Contact Us Advertising Information Online exclusives Cover Story Buzz Feature In Case You Missed It Vote 2009 Boulderganic Fall 2009 Student Guide 2009 Boulder Weekly Sweet 16 Anniversary Boulderganic 2009 Summer Scene 2009 Email Newsletter Legal Services Best of Boulder 2009 Annual Manual 2009 Newspaper of the Future Kids Camp Guide 2009 Wedding Marketplace 09 Jobs available Student Guide 2008 Best of Boulder 2008 Annual Manual 2008 Join Our Mailing List
|
October 8 - 14, 2009
editorial@boulderweekly.com
• Vote 2009 Index
• Vote 2009 Q&A 1
• Vote 2009 Q&A 3
• Vote 2009 Boulder County Ballot Issues
• Vote 2009 City of Boulder Ballot Issues
• Vote 2009 Other Ballot Issues
• Vote 2009 Layfayette City Council
• Vote 2009 Longmont City Council
• Vote 2009 Louisville City Council
• Vote 2009 School Districts
• See City Council Candidates Pop Quiz continued...
Fenno Hoffman, 51
Architect
Q 1. How should the council balance the rights of private property owners with the council’s ability to implement zoning and other regulations that reflect the community’s values on growth, development and density?
A. 1. In a nutshell, I think Boulder spends too much time worrying about our own backyards and not enough time thinking about the impacts of our values upon the broader region and the planet. We are going broke and our carbon footprint is above the national average. That’s a pathetic fact for a town that considers itself as green as we do. It doesn’t have to be this way. Boulder needs to get real. Zoning codes are supposed to balance private property rights and community values. Boulder is constantly fiddling with these codes to adjust the balance.
Q 2. Do you believe medicinal marijuana dispensaries should be banned in the city? Why or why not?
A. 2. No. People putting peanut butter on Doritos, giggling excessively or engaging in circular philosophical debates doesn’t constitute a problem that’s on my radar right now. We all have bigger fish to fry.
Q 3. In managing the city’s public lands, there seems to be a tension between preservation and recreation. If city planners must err on one side or the other, which way do you believe they should lean as the West TSA process moves forward?
A. 3. I don’t think we should lean to one direction or the other. These are both strongly held values, and right now, they’re in balance.
Q. 4. Which do you see as a higher priority right now: environmental efforts, affordable housing or the city’s financial stability? Why?
A. 4. Financial stability. We can’t pay for anything — the environment, low-income housing, schools — if the budget is busted. Once our financial house is in order, however, I think that environmental efforts and affordable housing are two sides of the same coin. By increasing density, we lower our carbon footprint, create communities that are walkable, safe and friendly, and increase the opportunity for the people who work in Boulder to live in Boulder. Density will impact and affect the shape of our community — and impact everything — but what we’re doing now is impacting everything as well.
Q. 5. What would you do if you found a prairie dog burrowing in your backyard?
A. 5. I’d take a picture. My family might give the prairie dog a name (Bob? Jim? Sheila?), document his/her exploits for our annual Christmas card, or observe said dog’s doings for a real-world life-science lesson. If the prairie dog ultimately just couldn’t resist my wife’s prize roses or my kid’s toys, would I consider calling someone to move him? Sure. But that’s not the first step I would take. Co-existence is important. But, my roses have rights… oh, this is complicated.
Back to top
Kevin Hotaling, 27
Web design and marketing consultant
Q 1. How should the council balance the rights of private property owners with the council’s ability to implement zoning and other regulations that reflect the community’s values on growth, development and density?
A. 1. Boulder strives first and foremost for sustainability, so development and density are essential elements of our future. The hypocrisy of placing intangible values over tangible property rights and of placing stagnation over innovation is so large that it can be hard to see. We need to cultivate our construction industry, to keep wealth in town, and to make infrastructural changes. By developing nodes of high density connected by robust transportation corridors, we can accommodate the changing needs of the 21st century without significantly impacting the character of our neighborhoods. In fact, it is arguably the only way to do so.
Q 2. Do you believe medicinal marijuana dispensaries should be banned in the city? Why or why not?
A. 2. Absolutely not. Medical marijuana is a fledgling industry that has been likened to the gold rush that started this city. To restrict our entrepreneurs’ ability to capitalize on this opportunity is a notion almost as ridiculous as the drug war itself. Over 10 percent of our population smokes marijuana monthly. Instead of considering medical marijuana restrictions, we should be looking toward Denver’s leadership in decriminalization. This also highlights the need to reevaluate the role of our government, which too often oversteps its bounds by legislating morality. Such initiatives offer negligible community benefits, alienate entire demographics, and have significant financial implications.
Q 3. In managing the city’s public lands, there seems to be a tension between preservation and recreation. If city planners must err on one side or the other, which way do you believe they should lean as the West TSA process moves forward?
A. 3. OSMP land serves a number of important purposes: it connects us to nature, controls sprawl, and provides local farming opportunities. Its relatively small swath in comparison to the vast wilderness it abuts and its large capacity to serve the city indicate that preservation, though a priority, must be balanced with maximizing utility. We should lean toward more freedom, seek design solutions to mitigate impacts we identify, and only restrict recreation where no other option exists. These decisions should also recognize that pushing recreation further into the wilderness does not serve the cause of preservation.
Q. 4. Which do you see as a higher priority right now: environmental efforts, affordable housing or the city’s financial stability? Why?
A. 4. The financial stability of our city — and our citizens — is the foundation upon which all other efforts rest. We need only review the history of our nation to prove that from freedom and resources stem progress for all. Boulder is poised to lead the world in environmental and social justice, but such a revolution will not — and cannot — come from legislation. It is critical that we make a decision: do we want to pursue minimal gains within our borders through top-down restrictions, or pursue game-changing worldwide innovation, by empowering our robust green business sector?
Q. 5. What would you do if you found a prairie dog burrowing in your backyard?
A. 5. I live in an apartment near downtown, so I’d probably have to throw a gala in honor of such an anomaly. But the question really speaks to what balance must be struck between our natural and built environments. While Boulder’s environmental leadership can be “groundbreaking” at times, we could do much more if we acknowledged that some prairie dogs will have to be sacrificed on the altar of progress. Too often, we get caught up in the minutia of preservation, failing to see that infrastructural changes are necessary if we are to achieve true sustainability. Bring balance back to Boulder!
Back to top
George Karakehian, 62
Owner, Art Source International
Q 1. How should the council balance the rights of private property owners with the council’s ability to implement zoning and other regulations that reflect the community’s values on growth, development and density?
A. 1. The question should be: What are the community’s values on growth, development and density? The real community’s values (which include the “silent majority”) span the spectrum on these topics, and I’d try to find the balancing point, but I’m sure I’d be more protective of personal property rights than the current council has been. I think our staff and advisory boards generally find that balance point, but then small interest groups, who want more restrictions on everything, whip the council into a frenzy, and we get disproportionate outcomes. I’d resist that.
Q 2. Do you believe medicinal marijuana dispensaries should be banned in the city? Why or why not?
A. 2. No, like any other legal business that holds the required licenses or permits, medical marijuana dispensaries should not be banned in Boulder. There is some question about the clarity of the law, and our local officials need that from the courts in order to address any issues that arise.
Q 3. In managing the city’s public lands, there seems to be a tension between preservation and recreation. If city planners must err on one side or the other, which way do you believe they should lean as the West TSA process moves forward?
A. 3. Public lands are, after all, public. We all paid for them, we should all have access. I believe that most of us understand and respect the process, and public will, that acquired them. Preservation was one of the objectives. I believe that with education, management and mild enforcement, we can keep our footprint quite light. I’m sure there are a few very special areas that need higher use restrictions, and maybe occasionally need to be allowed “to rest” for a time. It’s a balancing act, and purist ideologies are not part of the way I will make these decisions.
Q. 4. Which do you see as a higher priority right now: environmental efforts, affordable housing or the city’s financial stability? Why?
A. 4. I’m mostly concerned about the city’s economic stability. We rate very high on environmental efforts, compared to peer cities, and even Boulder County. The economic leg of the stool is habitually short; service providers are driven out, high growth entrepreneurs must leave, our building community is under siege, families are denied the right to grow their families here. If we don’t maintain our economic engines, we can’t afford any of our high-minded ideals. If we put the total cost on the backs of business, they will leave or go under. That’s ignoring how interwoven all these components are.
Q. 5. What would you do if you found a prairie dog burrowing in your backyard?
A. 5. Invite him in for a yoga session, then we’d share a cup of herbal tea, and politely ask him to practice safe sex, and zero population growth.
Back to top
Valerie Mitchell, 35
Professional gardener and stay-at-home mom
Q 1. How should the council balance the rights of private property owners with the council’s ability to implement zoning and other regulations that reflect the community’s values on growth, development and density?
A. 1. I think the city should engage the citizens through open conversations, online surveys and personal modeling and visual evidence of how F.A.R. affects not only their property, but their neighborhoods. We still need to protect the individual landowner’s right to modernize and individualize their homes, that’s in part what makes Boulder so unique, but it has to have a general boundary agreed upon by the public at large. F.A.R. legislation can always be revisited in the future, as it was 18 months ago, as Boulder’s dynamics change. Open discussions and comments should continue to be encouraged on the topic.
Q 2. Do you believe medicinal marijuana dispensaries should be banned in the city? Why or why not?
A. 2. I don’t see why we would ban dispensaries, especially since they’re protected under state law, they’re revenue producers and the crime associated with them is lower than the crime associated with buying marijuana off the street. If a doctor prescribes it you should be able to find it locally; just because someone doesn’t like the street-use aspect of marijuana doesn’t mean they get to trump a doctor’s medical opinion and drive potential revenue out of the city. If there’s a demand for one I say we support it.
Q 3. In managing the city’s public lands, there seems to be a tension between preservation and recreation. If city planners must err on one side or the other, which way do you believe they should lean as the West TSA process moves forward?
A. 3. I think they need to continue to find a middle path concerning this issue. Both sides need to give a little to get something back; the preservationists are right to fight to protect our dwindling pristine native ecosystems. They need to identify the most important sections and we need to respond with appropriate measure. We then need to find the most suitable places for recreational uses and implement a plan to develop low-impact trails, etc. It has to be a give/give to be a win/win and I know there’s a balance out there that works for everyone.
Q. 4. Which do you see as a higher priority right now: environmental efforts, affordable housing or the city’s financial stability? Why?
A. 4. I think proceeding with ways to stabilize our economy without having to raise taxes or negatively influence our environment is the way to go. We need to find draws to the city that bring in outside dollars and that appeal to all walks of life. I would be in favor of talking with CU concerning an event center. I’d also like to see a way to help our new business owners stay afloat for their first two years — it doesn’t help landlords, our tax revenue or our working/middle class for them to go under so quickly.
Q. 5. What would you do if you found a prairie dog burrowing in your backyard?
A. 5. I guess it depends on where I live and the size of my backyard. It’s a natural prey animal, so with all the foxes, hawks and coyotes we have living among us, I’m sure one of them would make a meal out of the little guy soon enough. I think we should always approach our interactions with wildlife with respect and a vision of what’s best for those animals as well as what’s best for us. A prairie dog burrowing in my residential backyard would be a sign that they’re running out of native land, something to always address.
Back to top
Tim Plass, 35
Photographer and former attorney
Q 1. How should the council balance the rights of private property owners with the council’s ability to implement zoning and other regulations that reflect the community’s values on growth, development and density?
A.1. While the council should respect the rights of private property owners, it should also operate with the understanding that much of the value of our property derives from its context. The mantra, “location, location, location” reflects the importance of our greater built environment. In Boulder, we have chosen a comprehensive regulatory program for the protection and enhancement of our community’s character. I support this approach and believe it has increased property values and improved our quality of life.
Q 2. Do you believe medicinal marijuana dispensaries should be banned in the city? Why or why not?
A. 2. I would not ban dispensaries. I believe that there is a valid reason for allowing them: to alleviate the pain and suffering which accompanies many medical conditions. However, I do think that dispensaries ought to be regulated and register with the city. Concerns about the legality of dispensaries under Amendment 20 need to be addressed by the courts, including large-scale growing operations. Issues about possible crime and violence occurring at dispensaries because of the high cash value of the marijuana also need to be considered.
Q 3. In managing the city’s public lands, there seems to be a tension between preservation and recreation. If city planners must err on one side or the other, which way do you believe they should lean as the West TSA process moves forward?
A. 3. We need to make sure that 100 years from now the OSMP lands are in as good shape, or better, than they are now. Recreation is an important management goal on OSMP properties, and we should provide and encourage opportunities for enjoyment of public lands. However, if there is a doubt as to the negative impact of recreational activities on the natural environment, the city should err on the side of conservation.
Q. 4. Which do you see as a higher priority right now: environmental efforts, affordable housing or the city’s financial stability? Why?
A. 4. Obviously, the city must be financially stable. I support the approach of the proposed 2010 budget: to maintain public safety and other core services, minimize service reductions for those residents who need the most assistance, and find more efficient ways to deliver services. However, affordable housing goals and environmental efforts are not mutually exclusive from the city’s financial stability. Additional affordable housing could actually help the city be more financially stable, as could being more energy-efficient and having more of our electrons be green rather than black (from coal).
Q. 5. What would you do if you found a prairie dog burrowing in your backyard?
A. 5. Nothing. Live and let live.
Back to top
|
| |
