December 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Competition for federal education funding forges unlikely alliances

By Pete Coors and Steve Schuck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Why strike such a pessimistic tone, Bill?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vogrin, in a response, posted the following:

"Councilman Paige,

Thanks for your comments.

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

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

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

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

Hope I'm wrong.

Bill Vogrin"

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

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

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

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

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

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

But maybe it ought to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Times:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's an excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From today's Gazette:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NASA scientist avoids jail in procurement case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We'll miss Dane a lot.

I'll post funeral arrangements as they become available.

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

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

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

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

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

Reports the Waco Tribune: