November 2009

Who are "the deniers" now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹hereafter

Pronunciation: \hir-ˈaf-tər\

Function: adverb

Date: before 12th century

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Nov. 10 Pueblo Chieftain:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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