Boulder Weekly on Facebook Boulder Weekly on Twitter Boulder Weekly on Tumblr Boulder Weekly's RSS feed Email Contact

Find Local Events (pick a date)
 
Browse Boulder real estate by neighborhood, school and zip code along with other homes for sale in Colorado on COhomefinder.com
Browse Boulder real estate by neighborhood, school and zip code along with other homes for sale in Colorado on COhomefinder.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Home / Articles / Special Sections / Vote 2009 /  Longmont turnout may have tanked county's green initiatives
. . . . . . .
Give Through iGivefirst
Wednesday, November 4,2009

Longmont turnout may have tanked county's green initiatives

By Pamela White and Jeff Dodge

Ed. Note: For a complete list of results, click here. Visit our Vote 2009 page, here.

Jaws may have dropped in Boulder on Tuesday evening when it became clear that two county ballot issues most had believed would coast to easy wins had failed. Ballot Issue 1A, a sales tax extension for county open space, and Ballot Issue 1B, authorizing the county to issue $85 million in bonds for the successful ClimateSmart Loan Program, both failed by narrow margins.

It marks the first time an open space tax has failed since 1989. It was only the second time that ClimateSmart had appeared on the ballot. But the program, which enables the county to issue bonds and to loan that money to both residential and business property owners for renewable-energy and energy-efficiency improvements, has been highly successful by any measure, pumping money into local construction and renewable energy businesses and reducing utility bills. The program is considered so innovative and successful, in fact, that numerous communities in the United States and develop similar efforts.

So what happened?

Boulder County Commissioner Will Toor was surprised to see 1B fail, “given that it passed by a nearly 70-30 margin last year, and has been a very popular, non-controversial program,” he told Boulder Weekly Wednesday morning.

Toor says a number of factors, including a small voter turnout and confusing ballot language may have played a role in the defeat of the ClimateSmart measure.

“It is also a very different election this year — a very small turnout this year compared to a much bigger turnout last year,” he says. “Last year the supporters ran a significant campaign. This time I think there was an assumption that this was not needed, which was clearly a mistake. Unfortunately, the legally required language is confusing legalese, so it is hard to know what the ballot issue is about just by reading the ballot language.

“I think the inclusion of joint bonding with other counties was also confusing and made the bonding number look very large, at a time when people are very nervous about the economy.”

But perhaps the single biggest factor involved in the defeat of both county ballot issues was Longmont’s contentious city council election. Longmont’s election had become a bitter battle between conservatives, the “old guard” who have traditionally held sway over the town’s politics, and progressives, who have moved to Longmont in increasing numbers as a result of Boulder’s high housing costs.

As Longmont’s election results demonstrate, conservative candidates got out the vote.

Election statistics show that the turnout in Longmont was higher than in Boulder and the county as a whole. About 34 percent of county voters who received a ballot returned those ballots. In Boulder, the turnout was only about 29 percent. In Longmont, it was approximately 41 percent.

If the turnout in Longmont had been similar to Boulder’s there would have been 5,490 fewer votes cast. According to unofficial results, the margin of defeat on County Ballot Issue 1A was only 2,568 votes; the difference was even narrower on 1B: 1,190. So it is conceivable that a spike in conservative voters submitting ballots in Longmont could have made the difference on those two ballot measures.

“In such a low turnout election it made a big difference,” Toor says.

In what was the most vitriolic Longmont race, City Council member Karen Benker lost to challenger Katie Witt in the Ward 2 race, an outcome that she attributes largely to the “formidable” amount of funding collected by her opponents and the negative tactics they used.

“They raised a ton of money and they ran a negative campaign, and negative campaigns work,” she says.

The race attracted a 41 percent turnout in Ward 2.

Benker had been targeted by a group called the Longmont Leadership Committee, which was primarily funded by an outside right-wing organization called Western Tradition Partnership. (See the Oct. 29 story, here.)

Continue reading: Page 1 | Page 2 |
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
POST A COMMENT
No Registration Required
REPLY TO THIS COMMENT

Open Space proponents can spin the loss however they choose.  But, I'm hearing there were a lot of folks who have always voted YES on Open Space in prior elections who voted NO this time.  Myself included.

Perhaps its time to revisit the idea of splitting Boulder County into 2 counties.  Those immediately in the vicinity of the City of Boulder could tax themselves to oblivion.  The rest of us wouldn't care.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT

Oh, this is funny. Benker once again makes assumptions that conservatives won't vote for green initiatives. Forgetting that Alex Sammoury, a candidate labeled as conservative, is huge on green initiatives. And had support from both sides of political parties.And won.

Statements like that are why Ms Benker lost the election. She was out of touch with a majority of Longmont voters. And the ones who knew her record didn't like what they saw.

I also think it's so funny how Boulder Weekly titles an article about green initiatives aren't going to get support and then slaps a picture of Katie Witt in it. So, Katie Witt is to be held responsible for any failure of green initiatives?

You also mentioned open space in the same article, but had you really been following Katie Witt during her campaign, you would have read  that she liked the recent purchase of open space out in eastern Longmont, but didn't like how we aren't going to be able to pay for it down the road.

It's about dollars and sense...yes, dollars and SENSE. Not whether a conservative labeled candidate is for or against green initiatives. We all like pretty open spaces, but at what cost. I voted for the candidates that recognized that. Not based on party affiliation.

 

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT

Karen Benker, again, is wrong.  Back when she ridiculed Witt for announcing too early, Witt was setting up a network of volunteers and a strong ground game.  It wasn't just the doors she got to knock on, it was also all the volunteers who canvassed nearly every precinct in the ward.  This had nothing to do with "big money" as there was none coming in at that point, and there was no Longmont Leadership or Western Tradition Partnership as part of the picture.  There was no Federal lawsuit against the campaign law yet, there were no slick mailers or robocalls yet.  The doors that were knocked on or fliers dropped off at were of all affiliations, not just "conservatives" or Republicans. 

Ms. Benker can try all she wants to spin this as big money got her ousted, if it makes her feel better.  The truth however is something entirely different.  She lost, like many candidates lose, because she was far from the better candidate, had an awful track record as an elected official, and ran a lousy campaign.  Simple as that.

 

 

 
{items2}
Close
Close