.

Writes Jeanes:

"According to a survey of new-vehicle buyers who participated in the recent Cash for Clunkers program, more than 17 percent now harbor “some” doubt or “serious” doubt about letting a government subsidy convince them to go further into debt. CNW Research of Bandon, Oregon, a firm specializing in automotive marketing research, conducted the survey in late August.

Buyer’s remorse is not a new phenomenon as anyone who ever opened an envelope containing Visa’s autopsy of that Spring Break trip to Margaritaville can tell you. The significant revelation of the CNW survey, however, is that under normal conditions only 6 to 8 percent of new-car buyers suffer the shouldn’t-a-done-that syndrome.

That means that over twice as many C4C participants as normal buyers are worried about the negative impact a brand spanking new payment book with $275 printed on each of its 72 pages might have on rent and Hamburger Helper expenditures. (The actual C4C numbers were an average loan length of 49 months and an average payment of $317.) No wonder. I’m surprised that the survey didn’t find half of the C4C spenders sitting up nights watching Suze Orman and Dave Ramsey re-runs."

As P2P participants begin to fall behind on new car payments -- to default on loans they couldn't afford and wouldn't of taken without a cash incentive from good old Uncle Sam -- how long before we'll be hearing calls for a "repo rescue" by Washington, eerily similar to the sub-prime borrower bailout, as "victims" of the clunkers program come forward, using the "government-made-me-do-it" excuse? Not long at all, I'm guessing.

No wonder Gore Vidal called this The United States of Amnesia. The United States of Myopia, better yet.

. . . I consult with the all-seeing, all-knowing Zoltar when I want to know my fate under ObamaCare.

But proceed with care. What Zoltar predicts isn't pretty.

There’s that great, very funny scene in the movie Dr. Strangelove, in which President Merkin Muffley, after breaking-up a scuffle between an Air Force general and a Soviet diplomat, yells, “You can’t fight in here: This is the war room!” That scene came to mind last week, when I read about the city attorney’s attempt to exclude all mention of the U.S. Constitution, the state Constitution and the Bill of Rights from the Douglas Bruce trespassing trial.

What purpose do such trials serve, do our courts serve, if not to interpret the legality of an action, in light of these documents, which serve as the foundations of our legal system? It’s as if the city is saying, “You can’t talk about the First Amendment in here: This is a court room! Only this isn’t a movie satire. It’s reality. And that makes it more alarming than funny.

The Gazette highlighted this surreal turn of events in yesterday’s editorial, and does a solid job of pointing out the incongruities:

“Bruce contends the city charged him with a crime in an effort to impede a petition city officials didn’t like. He believes city officials altered the police directive to facilitate a plan to stop the petition.

Who knows if his assertion is true? It’s the defense Bruce plans to use in court, as he defends himself against the trespassing charge. It’s a defense the court will need to hear, consider, and decide upon. If it’s unfounded, the city should have no trouble convicting Bruce.

If city prosecutor Michelle Keller gets her way, however, Bruce and Stinehagen won’t get to make their case. On Wednesday she filed a motion to exclude. It asks the court to muzzle Bruce and Stinehagen regarding anything that relates to issues of free speech and their allegation that city officials wanted to stop the petition. Her motion asks that Bruce and Stinehagen “be ordered to refrain from … mention of freedom of speech, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article II, Section 10, of the Colorado Constitution.” She’s serious. She wants a court order to prevent two men from speaking freely about free speech in court.

The motion also asks the court to order that defendants refrain from “any defense based upon selective prosecution or vindictive prosecution;” “any mention of the contents of the petition…;” and “any discussion or mention of police policies regarding petition activities.”

Motions to suppress ill-gotten evidence, and the like, are one thing. But this is a motion to forbid defendants from the mere mention of “free speech.” A judge will hear these motions at 9 a.m. Monday. Will the judge laugh them out of court? Will the judge allow a prosecutor to eliminate the entire defense of the defendants? Will the judge tell two men they can’t speak about free speech?”

The Gazette can’t imagine the judge going along with the city’s motion to exclude. “It’s hard to imagine a city judge would deny any citizen, even Douglas Bruce, the right to a fair trial in order to guard the interests of City Hall,” says the editorial. But I can. Bruce points out that the judge is technically a city employee, which could bias him in this case. Bruce for this reason requested another judge, who isn't on the city payroll. That request might also bias the judge against Bruce.

And let’s be honest about it: judges can be as lazy, conflict-averse and expediency-minded as any other human beings. This one might go along with the motion to exclude just to prevent a minor circus from erupting in his court room, as Bruce challenges the constitutionality of the city’s policy regarding signature-gathering on private property. But it’s as relevant as relevant can be, unless all the city wants is a railroading. The desire to avoid a “circus” is understandable, to some degree – but resolving constitutional questions is why our court system exists. And sometimes such disputes get heated and lively.

No one disputes the facts in the case. Bruce and a friend went to an area CostCo store to collect signatures, allegedly in violation of a recently-altered city petitioning policy. The store manager asked Bruce to leave. He refused. Police were called. Bruce was cited. That’s all our city attorney wants jurors to hear about. But isn’t the relevant issue – isn’t the reason to even have a trial – the question of whether the city’s policy on petitioning is constitutional? It's a waste of a jury's time deliberating over whether Bruce was at the scene of an alleged crime. No one disputes it. More germane is the question of whether writing him a ticket violated his rights, and was in keeping with the laws of the land.

The city attorney’s office studied the legality of this policy change before making it, according to media reports. That means the city understands that this question is relevant. All Bruce is asking is that it explain its reasoning to jurors. But the city must lack confidence in its analysis and conclusions, and in the legality of this policy change, if it now wants to exclude all discussion of the issue in court. That’s all the more reason why the judge should reject the motion to exclude. That's all the more reason why jurors need to hear the whole story, not just the final act.

Without broadening the scope of the trial, it amounts to a railroading. Because what else is a railroading, if not an attempt by officials to rig the rules of the game in their favor, by depriving a defendant of information or arguments that strengthen his case?

Thanks go out to Barry Noreen, for today's thinly-veiled endorsement of my faux candidacy for City Council.

Noreen declined to mention my name. He must, even as a columnist, retain some measure of journalistic detachment and objectivity. But can there be any doubt about who he was talking about when he wrote:

"[Council] could choose someone who will blend in with the crowd, a go-along-to-get-along kind of person. It could choose someone who might be prone to say, “Whoa, I can’t believe you guys are thinking of doing that.”

Bomb-throwing makes for good video but rarely leads to constructive decision making. Yet, like all big organizations, City Hall is susceptible to group think, people going with the flow.

It isn’t that current council members don’t sincerely want the city to succeed; of course they do. Once in a while, though, one gets the feeling the council might benefit from a “show me” skeptic, sitting there with a tumbler of bourbon on the rocks, occasionally saying, “you gotta be kiddin’ me.”

I would probably sip vodka martinis at meetings; gin and tonics during the summer months. Bourbon I might save for especially stressful sessions, involving pot belly pig ordinances, cat licensing (I'm against it -- let's get that right out front) and so on. But other than that, Barry perfectly captures the essence of my candidacy.

I'm the "show me" candidate in this race, the skeptic who wouldn't take as gospel everything I'm spoon fed by city staff, the city attorney, folks at the city enterprises. I won't adopt the consensus-at-all-costs attitude so pervasive on this council. Tom Gallagher and Darryl Glenn may have more company when they break ranks. There will be ample opportunity, serving on this council, for me to say, "you gotta be kiddin' me." I'm practicing my eye roll daily, just to get in shape.

I might even use that on my yard signs, which should start appearing any time now. My advisors suggest a more substantive slogan . . .

"Sean Paige Faux City Council

Ideas, not emotions

Answers, not antics"

. . . but there's a certain folksiness to "You Gotta be Kiddin' Me," which underscores the point that I'm a man of the people, running to represent their interests, not pander to the public employees voting block.

I think I received another veiled endorsement when Bernie Herpin told Noreen that he isn't interested in having a "rubber-stamper" replace Jerry Heimlicher. He wants someone with a little more independence, a little more vision, a little more bone marrow than the last person who filled a council vacancy. I couldn't agree more. And again, I think that describes me to a tee.

Maybe I'm reading into things a little. Maybe I'm seeing what I want to see. But hey, I'm in training to be a politician now. That's all part of the job.

(Tune in later this week, when I unveil the "Paige Platform")

The mark of the economically-literate person is an ability to see a few levels below the immediate surface of an event or policy -- to understand, for instance, that every government intervention in the market sets off a series of ripples and reverberations, like a pebble breaking the surface of a placid pond. Some of these effects are more obvious than others, but all have consequences. They might benefit certain parties, but harm others. They might enrich one group, at the expense of another. The beneficiaries may be obvious, while the victims are hidden from view.

The key is trying to see things whole – or as whole as one can with something as complex as the economy. Perhaps the best writing on the subject was done by Frederic Bastiat, in his essay on what is seen and what is not seen: link.

It’s impossible to anticipate with precision what all those effects will be (thus the folly and danger of central planning). But a prudent person at least counsels caution when it comes to government meddling, since it could result in more negative than positive consequences. A wise person has the humility to hold back. A local story about the after effects of the federal Cash for Clunkers program offers a good case in point.

The immediate, surface impact of the program seemed positive. Americans flocked to take advantage of the giveaway, happy to have the government (meaning other people) subsidize their new car purchase. Dealers were delighted to get the showroom traffic. And all the transactions that took place, as $3 billion in federal money was blown in just a few short weeks, did give a measurable (but modest and temporary) boost to one part of the economy. That’s about as far as some people could (or cared to) see. And what they saw made them happy.

But one consequence of taking so many used cars off the market so abruptly is that a shortage was created, which is driving up the costs for used car seekers. Reports the Gazette:

“Several car dealers in Colorado Springs are reporting sharp price hikes and a drop in availability of affordable used cars on the wholesale market in the wake of the federal government’s Cash for Clunkers program and the financial turmoil in the new-car industry.

The dealers said the effects are — or will soon — be visible on a car lot near you, in the form of slimmer selections and higher prices.

One dealer said every late-model used vehicle he’s seen lately on the wholesale market is $2,000 to $3,000 higher than it would have been a month ago.

The Cash for Clunkers program paid $2.87 billion to scrap 690,114 gas-guzzling cars and trucks, according to the latest statistics. The number of cars turned in on new car trades in Colorado was not disclosed, but the feds spent $37.6 million in the state. Each trade-in was worth either $3,500 or $4,500, so if those rebates are averaged out, that suggests about 9,400 used cars were taken off Colorado roads last month. Some of those presumably would have gone to the used car market if the program hadn’t existed.

In addition, the program came at a time when many new-car dealers were beefing up their used-car stock because of slow new-vehicle sales. At the same time, some dealers who lost their factory franchises have been converting to used-car shops, and they’ve been scouring the country for good used vehicles for their lots.”

C for C may have been a one-time boon for Americans wanting to trade in a “clunker” for something new and marginally more efficient. But it’s becoming a bust for Americans who want to get a better “clunker” than what they are driving now. Federal splurging reduced car costs for some Americans, but increased them for others. New car dealers got a temporary boost, but used-car dealers now are hurting. One sector of the economy felt a bump; another experienced a slump. And whether the economy as a whole is better off is doubtful.

What economic-illiterates hailed as a "success," wiser people recognize as a case of shell game economics, in which money was taken from one set of pockets and transferred to another. The flurry of activity did nothing to nourish and actually grow the economy; it gave us a short-term sugar buzz from which we're now coming down. C for C appears to have created a used car shortage, which may keep more genuine "clunkers" on the road than it removed from the road.

But not to worry. We'll soon be hearing this described by politicians as "the used car cost crisis," prompting calls for another government intervention, to fix a problem the earlier intervention caused. And so it goes, ad infinitum, one government blunder inviting another -- as we ride the fast lane toward a centrally-planned economy.

Kelly is accused by a former employee of using her staff to do political chores, in violation of fair campaign laws. Explained the Gazette:

“Attorney Thomas Marrese, a longtime employee in the city attorney’s office who was fired last month from his job as assistant city attorney, accuses Kelly of violating the state’s Fair Campaign Practices Act. Like so many stories in Colorado Springs, the Marrese accusation involves Douglas Bruce. Marrese says Kelly forced an employee to write a memo for Mayor Lionel Rivera intended to help city officials defeat a 2008 ballot question initiated by Bruce. In an e-mail he wrote:

“Ms. Kelly assigned Shane White to prepare the memo. After looking into the assignment, Mr. White voiced his opinion that it would be unethical and illegal to continue to prepare the memo, since, under the Fair Campaign Practices Act, a governmental entity cannot spend money to either advocate for or oppose an initiative after a ballot title has been set. Instead of advising the Mayor that it would be illegal to prepare the memo, however, Ms. Kelly instructed Mr. White to continue to prepare the memo and to use some of his accumulated vacation hours to account for the time it took to perform this work. Mr. White reluctantly obliged, and the memo was prepared on the Mayor’s letterhead, and delivered to the Mayor.”

This prompted the usual circle-the-wagons response from the city’s ruling clique, with Vice Mayor Larry Small exonerating Kelly, before most of the facts are even known. But the Gazette seems to be calling for a more formal investigation (some problems with which I’ll touch on in a moment). The paper went beyond that, though, to raise questions about Kelly’s judgment and competence.

“Again, accusations are easy, cheap, and often unfounded. This particular accusation, however, deserves serious attention by the City Council, which should demand an ethics investigation. That’s because Kelly has a history of defending the agendas of city officials, rather than advising them on laws designed to keep elected officials subordinate to the electorate that pays and empowers them. Kelly advised a member of the city’s ethics panel in May to participate in an ethics investigation of Rivera, despite the fact the panelist had served on the mayor’s re-election committee and had worked for him in two recent campaigns. Somehow, we’re to believe it’s not a conflict of interest to investigate an ethics complaint against a friend and political mentor. That’s preposterous, and impossible to defend on legal grounds. It smacks of contempt of process, revealing a mockery of the complaint. Stranger, more wrong-headed legal advice would be difficult to find.

Then there’s the matter of Kelly’s history with Colorado’s open records laws, which are not vague in the least. In Colorado, the public’s business must be conducted in public. It is precisely that simple. Yet Kelly has advised city officials to the contrary on several occasions, losing legal battles she never should have fought. In one recent case the city spent $80,000 trying to keep the public from viewing contracts and leases between the city’s Memorial Hospital and doctors. Then there was the city’s losing fight to keep from the public documents pertaining to negotiations between the United States Olympic Committee and the city, in a costly deal that went bad.”

More “strange” and “wrong-leaded” legal arguments were heard from Kelly’s office earlier this week, when the city, responding to Lindsay Fischer’s legal challenge to the second USOC deal, told a judge that its use of Certificates of Participation to fund the deal did not constitute “long-term debt.” Kelly also told a judge that paying back the COPs would be discretionary on the city’s part -- even though defaulting on the payments would put the Police Operations Center and Fire Station 8 in jeopardy.

Such statements not only raise doubts about competence; they call into question the intellectual honesty of the people running this city.

Whether Kelly is competent enough to keep the job is something only her bosses on council can decide. So far, they seem to think she’s doing a swell job. Sometimes, apparently, the blind prefer being led by the blind. But how to get to the truth about Marrese’s allegations, and determine whether they violate state or city rules?

We could just take Small’s word for her innocence. But Small, according to the Gazette, was a recipient of the allegedly improper memos, making him an interested party. This seems like a logical job for the city’s Independent Ethics Commission. But the panel’s work on the Lionel Rivera case didn't inspire confidence.

Members seemed as though they were going through the motions when they cleared Rivera of conflict of interest charges (a more derailed critique of their work can be found here). Maybe, now that they’ve ironed out a few bugs, they would put some effort behind this case.

But can you really have a commission of one?

But aren’t there three people on the commission? There should be. But two of the three current members would have to step away from this case, due to their own possible or perceived conflicts.

Jan Doran would have to skip it for the same reason she skipped the last one: she’s tight with the mayor. The mayor is involved because he reportedly asked the city attorney to do research on a Douglas Bruce ballot initiative, and may have used the memo for political purposes. If you ask or instruct the city attorney to do something unethical, that raises questions about your own ethics. And if the mayor sought or received some political advantage as a result of the request, it looks as bad for him as it does for Kelly.

Doran will have to step aside – unless she can get the target of this investigation, Kelly, to declare that she doesn't have a conflict (which wouldn't be that strange or unprecedented, given Kelly’s apparent blind spot on the topic).

But that still leaves two on the commission.

Not really.

Another commission member, Stephen Hook, is a former deputy city attorney, who worked under Kelly. He may or may not remain friends with her. He may know the individual making the allegations, or some of the staff people who would be asked for information. He’s arguably too close to the city attorney’s office to be seen as objective.

Hook, too, would have step down.

That leaves just one on the commission, Mal Wakin. And who knows; he may have some conflicts of his own that have yet to be revealed. It's a relatively big city run my a relatively small clique of people. That makes it hard to find truly "independent" people serving on such a commission.

But a commission of one isn’t the biggest obstacle to getting the Kelly case investigated and resolved.

Making it tougher is the do-it-yourself nature of the city’s ethics regime (at least as it functioned in the Lionel Rivera case). It’s not good enough in Colorado Springs to make a credible-sounding allegation. You have to bring a formal complaint, then wave it under the commission's nose and see if it takes a sniff. A strong dose of Sudafed might be needed, since this group seems allergic to taking the initiative.

It would also help to retain a tenacious lawyer (though Lindsay Fischer is caught up in other matters at the moment). You will have to furnish all your own evidence, and recruit your own witnesses. If not provided, this commission won’t go looking for it. You can’t be in a big hurry. Unless there’s some political reason for speeding things along – another USOC deal must be approved, or something like that – the commission will take its sweet time.

Who knows? By the time the commission of one finishes his work, maybe Kelly will have retired. And maybe that’s the best we can hope for.

I’ve written before about what a mistake I think it is for Fort Carson to volunteer as a testing ground for the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets. I have nothing against ferrets, per se. They seem cuddly and adorable – unless you’re a prairie dog. I just believe American military bases have enough trouble with so-called “encroachment issues” – restrictions on training activities resulting from excessive environmental rules or complaints from NIMBYs – that they shouldn’t invite more of it. That’s exactly what Fort Carson is doing in this case.

Establishing a ferret colony at Fort Carson is just the sort of heart-warming story that earns the base brownie points with animal advocates and environmentalists. It’s good PR. They may rain fire and death on America's enemies, but hey, they're nice to animals. But I fear it will come back to bite the base on the butt if the animals living in this and other experimental colonies win listing as endangered species.

With a listing comes more regulation. With more federal regulation comes restrictions on training. Restrictions on training make bases less useful. Less useful bases end up on closure lists. Closed bases aren’t good for the local economy.

Follow my logic? Folks at Fort Carson obviously don’t.

But maybe this story in the Sept. 8 Billings Gazette will help them see the long-term implications of that they're doing. Here's an excerpt:

Three groups ask feds to protect reintroduced ferrets

CHEYENNE - Three environmental groups say they are petitioning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect reintroduced populations of black-footed ferrets as endangered.

The federal government already protects black-footed ferrets as an endangered species. But it's a Catch-22: The protection doesn't apply to 17 reintroduced ferret populations in eight states, which are the only black-footed ferrets known to exist in the wild.

Instead of being endangered, they are considered "nonessential experimental" populations.

The groups WildEarth Guardians, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance and Center for Native Ecosystems want three black-footed ferret populations - in western Arizona's Aubrey Valley, southwestern South Dakota's Conata Basin and southeast Wyoming's Shirley Basin - designated as endangered. The groups announced Tuesday that they had submitted an endangered species petition to the Fish and Wildlife Service . . .

. . . . Black-footed ferrets were believed to be extinct in the wild until a population turned up in Wyoming in 1981. The 18 animals remaining in that population soon were rounded up for a captive-breeding program.

Fish and Wildlife began releasing captive-bred ferrets in Wyoming's Shirley Basin in 1991. Subsequent populations have been established in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Kansas, South Dakota and Utah.

But only the Arizona, South Dakota and Wyoming populations in the endangered species petition are considered viable, said Erik Molvar, with the Laramie-based Biodiversity Conservation Alliance.”

Fort Carson’s ferret colony isn’t one of the “nonessential experimental” populations the groups want listed, so the base is in no great danger at the moment. But if this lawsuit succeeds, and if Fort Carson ferrets flourish, it won’t be too long before environmental groups are suing to have this colony listed too. That’s not necessarily the end of the world. A number of military facilities continue to function with endangered species on base. But the work-arounds can be costly and the encumbrances can be significant. It’s not something any base would want, much less invite.

It’s a little dated, but here’s a piece I did on the encroachment problem at American military bases back in 2001: link. I think it’s safe to assume things have gotten worse since then. Endangered Species Act rules have become a nightmarish fact of live at many facilities. But this is the first time I’ve seen a base actually courting such problems, thanks to such a stunning lack of foresight.

As the case of the Canada lynx shows, there’s a game of bait-and-switch being played when it comes to experimental populations of endangered species. The federal government promises that the normal regulations and regulations won’t apply at the time of reintroduction. But once the animals are established, and the listing petitions and lawsuits start flying, such agreements aren’t worth bupkis. Colorado agreed to host an experimental population of Canada Lynx back in the Bill Owens era, based on assurances that a tidal wave of new rules wouldn’t follow. But today you have “lynx habitat” being used by federal agencies as a reason to limit ski resort expansions and stop forest thinning projects. The old promises mean nothing. Colorado is being punished for showing the lynx a little compassion.

If Fort Carson commanders are smart, if folks in the Pentagon are smart, they’ll start looking for reasons to quietly back away from this animal rescue mission, which is unrelated and potentially detrimental to the facility’s main purpose. There are better places to put ferret colonies. And there are better uses for military bases.

Sunshine on his shoulders made singer John Denver happy. But CU researchers needed a $500,000 federal grant from the National Science Foundation to finally prove the "John Denver Hypothesis," according to this report in today's Boulder Daily Camera. One major scientific question has been answered. Who said all the big breakthroughs in science have been made?

"CU scientist Christopher Lowry, an assistant professor of integrative physiology, received a $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation to continue studying the link between temperature and mood. The grant is paid for with a Faculty Early Career Development Award.

"Whether lying on the beach in the midday sun on a Caribbean island, grabbing a few minutes in the sauna or spa after working or sitting in a hot bath or Jacuzzi in the evening, we often associate feeling warm with a sense of relaxation and well-being," Lowry wrote in a recent edition of the Journal of Psychopharmacology.

Lowry said that people intuitively understand that temperature affects mood, but he is looking to clearly define that link. Understanding these mechanisms might help scientists develop better treatments for depression and other mood disorders, according to Lowry."

Many of us knew, anecdotally, that we tend to feel better on sunny days than on cloudy days. We know from observations that Minnesotans and Michiganders tend to spend their winter breaks in Florida, rather than the other way around. But so what? Science cannot stand on anecdotes and casual observations alone.

Testing the "John Denver Hypothesis" has been a National Science Foundation priority for years. Now, finally, thanks to perseverance and an unconscionable misuse of resources, the case has been cracked: Sunshine on our shoulders does, in fact, make us happy. This wasn't just some pop song-inspired myth.

Now federal dollars can be spent solving the next great scientific question: Do albino alligators really live in the sewers under New York City? The National Science Foundation is standing by now, to take your grant proposals.

The Gazette's news department continues to produce some solid, fact-based reporting on the city's overall tax climate, something of obvious interest and relevance with a major tax hike on the ballot. First, Perry Swanson did a "Data Geek" post, pointing out how greatly tax burdens vary across the city, depending on where one lives. Then came yesterday's damning and devastating story (at least if you're a tax hike backer), which not only shatters the myth that this is one of the lowest-taxed towns in the state but shows that Colorado Springs will become one of the highest-taxed towns in the state if the measure is approved. That's one that the anti-tax forces will definitely make hay with.

Especially damning is Jan Martin's admission that she doesn't really know where the data on her pro-tax hike website comes from, and her referring the reporter to city finance director Terri Velasquez for an answer. Ouch!

Kudos to Swanson and Daniel Chacon for following the facts, wherever they may lead.

. . .mom, baseball, apple pie and lawsuits.

Go bless America is right.

The Business Journal's John Hazlehurst did a solid piece of reporting last week, by pointing out that there's far less than meets the eye in the economic impact estimates the city trotted out to justify the first and second USOC deals. That's all water under the bridge now, of course, since both "deals" were rammed through by this council with too little skepticism and very little public process (council did hold one evening meeting before rubber-stamping the second deal, but none of the caveats and criticisms offered by the public speakers that night had any obvious impact on a pre-ordained outcome).

It seems to have been a kitchen sink estimate, meaning that everything vaguely sports-related that happens in town was tossed in, in order to pump up the numbers. It was generated, at Mayor Lionel Rivera's request, for the express purpose of justifying the giveaway, by seeming to apply some sort of cost-benefit analysis. The city has no record of having paid local economist Dave Bamberger for this work. The situation strikes me as very odd. But odd is the norm where this city government is concerned.

A number of council members, including Jerry Heimlicher, cited this "study" as proof that the deal made economic sense, Hazlehurst points out. But they didn't look far enough below the surface (or want to look far enough) to see its potential faults. I'm not sure if that sort of sloppiness and half-hearted "analysis" was tolerated at Ford Motor Company back in the days Heimlicher worked there. But maybe that's one reason American automakers are on the ropes.

It would have been nice for this kind of skeptical reporting to have been done before the second deal was approved. But that's not the media's fault. These deals have purposefully been rushed through by council, in order to minimize the chance that hard questions would be raised, or public opposition would mount. And doubts about the validity of the economic analysis probably wouldn't have derailed this anyway, given how badly this council needed to save face after the first "deal" became such a fiasco.

I had a hunch the estimates were inflated, because they lump the economic impacts of the executive offices and the training center together, though no one ever said the training center might leave town. I'm guessing the economic impact of having a number of USOC execs decamp to some other city would be small, relative to the whole. But that point was consistently ignored or glossed over by USOC deal cheerleaders.

This is obviously an inflated estimate, done as part of a sales job. But as anyone who sat through the one town hall meeting on USOC understood, most on this City Council had the rubber stamp at the ready and weren’t interested in picking nits.

Good reporting by the CSBJ and Hazlehurst, however.

I was back on my old home turf today, the editorial pages of The Colorado Springs Gazette, explaining why last week's endorsement of a 10 mill tax increase seemed radically out of character for the paper. Copyright laws and common decency prevent me from running it here. That's what links are for.

First, I appreciated seeing, in the note from Publisher Steve Pope, what seems like a very firm pledge to keep the flame of "Freedom Philosophy" burning brightly at the paper.

"Some readers are asking whether The Gazette has abandoned its Freedom Philosophy, which advocates limited government, minimal regulation and taxation, and a belief that individual rights and responsibility are more important than centralized community planning. The answer is a resounding “no.”

I also appreciate the courage it took for the publisher and the company to run such a critique. Whatever else the paper's critics may say about it, or its editorial positions, it has integrity and character. And I'm grateful for the opportunity to participate in that debate.

What I should also weigh in on is a note posted in the peanut gallery by City Councilman Jerry Heimlicher (scroll down a ways to find it), which is so nasty and distorted that I couldn't let it slide. I don't mind people challenging my ideas or opinions. But when they cherry pick things from personal conversations, then feed them back into the public domain, full of self-serving distortion and spin, that's out of line and requires some rebuttal.

Here's what I posted in response to Jerry's smear, just to set the record straight:

"Talk about "using facts in a loose manner."

I did talk with a number of people on council about my desire to keep John Weiss's TABOR measure off the ballot, and my intent to fight hard against it if it was on the ballot. There was plenty of lobbying on both sides. And I did tell these people, including Jerry, that derailing that measure was my primary interest and focus, and that I wouldn't be playing a high profile role on other ballot measures, including Jan Martin's tax hike, if the TABOR thing wasn't on the ballot.

I never took a vow of silence on the subject: any honest participant in those discussions would back me up on that. I just said that I wouldn't be out, actively campaigning, debating, etc. Beating City Council-backed ballot measures is a lot of fun, and relatively easy, as the anti-1-A forces proved in April, but it can be a drain on time and energy, and I wanted to focus on other things. That's exactly what I told people, including Jerry. And that remains the case today.

I told Jerry and other tax hike supporters that the already-slim chances of passage would be reduced if the two measures ran together, and that was the argument that, I believe, ultimately led to the decision not to go with it. Jerry saw the logic of this when I explained it to him. And, yes, be became one key vote in the outcome. But Jan Martin actually cast the pivotal vote, against putting the TABOR measure on the ballot. All I was doing was explaining the obvious to council. A majority eventually saw things that way.

That's more inside baseball than most people care about, but that's what happened, now that Jerry has chosen to air private discussions in public. I have nothing to be embarrassed about, or apologize for. A majority on council, including my critic Jerry Heimlicher, agreed with my position and reasoning. Because I mention the tax hike in a column mainly focused on Gazette editorial policy, in alleged violation of an agreement, would Jerry take back his vote to keep the TABOR measure off the ballot?

I even called Jerry on Friday evening, to explain the rather odd set of circumstances that led to me writing this column, and telling him that it would by necessity be touching on the tax issue -- though the primary thrust, and the primary reason I penned it, was my worry about whether the page was straying from tradition. He seemed understanding, given what I told him (I thought in confidence). We left it at that. Now comes this personal and angry attack, which misrepresents my statements and questions my honesty. Maybe there are two Jerry Heimlichers: the seemingly-decent guy and his blustering and irrational evil twin. Let's hope they're both heading back to Tennessee.

I won't turn the tables on Heimlicher by sharing with readers some of what he says in private conversations, which might show what a hypocrite he is, because I don't operate that way. I respect the confidentiality of the people I talk to, except when I'm wearing a journalist's (or blogger's) hat and it's clearly on the record. Jerry, apparently, recognizes no such boundaries, when they get in the way of advancing his government-centric agenda.

I'm obviously no longer an employee of Freedom Communications. But I enjoyed my years with the company, I passionately believe in the editorial philosophy and we parted on friendly terms. People at corporate, and in the family (some of whom live in this city), know that I continue to take an active interest in the pages, and know that I still live in the city, so I was the logical person to pick for this assignment. I took it rather reluctantly, for numerous reasons. I won't re-write the column here. It speaks for itself. I'm sure I'm not alone in the sentiments it expresses. And I was the logical person to raise these issues.

There's no dark conspiracy, Jerry; just a difference of opinion among people who want the paper to do well, and to accurately reflect the values of this community, which happened to get aired publicly. That's all there is to it. I think it shows a strength of character on the part of the paper, and the publisher, to run such critiques.

I explained this admittedly odd and complicated (but ultimately understandable) situation to Jerry on Friday, as a courtesy to him. And he's taken what I told him, in confidence, and spilled it back into the public domain, with a twisted, distorted and dishonest spin.

Then he questions my honesty and character.

Jerry and I have had many differences during the years he's been on council. He fits my definition of a "country club collectivist" to a tee. Most of those debates, public and private, have been conducted amicably, with good humor and mutual respect. But after the smashing defeat of 1-A, a certain nastiness and bitterness crept in; he took to impugning my character, instead of just challenging my ideas.

Although the council he served on has largely been a disaster -- on everything from the stormwater tax to the USOC debacle, from the 1-A defeat to the kid glove treatment given an ethically-challenged mayor -- I was half-way sad to see Jerry heading back to Tennessee, not just because he's likable person who brought passion to council, but because he's such an easy punching bag. Now I'm half-way delighted to see him go.

Many people have called or written, asking, "what the heck do you make of this?" The famously anti-tax Gazette -- the paper I once worked for -- not only enthusiastically endorsed a major tax hike, but it did it in tandem with the infamously-liberal Colorado Springs Independent! Isn't this one of the seven signs of the Apocalypse? Did I go ballistic? Have invaders from Mars taken over the paper?

But I really don't have much to say on the subject. And I really don't care.

And if you believe that, I have the resume of a former "green jobs" czar I would like to send your way.

I have plenty to say on the subject, actually, because what the Gazette has done is not only baffling, it's bizarre. But I'm saving some of my observations for Sunday's Gazette, where I'll be offering some critiques, right there on my old home turf, at the invitation of Freedom corporate. So tune in Sunday. I'll try to make it worth your while.

Fellow Gazette alum Chuck Asay is also working up a special cartoon for Sunday, to commemorate the momentous event. It will be interesting to see if it gets the green light.

And you thought the situation couldn't get weirder.

"If Mr. Fischer is single-handedly the person who makes the deal fall apart, then he can be proud of himself," City Councilor Jerry Heimlicher told the alternative weekly this week. "He can be known as the guy who kept the U.S. Olympics from staying in Colorado Springs."

The Mr. Fischer referenced is Lindsay Fischer, former judge, top-flight lawyer, latest scapegoat of inept city officials. Fischer is a good man, who's challenging the legality of the funding mechanisms that the city is using in the second USOC "deal." The city says they are COPs, or certificates of participation -- a sleight-of-hand financing tool that skirts the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. Fischer claims that they're not COPs, because COPs can only be used to fund government buildings -- not private buildings that the government will gift to a private entity (in this case, the USOC). He believes that this deal should be put to a vote, in order to be legal. And he's taken the matter to court, which has the city in a jam due to its fecklessness.

feck·less (fkls)

adj.

1. Lacking purpose or vitality; feeble or ineffective.

2. Careless and irresponsible.

The city is responsible for the situation, not Fischer, because the city agreed to a funding mechanism, timeline and overly-intricate provisions that almost invite disaster. City insiders negotiated this deal. Heimlicher and most of his colleagues hurriedly approved it, despite being warned that there were pitfalls and potential legal problems. Council blindly accepted the judgment of City Attorney Pat Kelly that the use of COPs was kosher.

So who is to blame if this second deal goes down in flames? The feckless people who put it together.

My critics have for years accused me of being a backseat driver; of lobbing grenades at city officials and local politicos from the relative safety of the bleacher seats. It's easy being a critic, members of City Council would tell me; just try putting yourself in our shoes for a change. If you're so smart, wade in and give it a try.

Now, with the surprise resignation of City Councilman Jerry Heimlicher, all those critics have the perfect opportunity to teach me the lesson I deserve, and prove that I’m not as smart as I think I am, by choosing me as his replacement.

That's right. I'm throwing my hat into the ring to be a surrogate member of City Council. I could be coy and wait to be drafted, but then I risk ending up in line behind John Hazlehurst and John Weiss (a few other media types who secretly lust to have their hands on the levers of power). Desperate times call for desperate people. I’m a natural fit for the job. And my candidacy isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.

My first major qualification for the job is that I live in the right district (on the one street, oddly, that never gets plowed). My second major qualification is that I've managed to sit through seven or eight council meetings without suffering a breakdown or going postal on anyone (which shows I have a better temperament for the job than the vice mayor). My third major qualification is that I could use the dough.

My schedule is relatively flexible, since we bloggers work from home most of the time, in our pajamas. Both Jerry and I formerly lived in the Detroit area, so we both can look disaster in the face without flinching (an important skill for any member of this council). We were an odd-couple team in the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure a few years back (though Jerry’s decision to wear a clingy spandex running suit, and refusal to run, cost us some points). We’re almost like brothers, really – Cain and Abel.

I’m not sure I’ll ever be the media presence Jerry has been – I can’t recall a member of council who was quoted more often, or on camera more frequently, than he was. His absence will definitely create a sound bite vacuum. But I’ll work as hard as I can to be there for the reporters, giving them my beeper number and being on call 24-7, if necessary.

Jerry and I agree on the issues about 30 percent of the time – which is about 18 percentage points better than what Dave Gardner, his last credible challenger, can claim. But I think the contrast in style and philosophy is a net plus, not a minus – since I think this council could really use a bomb-thrower or two. Where Jerry was sensitive and patient and thoughtful, I’ll be insensitive, impatient and reactionary, when necessary. Where Jerry was open to the pleadings of transit users and others who rely on “essential city services,” I’ll be able to say “sorry” and urge more self-reliance. Where Jerry is prone to saying “yes,” I’ll say “no.” Where Jerry was “good cop,” I’ll be “bad cop.” Where Jerry preferred a scalpel, I’ll wield a battle ax. If Jerry was yin, I shall be yang.

My constituents will be the taxpayers, not city employees. Jerry’s council seat will officially be designated a No Sniveling Zone when I’m sitting there, especially at budget-cutting time. Collegiality and consensus on council will give way to friction, dissension and division. We need a lot more of that in council chambers.

Haven't had time to come up with a campaign slogan yet, but I'm leaning toward this one: "Sean Paige for City Council: Because it takes more than Doug Bruce to destroy a city."

I’m joking, of course (about destroying the city, I mean). And it’s only because Jerry and I remain friends, despite our differences, that I know he’ll take this ribbing, and my faux candidacy, in the spirit in which it is offered. We have had disputes, but I genuinely like Jerry and know that he’s always acted with the city’s best interests in mind, at least as he sees them. If he was sometimes led astray, it was not for lack of good intentions or a sincere desire to do good for the people.

It's those good intentions that will get you in trouble every time.

He’s not your typical calculating and cautious politico, which means that you frequently got more candor and creative thought from Jerry than you do from the usual political climber. He’s a great guy, whose passion and personality will be missed on council. I wish him and his wife many happy days back in Tennessee. They’ll always have friends here in the Springs, eager to welcome them back.

The city's current budget crunch should have it searching for ways to contract out many jobs now done by public employees, including park maintenance, snow-plowing and road repairs. And in fact, a group of private contractors has been quietly lobbying the city for months, in an effort to encourage more outsourcing of work that could and should be done by outside companies. But instead, inextricably, the city seems poised to move in the opposite (and wrong) direction, by using city employees -- with city benefits packages and city employee pension obligations -- to do Rural Transportation Authority road work that until now has been by private workers and consultants.

Reports yesterday's Gazette:

"The city could save $1.7 million a year by doing more in-house work on PPRTA projects, said City Engineer Cam McNair.

The catch? When voters approved a one-cent sales tax in 2004 to fund capital and maintenance road work and for transit operations through the RTA, they were promised the funds would not be used by participating governments to hire permanent employees.

McNair said the city would like the RTA board to change that policy so it could use some of its current employees. McNair said he would also like the board to give the city the option of hiring “special” employees who would serve at the will of the city and could be dismissed if RTA funds became unavailable."

Skepticism is warranted any time a government official says he can do something more affordably or efficiently than the private sector can. That just doesn't track with common sense or real-world experience. Even if, just for the sake of argument, a true apples-to-apples comparison could verify such savings on paper, putting more people on the city payroll carries liabilities and obligations that one avoids by outsourcing the tasks. What this might mean, in terms of adding to the city's already large inventory of unnecessary and underutilized equipment, must also be considered.

Now is the time for the city to be selling-off equipment and outsourcing more work -- not bringing even more non-governmental functions in-house. Now is the time for the city to be subtracting from, not adding to, its payroll.

This change of rules would constitute a major breach of trust with voters who approved the RTA, with an understanding that it wouldn't be used to pad the payroll of local government. It's something I'm stunned the city would be contemplating, at a time it is going to voters for a significant property tax increase, asking them to trust that the city will spend the funds wisely.

I've heard a lot of grumbling lately about the city's alleged use of accounting gimmicks to cut back on road maintenance funding, despite a promise that this wouldn't happen if voters approved the RTA sales tax. Now comes this bit of news. Before we go further, or make major changes to the original compact, perhaps it's time for some objective third party to take a comprehensive look at how and where the RTA is spending the money -- and whether the voters are getting exactly what they were promised back in 2004. It's beginning to smell like the old bait and switch.

Not sure this piece of news is going to get big play in The Pueblo Chieftain, or be talked about much by some Pueblo city and county leaders, since it's become an article of faith in the steel city that big bad old Colorado Springs is the source of all water quality problems in Fountain Creek. Turns out there's another culprit: the prodigiously pooping pigeons of Manitou Springs.

What to do about that is an open question, since Manitou is a live-and-let-live sort of place, where residents like to imagine themselves living at one with nature. Any proposal to cull the city's pigeon population will be condemned by some there as bad Karma. A Pigeon Protection Alliance, or something similar, will spring into action in defense of the winged rats. And keeping the number of birds at healthy levels (at least for the creek) will require constant attention.

But these are also hard economic times. Some locals are living hand to mouth. And we can only assume that the big-hearted people of Manitou feel their pain. One person responding to the story offered up what to me seems like an ideal solution, a win-win for Manitou and those locals who may be going hungry. Pigeon pie. Here's the recipe, courtesy of "icyhot":

Pigeon Pie

4-5 pigeons, drawn
salt and pepper
250g/8oz stewing beef
250g/8oz shortcrust pastry
beaten egg to glaze
2 tsp cornflour
300ml/10fl oz stock

Method

1. preheat the oven to 180C/350F/Gas 4.
2. Joint the birds into two breast joints and two leg joints each and stew the rest of the carcass in a little water to make stock for the gravy.
3. Cut the beef into small pieces and line a deep 20cm/8in pie dish with these.
4. Lay the pigeon joints on top, cover with water, add salt and pepper, then cover the pie dish with greased paper or aluminum foil. Place in the oven and simmer for 1½ hours.
5. Remove from the oven and raise oven temperature to 200C/400F/Gas 6.
6. Cover the pie with the shortcrust pastry, brush the top with beaten egg, put back into the oven and bake until the pastry is golden brown.
7. Make a gravy by mixing 10g/2tsp cornflour with a little cold water and add to 300ml/10fl oz of the warmed stock. Allow to thicken while stirring, season and serve with the pie.

Maybe the compassionate people of Manitou could solve their water quality problems and help undernourished locals by making and distributing pigeon pies to local soup kitchens and food banks. It's not high on the list of favorite American foods, I'll admit, so some clever marketing might be required to win it wider acceptance. But I wouldn't discount this idea out of hand.

Maybe the Adams Mountain Cafe -- which has space in the building where many of the birds perch, and isn't afraid to serve exotic dishes -- could lead the way by putting pigeon pie on the menu. If we can make it the cool thing to eat for with the cafe's trend-setting customers, it may also gain acceptance among the hoi polloi. The marketing angles are endless. You could run it with a couple of other "Second Great Depression Specials," tapping into nostalgia for the earthy food fare that got the country through the hardscrabble 1930s. It's "organic," since these are steroid- and hormone-free, free range pigeons. The fact that they're Manitou pigeons will please "localvores." Those who order pigeon pie will be gratified to know that they're "eating green," by doing their part to help clean up Fountain Creek. And it's the ultimate in "sustainable" cuisine, since the birds breed like, well, like pigeons, and are in no danger of going extinct, unlike Chilean sea bass or other environmentally-incorrect menu items.

Come on, Manitou. If any town in American can make pigeon pie trendy again, you can. And by doing so, you'll also be helping to clean up the mess you're making in Fountain Creek, potentially saving the rest of us millions of dollars in unnecessary wastewater system improvements -- not to mention the vilification Colorado Springs suffers because of your pooping pigeons.

Gazette columnist Barry Noreen thinks parents who worry about Barack Obama's address to school kids are all paranoids or ideologues. What's the big deal, asks Barry? Other presidents have tried to manipulate school kids, or have used school kids as props and pawns. Shouldn't this president get his shot at it?

I think Barry is too cavalier in his analysis and conclusions.

What Obama is proposing -- a captive audience with all American school kids -- isn't analogous to the cases he points to, as examples of other presidents reaching out to school kids. School houses have served as backdrops for many presidential photo-ops, as when President George W. Bush went to a Maryland school to tout No Child Left Behind. But that event was aimed not at winning over school kids, or teachers, but at getting his mug on the nightly news and influencing adults. That's not the same as demanding an audience with all school kids, while they are in school.

George W. Bush did ask American school kids to donate a dollar to help Afghan children -- but he didn't do that during some national address to school kids. So once again, Noreen's analogies don't hold up. George Bush senior did hold a "kids symposium" on space, but I'll bet Barry Noreen a 6 pack of cerveza that this was narrowly targeted to a subset of students, or science classes. I would be shocked if he can show me that all American school kids served as a captive audience for that one.

These aren't analogous situations, in short. That's the problem, Barry, when you use a weekly opinion rag like the Westword as support for your points. You end up standing on shaky ground. And even if some Republican president did do it before Obama did it, so what? That doesn't make it right. Presidents should serve as good role models and govern wisely, acting with the welfare of children in mind. But they shouldn't drag kids into adult policy disputes. That crosses the line. The "Bush did it" argument doesn't fly with most real conservatives or libertarians, who understand that neither Bush was a champion of limited government ideas, and that both men had a hand in drawing the GOP into the statist camp, landing it squarely where it is today.

I think this does seem somewhat unprecedented. And I can understand why some parents would object to it, even on non-ideological grounds. I'm uncomfortable with it not just because I disagree with Obama, or because I think one presidential address will turn American school kids into an army of little Obamatons, bent on bringing their skeptical parents into line with his agenda. I also have no problem with kids taking an interest in politics and the president -- I'm delighted when they do.

It just strikes me as arrogant and presumptuous -- smacking of an "imperial presidency" -- for a president to demand a captive audience of all American school kids, while they are at school and when parents can't be there to contextualize what they're being told. That's something that Castro or Chavez or Putin could get away with. All self-respecting totalitarians make a play for the kids. But I'm not surprised that it strikes some Americans as creepy or "Orwellian."

What precedent might this set for the future? Presidents (of both parties) will now assume they can have direct access to school kids whenever they please. Obama might just want to give a pep talk about education. Fine. But maybe next he'll want to pass along some important information about health issues: smoking is bad; obesity is bad; don't forget to use a condom; look both ways before crossing. And what else might future presidents want to directly talk to our kids about? War? Health care? The environment? Energy policy? Social Security (today's school kids will be carrying this ponzi scheme on their backs, after all)? A slippery slope beckons. And this could set the precedent for a lot of mischief, not just with Obama but with the presidents that come after him.

That the Department of Education sent out study materials to teachers suggesting that students write essays on what they could do to "help the president" only fuels critics who say this is all about winning young converts and glorifying Obama -- who is turning into something of an egomaniac.

The timing also raises red flags. Obama's numbers are tanking. The halo he wore inauguration day is in danger of falling off. The media that showered him with roses is now sticking him with thorns. Obama's "good war" in Afghanistan is a bloody mess. With health care not working for it, the White House is just dying for a subject change.

Maybe a presidential pep talk to school kids would help turn things around; you can almost hear the sprockets spinning in Rahm Emanuel's head. Political calculation is written all over this, in other words. It's driven by political cynicism, not sincerity.

I know Obama is anxious to finish construction on the American nanny state, but we don't need a parental president. And many American parents may resent seeing him trying to assume that role. This speech almost seems as if it's designed to remove parents from the equation, which there's already far too much of in the education arena. Obama should direct this speech to American families, not just students, since we all know that families are the key to educational success. And he should deliver his speech not during the school day, to a largely captive audience, but in the evening, when students and their parents can opt in or out as they choose, without peer pressure or coercion being part of it. Students who want to will be free to listen. Students who don't won't have to sit in the study hall, or stay home from school for a day, or ask for special permission. Parents can be there to help contextualize what's being said.

I don't think most Americans would have a problem with that, whether or not they support Obama.

Mayday! Mayday! Mayday! Only weeks after approval, the second USOC "deal" may already be in trouble, the Gazette reported yesterday afternoon. A judge refused the city's request to dismiss a citizen lawsuit brought by former judge and local lawyer Lindsay Fischer, who claims that the financing mechanism being used to buy the USOC a new home has the attributes of a bond, rather than a Certificate of Participation, which can't be approved without a vote of the people. And that has the city in a "huge" jam, according to the city attorney, because the clock is ticking and a lot of moving parts must mesh together to make it happen. Any delay could toss sand in the crank case.

Some will blame Fischer for the crisis. But the blame rests with the city.

The second "deal" had so many moving parts and a time line so tight that it invited disaster. And none of this was necessary, unless one believes that the USOC was prepared to fold up the tents and pull out of town immediately unless the city did this deal. There was no rush, except in the minds of the city officials who negotiated and approved the deal. The convoluted plan and unrealistic deadlines were negotiated by the city. It set a trap for itself and walked right in, eyes wide open -- even though some of us argued that there was time to slow down, think things through, drive a harder bargain, get more public buy-in, take a timeout until circumstances were better.

A number of us went to council chambers only a few days after the second deal was announced, to express reservations about various aspects of the plan. Mr. Fischer spoke at length, registering his concerns about the legality of what the city was proposing and signaling his intent to sue if those problems weren't corrected. Others shared other concerns, including, in my case, shortcomings with the public process in rounds 1 and 2. Only one of the speakers gave the plan a forceful endorsement.

But city leaders seemed even more impatient to do the second deal than they were to do the first. Everyone who spoke that night knew that this was just an empty exercise; that the second deal was already "done." Our city attorneys think they're smarter than Mr. Fischer. They figure they've got it all dialed-in. City Council needed to save face, after the first debacle. And it's not like they could back out at that point even if they were having second thoughts -- since they'd already committed to approving the deal in less than a week, with zero modifications allowed. Now the city is staring into the face of another potential disaster, that might have been avoided. Unbelievable. That's the only word to describe it.

The city may narrowly escape this self-made mess. It will go back to the USOC and ask for an extension. The USOC will grant it, because it's really not going anywhere and only a fool would walk away from such a sweet deal. The court case will proceed. We'll learn a lot more about the difference between COPs and bonds. We'll learn that there really wasn't any need to ink a deal in one week's time. We'll see that the USOC is a reasonable and patient outfit, when it stands to be the beneficiary of so much taxpayer largess. We'll see that the process could have been slowed down, and that these sort of blunders might have been avoided, if city leaders had been so inclined.

It's now gone beyond just a question of right or wrong, affordable or unaffordable, vote or no vote. It's come down to a question of competence and common sense, and whether the people ostensibly in charge -- as well-meaning and civic-minded and qualified on paper as they are -- have enough of both to merit the public's continued confidence. My confidence has certainly been shaken. I don't think I'm alone.

Discount for a moment his tendency toward exaggeration. Suspend for a second your personal reaction to his provocative personality. Imagine that the column was authored by someone other than Douglas Bruce.

Then ask yourself if it doesn't raise a legitimate issue, by highlighting a series of actions by city officials that seem aimed at limiting the democratic process -- culminating in the city's recent decision to quietly change its policy on storefront signature-gathering.

That's the challenge with dealing with the phenomenon known as Douglas Bruce. He makes a lot of valid points, and champions some worthy causes, but he also makes it hard to see such matters objectively -- to separate Bruce from his ideas -- because of a persona that turns some people (even conservatives) off. Many in city leadership have gotten so emotionally caught up in their feuding with Bruce, and are so unnerved by his relentlessness and media savvy, that they've completely lost perspective. If Bruce is involved, it must be bad for them or the city -- that's what they think. They rise to his bait every time it's dangled, which usually plays right into his hands.

I try to maintain more objectivity about Bruce (even though it can be a struggle). And I think in this case he's raising legitimate points. Bruce in today's piece presents a list of city actions he says are meant to stymie the "right" to petition government. Here's just a sampling:

• The city canceled an election on a petition with enough clerk-certified signatures.

• The Court of Appeals has twice ordered the city to stop delaying our petitions.

• The city refused its legal duty to set a petition title, forcing us to return to court.

• The city made us cut our three-sentence enterprise petition to two sentences.

• The city clerk gave us legally defective petition forms, which would have voided any signatures collected. She was forced by law to redo all 800 forms.

• The city refused to mail petition election notices last fall, though the law requires it.

• The city just invented new legal hurdles, based on the petition subject, even though court rulings forbid blocking petitions because government disputes their content.

• Three other pro-taxpayer petitions are still stuck in court by city stonewalling. The longer the city delays an election, the more revenue it collects.

It goes on. Read the complete piece for more.

I don't know each of these cases in detail. I assume there's a measure of self-serving spin in how they're presented. But I've been around long enough -- 7 years this summer -- and watched enough of the city-Bruce battles to recognize that city officials do work hard to thwart and foil Bruce, every chance they get. Gazette columnist Barry Noreen today seems to blame Bruce for the constant tit-for-tat bickering. I agree that he's far from blameless. But I also have seen city officials bend rules, play games and throw up unnecessary legal hurdles to what Bruce was doing, stemming from their own win-at-all-cost attitudes. And I worry that the city's knee-jerk overreactions to Bruce might inadvertently be erecting barriers to other people, other than Bruce, who might want to participate in this messy and contentious thing called the democratic process.

Caught up on the heat of battle, all of us can lose our perspective -- all of us can say and do things that cooler heads would advise against. City officials are no different. That's why we all need to know more about why the city suddenly and quietly changed its signature-gathering policy, with virtually no public input. That's why I don't out of hand dismiss Bruce's (slightly paranoid-sounding) claim that the policy change was designed to slow him down.

While Bruce may use (some might say "abuse") the process more than average people do, we all have a stake in protecting it -- and in fighting any government efforts aimed at shutting it down or limiting participation. This isn't just Bruce's battle. This is every citizen's battle.

Councilman Tom Gallagher sent me the following, in apparent response to my previous post dealing with Douglas Bruce. He gave me permission to post it here.

"I don't usually post responses to blog comments because my role in City government is to listen and respect your constitutional right to freedom of speech. I ignore the fact that I am painted by the broad brush of the majority of City Council rather than my voting record which if compared to any of the other sitting members of the City Council jumps out as the most conservative.

It's time to set the record straight folks, yesterday's verbal exchange between Douglas Bruce and the City Council was cheap theatrics. The language presented is exactly the same as the language that was circulated on the petitions. The debate focused on the form of the ballot question, with Mr. Bruce berating us for doing everything wrong this year even though we did it right in 2008.

Here are the details you do not have. The City Attorney's office provided the following ballot question language to be added to the ballot title language authored by Mr. Bruce. "Shall an initiated ordinance be adopted by the City of Colorado Springs WHICH SHALL read as follows:"

Mr. Bruce's much touted "question language" used on the 2008 November ballot read: "Shall an initiated ordinance be adopted by the City of Colorado Springs TO read as follows:"

To most reasonable people the difference is trivial at best; however that did not dissuade Mr. Bruce from claiming the variation in the question verbiage was crafted deliberately and maliciously, by the City Attorney's office, to mislead and deceive the electors of the City.

Mr. Bruce chooses to portrait himself as the self proclaimed advocate for and defender of the people’s right to vote. Mr. Bruce's actions however are all about obstructing the people’s right to vote on issues he finds personally objectionable (i.e. revising TABOR). Mr. Bruce has repeatedly demonstrated that his respect for the will of the people extends only to those decisions that agree with his position. (i.e. His latest petitioned initiated ordinance is simply a rewrite of his previous failed legislative efforts.)

While Mr. Bruce was an El Paso County Commissioner and a member of the State House of Representatives he made no substantive effort to control county or state spending, reduce county or state taxation, or impose fiscal constraints on county or state government even though he was in a position to do so. He proposed no legislation to curb revenues at the state and county level. Instead Mr. Bruce chose to engage in concerted and repeated efforts to reduce the revenue available to the City of Colorado Springs. The Webster’s Dictionary defines this type of behavior as hypocrisy and the practitioner of such behavior as a hypocrite.

I have always encouraged, advocated for, and defended the people’s right to petition their government and their right to vote. I have never deliberately obstructed the established public processes. I have respected and complied with the decisions made of the electors of the City. I have never lied to the residents of our community and I have taken a tremendous amount of fall out as a direct result of honoring that promise.

Tom Gallagher

Colorado Springs City Council At Large"

Sad but not unexpected news came yesterday: Freedom Communications, the parent company of my former employer, The Colorado Springs Gazette, has filed for bankruptcy protection, casting another shadow over the paper's future. We’ve all heard or read about the travails of the "old media.” But it’s hitting uncomfortably close to home when it's the local daily on the chopping block -- when one realizes that the second largest city in Colorado could someday be without a daily newspaper, and many of your former colleagues could be out of their jobs, unless the parent company can bounce back or a rescuer can be found.

Sad, too, to see the Hoiles clan effectively losing control of the paper, given the distinctive, feisty, stubbornly-independent editorial voice that serves as a trademark of Freedom papers, not just here but in every community where they're published. R.C. Hoiles didn’t call his company Freedom Communications for nothing. He took political and economic liberty, and limited government ideas, seriously. He tasked his editorial pages with defending those ideas, even if that meant swimming against the statist tide. That made the franchise and brand something rare (and I would argue precious) in American journalism. The loss of that voice, and that style of editorializing, would be something to mourn.

The paper's unwillingness to surrender on points of principle, or to go mindlessly along with political fashion – its insistence on serving as a gadfly rather than a booster -- still drives many city leaders crazy. But better that than a paper that has no principles, has no backbone, has no character, and bends like a Gumby before the powers that be. Many local leaders think the paper's job is to be a booster, a cheerleader, a “team-player.” I think it serves the community better by being a challenger, a debunker, a naysayer to stupid municipal fads that usually involve growing government beyond what’s affordable or appropriate. "Freedom philosophy" is also, I know, a source of frustration on the news side of the paper. But I think it’s won the Gazette more fans than detractors. I think it remains a good fit for a city where the message of freedom still resonates strongly. I think denuding or destroying the paper’s distinctive voice would hasten its demise. I think the town would suffer as a result.

So when Hazlehurst called yesterday morning, I shared my concerns.

Sean Paige, former editorial page editor of The Gazette, expressed concern that a new ownership group, if one emerges, might abandon the newspaper’s longstanding commitment to libertarianism.
Paige said that “he’s aware of rumors” that Gazette Publisher Steve Pope might be talking to potential investors about buying the paper.

“I don’t know what his political philosophy is, but I think it would be a bad business decision to tamper with a voice which is a very good fit for the community,” Paige said. “I think it would cost them. To think that you’ll increase revenues by turning The Gazette into the Denver Post, that’s just delusional.”

I know first-hand how great the pressure (external and internal) to conform can be on the editor of those pages. I felt it. And the pressure is likely to get worse for current editorial page editor Wayne Laugesen once the family’s influence is diminished. The publishers I worked under for the most part understood that the paper’s editorial traditions were still taken seriously at corporate, and among family members. They recognized that the paper’s philosophy was a good fit for the city, even if they personally disagreed with elements of it. Even if they weren’t tub-thumping libertarians, they gave "Freedom Philosophy" the respect it deserved -- the respect it earned (often grudgingly) after decades of battling against the statist drift of the country.

That sometimes meant publishers got an earful at certain cocktail parties, or displeased the area’s country club collectivists, or upset business leaders who wanted to lead the city in the wrong directions (remember ballot issue 1-A?). But my publishers had the character and courage to deal with it, despite the personal discomfort being a contrarian might cause. They also knew that betraying the core principles wouldn’t sit well with the owners. Some in the community carped, but the paper earned a grudging respect for standing its ground and holding down difficult, sometimes unpopular positions.

This city has a paper that talks back to City Hall, and to county officials -- a paper that bucks the old boy network, in civic and business circles, that would like to issue its marching orders. That’s a good thing. That’s the role any self-respecting local newspaper should play. But with the company out of family control, the temptation to tamper with freedom philosophy, to water down the paper’s voice, to turn it into just another bland, malleable, left-leaning “mainstream media” entity, will be great. A publisher who either doesn’t understand or appreciate freedom philosophy, and people in the newsroom who are hostile to the pages and would like to scapegoat it for the paper’s circumstances, might imagine that ditching the editorial traditions will somehow breath new life into the paper, by pleasing a few noisy critics. I think that’s absurd – and risky.

I’m guessing this would only hasten the paper’s demise, by alienating a core group of readers who turn to the pages daily, expecting to be challenged, affirmed, infuriated or vindicated. Without those pages, the paper loses much of its personality, much of its unique character – giving locals one less reason to pick it up. Without those pages, who would the city’s leftists and country club collectivists – and the city’s alternative weekly -- rail against? Without those pages, who will say “wait a minute” or “no you don’t” when the our leaders want to turn Colorado Springs into Vail, Denver or Boulder -- into something it’s not and doesn't want to be?

The paper’s struggles have absolutely nothing to do with its editorial positions. Tampering with those editorial traditions will not save the paper – and by alienating a loyal core of readers, it may actually make the situation worse.

Publisher Steve Pope has only been in town a few months. He may only be in town a few more years, if the paper survives that long. He's probably just passing through, on his way somewhere else. But Freedom Philosophy has been a Gazette tradition, and has been part of the fabric of this community, since Hoiles bought the paper in 1946. Although cause and effect are hard to prove, I don’t think the conservative character of the city and the libertarian traditions of its daily newspaper are coincidental. I don't think it would have prevailed in the local paper wars if locals disliked its editorial philosophy.

Why Pope would mess with a tradition and formula that's worked well for the Gazette since 1946, and with an editorial philosophy that’s such a good fit for this community, is baffling to me. I really hope he doesn’t do it.

Chapter 11 isn't the end of the world. The Gazette and its parent company may emerge from this crisis and carry on for decades to come. I hope that's the case. But the loss of Hoiles family ownership and control may radically alter or silence an editorial voice that's not only unique in American journalism, but that's more relevant than ever, given the national debate Barack Obama has created about the proper parameters of government, and the backlash this has sparked against the collectivist course he's set for the nation. And it's relevant closer to home as well, since (as this website is fond of pointing out) the fight for freedom begins in our own backyards.