Circumstances as they are...

Instead of regular blogging, I aim to be more intentional about tweeting some spur-of-the-moment thoughts.  Follow me at twitter.com/dwmcdaniel and look for the hashtag #ahealthyresistance.

Also, for kicks, I'll be tweeting my musical whims.  #whatdaveisspinning.

Get Educated

Election season is here!

In the spirit of unravelling the catch-phrase drivel and countering the seemingly unchecked and exaggerated statements we see on TV...
Poll shows plenty of Americans still unclear what was in health-reform law

Education Reform Follow Up

As a follow up to my post from a few days ago, I wanted to share Colorado's failure to attain any federal dollars from the Race to the Top program.  This is particularly disappointing given that some of the reform measures implemented this year were targeted as much at winning grant funding as they were actually making the state's education system better.

Denver Post: "Colorado finishes at back of pack in Race to the Top education grant competition"

Denver Post: Smartest Students Stranded at the Top

Denver Post: Smartest students stranded at the top, 8/15/2010

This story is an interesting read.  Though I have not been writing about it, education "reform" has been on my mind quite a bit in the last few months.  This is no doubt due in part to the fact that I am now a parent of two young children.  As their parent, I feel an obligation to be informed enough about the state of education, particularly public education, that I can advocate for my boys as they navigate their way through our educational system.  

The other part of my interest is less personal and more theoretical, at least at this point.  I think its fair to say that many policy decisions are held up on the basis of the fine print.  That's not to say that the devil isn't in the details or that the means in which a policy will be implemented are unimportant.  I do think, however, that the details often derail the train because the train isn't firmly on the tracks.  The very idea of a broad policy is to implement a top-down approach or solution to an issue.  Without that defining directive, the slightest swerve or tangent can wreck the process.

Thus, I've been thinking about the education policy that is developing in this country.  For a while, I felt like education might be one of those issues lacking a true policy direction.  Then I came across the linked Post article, and the author hit the nail squarely on the head.  Instead of building an educational system that encourages all students to reach their own potential, we've constructed a means by which we make sure all students reach a set minimum standard.  The real message is that everyone needs to be good enough, but no one needs to be great.  

Part of me was relieved - there is a method to the madness.  Part of me was (and remains) mortified and dejected that I will be subjecting at least two children to such a sad state of affairs.  Granted, there are an infinite number of variables - from individual school administrators, to teachers, to parent involvement and the individual student - that are significant in the education of each student.  Those variables, however, can only buck trends to a certain extent.  Neither can we throw issues of resource allocation and practicality out the window.  For instance, the State of Colorado, struggling to fund public education and competing for federal Race to the Top dollars, passed a new teacher tenure bill that ties teacher performance evaluation heavily to student performance on end-of-year testing.  The incentive this creates for classroom teachers seems obvious to me.  A teacher concerned about job security will most certainly devote time to making sure each student achieves satisfactory scores.  That incentive can apply at the various administrative levels through a given public school district.  Instead of spending time encouraging top students to achieve more, a teacher must spend more time with underachieving students in the interest of self preservation.  

Without data to support my opinion, I find it hard to believe that even teachers and administrators with the best of intentions for their top students will not inevitably and inescapably become locked in that cycle.  The result is that achieving students are essentially ignored by the system this policy has created.  Certainly everyone is "good enough," but at what point will we realize that "good enough" is pretty disappointing for many students?  If at any point my children sit me down and tell me that I performed well enough as a parent, I'll be heartbroken.  Yet that is the very level of achievement in education that we are currently promoting.

Denver City Council Unanimously Approves New Zoning Code

Five years of research, public input, and drafting culminated on Monday June 21, when Denver’s City Council unanimously approved the city’s new zoning code, the code’s first major revision in over half a century. Reaction to the formal adoption has been primarily enthusiastic, with all parties eager to see how the revised code operates and affects Denver’s neighborhoods.

Proponents of the code praised the new code’s recognition of and basis in the form and function of Denver’s existing neighborhoods. Councilwoman Jeanne Robb of District 10 called the code an “affirmation of Denver neighborhoods.” Touted as a “form-based” code, local developer Mickey Zeppelin went so far as to call it a “value-based code” that “reflect[s] the values of the community.” Councilman Michael Hancock expressed the economic potential the Council sees in the new code, calling its adoption “the greatest economic development decision this Council will make at the turn of the century.”

Some “mixed feelings” do linger. Of primary concern to many speakers at the adoption hearing were changes in zoning that might affect property values. This is particularly true for lots that will be downzoned under the revised code. That is, lots that previously could have legally held a duplex or multi-unit residence may be restricted to single-family dwellings. Property owners who have perhaps foreseen the potential economic benefit of selling to a buyer who will replace a home with a mutli-unit structure now see those plans losing traction.

The Planning Department intends to evaluate the new code’s effectiveness during its first six months and issue a report detailing its performance.

If you think your property may be impacted by the new code, don’t hesitate to contact me with questions. In the meantime, I invite you to review the two articles linked below.


Denver Post: Denver city council passes overhaul of city’s zoning laws, June 22, 2010.  

Denver Business Journal: Denver city council approves new zoning code, 13-0, June 22, 2010.

*Originally posted at www.davidmcdaniellaw.com.  Material copyright The Law Office of David McDaniel, LLC, 2010.

Quickie - oil spill

While doing some research for a possible oil spill post over at The Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer blog, I came across some horrifying information about the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989.  Sadly, the precedent of that scenario does not bode well for the Gulf cleanup or for the possibility of BP actually paying for the damaged it caused (or at least helped cause).  

In short, the legal awards against Exxon have been slashed through appeals over the years, from as much as $5 billion, initially, to $500 million.  Furthermore, as of March 2009 - 20 years after the spill - federal and state governments were still seeking $92 million from Exxon to recoup costs of cleanup and restoration, which have been estimated at a total of $1.5 billion.  

Essentially, accidents such as the BP oil spill and Exxon Valdez are being subsidized - subsidized financially by the government entities who are attempting to remediate and restore the devastated environments and subsidized in terms of "negative externalities" by the businesses and individuals have never been fully or will never fully be compensated for the damage done by the spills.

Denver's New Zoning Code is on the Way

Over the past several years, a task force has been working on a massive overhaul of Denver’s zoning code. The drafting process is now complete, and the adoption process is underway. After months of writing, public input, and rewriting, the code will be presented to Denver’s City Council on May 24.

The new version of the zoning code is a comprehensive revision, replacing piecemeal regulation with a consistent, unified vision. The code is “context-based” - it starts with what is already here. It regulates both use and the built environment so that each is consistent with the respective character and composition of Denver’s existing neighborhoods. The code recognizes what is valuable and critical in these neighborhoods and seeks to protect those aspects.

Why is such a drastic overhaul necessary?

• According to the site dedicated to the new code, “Denver's 53-year-old zoning code is broken and needs to be fixed. It suffers from more than a half century of incremental changes that have made it complicated, inconsistent and cumbersome.” 

• Furthermore, the new code is required to make zoning policy more consistent with city planning documents like the Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint Denver. These documents must work together to provide a unified vision and plan for the city that will allow it to deal with economic, environmental, and social issues. 

• Finally, in the 53 years since Denver has adopted a revised code, the philosophy and theory of city planning and land use has changed, turning back toward community-oriented and mixed-use design instead rather than the separate use philosophy characteristic of suburban planning. This renewed emphasis on community affirms the design and growth patterns evident in the city, particularly in Denver’s older neighborhoods. It represents a renewed recognition of the principles that are naturally present in an urban environment. It also represents a commitment to making Denver a city where residents can live sustainable, healthy lifestyles - environmentally, economically, and socially. 

I would encourage you to spend a few moments browsing NewCodeDenver.org. On that site, you can find the draft of the new code, as well as the previous three drafts. You can also read about the process of how those drafts came to be and the people that have worked on or with the Zoning Code Task Force. You can also keep track of events related to the adoption process.

I find land use and zoning both interesting and pertinent because they can dictate so much about daily life - how far you live from the grocery store, whether or not you must drive there, what the houses on your street look like, etc. As such, this code revision stands to have an impact on many of Denver’s residents and businesses at some point, either directly or indirectly. If you have questions about how the new code might impact your home, business, or community, please contact me.

*Originally published at www.davidmcdaniellaw.com.  Material copyright The Law Office of David McDaniel, LLC, 2010.

Lessons from Free Mulch Day!

Today was Denver's annual mulch giveaway.  Each January, the city waste services collect discarded Christmas trees and turn them into mulch, which they give away free to city residents who are willing to come and scoop it themselves.  That in itself is a nice lesson in reuse and recycling.

But the thing that really struck me while I was filling up our bags with free mulch was an interesting confluence of opposing perspectives.  First, there was certainly an air of self-preservation.  The mulch went fast.  The giveaway started at 8:00 am.  At 8:45 as we were leaving, the last of the pile was gone.  Folks were left scraping bits and pieces off the asphalt.  At the same time, though, there was a noticeable atmosphere of community - of sharing, of common purpose, and of civic gratitude.  In addition to the three giant bags of mulch I brought home, the value of the experience certainly made Free Mulch Day a worthy outing. 

"Livability" Should Not be a Strictly Urban Concept

From conception, the transportation and growth policies of the Obama administration seemed to be focused on urban environments.  Maybe its the documented growth of urban populations in the U.S. or the redevelopment and infill that's occurring in many of the country's big cities.  Or maybe its a bit of my own personal slant.  

In any regard, though, I believe most people who read about "transportation alternatives" and "livability" think of these as concepts relevant only to urban environments.  Stephen Lee Davis of Smart Growth America both disputes that perspective and wonders why it is so prevalent in Washington, D.C., even among representatives of rural constituencies.  He relates his own experiences living in Bentonville, Arkansas, during a time when the city was booming under Walmart's influence.  (Bentonville is home base for Walmart operations.)  As a resident of the town's historic center city, he was able to observe the geographic expansion of Bentonville and contrast his lifestyle in Bentonville to those who inhabited the new suburban residential developments.  That contrast originated largely from the planning and layout of those newer "communities."

I will let Mr. Davis tell you the rest of his story, in Part I and Part II.  I have a hard time arguing that livability doesn't have as much rural applicability as it does urban.  After all, is choice not essential to freedom? 

Some Health Care Stuff

The link below is a good resource for anyone who wants a relatively concise explanation of some of the new health care bill's provisions, particularly as they relate to Medicare, the CHIP programs, and the low-income persons and families that participate.

http://ccf.georgetown.edu/index/cms-filesystem-action?file=ccf%20publications/health%20reform/health%20reform%20package%20final.pdf

I am interested to see if and how opponents' perspectives might change about the reform bill as some of the benefits begin to become apparent.  I have a feeling some folks who have been opposed to reform in principle might find some of the provisions quite beneficial, particularly if they have health problems, problems finding affordable insurance, or are currently unemployed.  I could be wrong about that; only time will tell, I suppose.

Sharing

If I were going to write a health care post in the wake of Sunday's vote, I probably would have written something like this.  But instead of the hypothetical scenarios I would have posed, these are real.

Plus, the flyer in this post is flat ridiculous.  Free speech is great and all, but seriously...

Dooce.com: This is mommyblogging

Happy St. Patrick's Day. Don't Drink & Drive.

Bueller . . . Bueller . . .

Sorry for the radio silence lately.  I have engaged some other projects that have forced me to neglect my effort here, though not completely by choice.

If you can't get enough of me, you can find me writing at other places right now.  I've been hired on to ghost write for a law firm blog that you can find here.  I was honored when my post about a repeat DWI offender made the annual St. Patty's "don't drink 'n' drive" lesson. 

I'm also working on a blog that is tailored more toward the law practice that is my real job.  Some of the topics will overlap, though the writing is meant to be more informative and less ranting.  You can find that blog over at davidmcdaniellaw.com. 

I hope to be able to pick this back up as time allows.  Until then . . .

Is the party over?

Today I heard that progressive talk radio station AM 760 out of Boulder, Colorado, is sponsoring a discussion with two of my favorite hosts, David Sirota and Thom Hartmann, entitled "Is It Time to Abandon the Democratic Party?"  

Being completely honest, this is a question that I have been personally kicking around even before Scott Brown nabbed Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.  The results of that special election really pushed over the edge.  To illustrate, I give you two unedited emails I sent to friends on January 20, 2010.

I've been thinking for a while - LONG before this election clusterf*ck in mass. - what the heck is any different than it was in January of 2007?  I'm not sure.  Sure maybe the goals are different, the ultimate aims.  Take a look at the health care bill.  The insurance mandate with no public option or no additional opportunities to get Medicare just means more $$ straight to the insurance companies.  Its the same corporatist bullcrap that the dems campaigned against.  I mean, you can only campaign on hope and change for so long before voters figure out that nothing's actually going to change.  which is really really disappointing for an administration who won people over with a promise to change the tone and the culture and DC. 

They had a chance to do basically whatever they wanted, and couldn't get their own shit together enough to do it.  that's really disappointing.  find a message that you really believe in that you'll stand up for.  until, I'm done calling myself my democrat.  i'll stay registered so I can vote in the primaries because I do generally think the better INDIVIDUAL candidates come from the left of center.  but, ideologically, I feel pretty abandoned after this past year.

Then I analogized my relationship with the Democratic Party to two lovers that have fallen out of favor:

I really can't get over the hurt, now that I'm giving it some thought. I feel like I've been cheated on. This term was supposed to produce results for people. But the biggest populist, liberal reform - if it survives - will feed the PIG just as much as any cheney defense contract or bush oil bill.

So that, washington democracts, is why we need a break. I'm not ready to say its over. I probably won't see anyone else. But while I'm gone, you need to prove to me you're actually still committed to the ideals that brought us together so many years ago.

And those words pretty accurately reflect where I stand today, over a month later.  I would qualify that statement, though, with the fact that my frustration is not obviously directed just at Democrats.  It is equally spread over both parties in DC.  I suppose I allowed ideological agreement to quell my growing frustration with the Left.  But my frustrations grows from attributes that are not exclusive to one party - corporate favoritism, intra-party bickering and vacillation, and career-minded selfishness.  Granted, that does not describe every politician in Washington.  But it describes enough  of them to generate a public stereotype.  And those who exhibit such characteristics are the obstacles to improving life in the United States.  To those persons I would say: Move one way or the other, but whatever you do, get the hell out of the way.

 

The Democrats ran the 2008 campaigns on populist rhetoric, with promises to restore Main Street over Wall Street and to institute reform in the name of the people.  I have yet to see those promises materialize in any appreciable way.  And until I see otherwise, I will continue to believe to the few persons who are accurately described by the despicable characteristics I listed above are truly obstructing the well being of folks like and I. 

Consider this a plug . . .

As you may remember, I received a wonderful holiday gift of David Byrne's Bicycle Diaries.  I finally finished the book yesterday.  Such is the life of a young child's parent, I suppose.

The bulk of the book is a compilation of Byrne's diary-style musings, founded on his adventures in cities around the globe.  As an internationally recognized musician and artist, Byrne has traveled extensively across the Americas, Europe, and Asia.  When he travels, he packs a folding bicycle (such as this one) that he uses as a primary source of getting around his destination cities.  With this mode of transportation as a unifying theme, Byrne's writings delve into a diverse variety of subjects - art, music, politics, sociology, psychology, urban planning.  I described the book to one friend as both "geographically and substantively all over the place."  

While I very much enjoyed the diary aspects of the book and found Byrne's perspectives on his multifarious topics quite interesting, the epilogue continues to resonate in my mind.  In ten pages or so, Byrne managed to capture the essence of modern urban planning theory, a subject that I once spent an entire semester trying to grasp through the writings of the field's well-known theorists, activists, and policymakers.  But even more enlightening was how he found that essence.  Byrne admits that he sort of fell into his perspective and ideology about urban planning; he did not come to it through academic or philosophical study.  Rather, he developed it by living his daily life in urban America.  (New York City, to be exact.)  He's found that the aspects of urban planning that modern thought espouses - mixed use, reasonable densities, and choice in transportation - really do make life engaging and make it interesting to get out of bed everyday and see what's going on outside our doors.  Its a philosophy of incorporation rather than isolation.  It's about puttin' the "social" back in "society," y'all.  

So, in sum, I highly recommend Bicycle Diaries.  Pick it up, or at least go to the bookstore, sit down with a cup of coffee, and read the epilogue.  It will be time well spent.

"Slumburbia"

A very interesting read from Wednesday's Opinionator Blog.  

The final few paragraphs relate Californian cities' land use regulation to the current status of their respective real estate markets.  Cities that did not permit or encourage [relatively] unchecked urban growth are not feeling the pain of empty homes and foreclosed properties.  That makes sense.

I suppose one aspect of this piece really troubles me, though, and it is going to put the U.S. in quite a catch-22.  Maybe this comment was made tongue-in-cheek, and I just missed that.  The author, rightly so, suggests that the ever increasing U.S. population will, assuming the homes are affordable, eventually even out this empty home mess.  But that solution comes with some complications.  Can areas such as the San Joaquin Valley actually support the population required to fill those homes?  When the residential real estate market recovers, won't more new homes be constructed, only perpetuating the problem?  Is there something other than a more-home-for-less-money appeal that is going to attract buyers to exurban communities?

I don't have any answers to those questions.  But I think they are evidence of how long we as a country might be dealing with the fallout of this Great Recession. 

Top Obama Administration Officials to Promote Sustainable Communities, Environmental Justice at Smart Growth Conference

From the Obama administration:FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 4, 2010


THURSDAY: Top Obama Administration Officials to Promote Sustainable Communities, Environmental Justice at Smart Growth Conference

WASHINGTON – U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will visit Seattle on Thursday, February 4, to address the 9th Annual New Partners for Smart Growth Conference. They will be joined by Environmental Protection Agency Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus.

Speaking before an audience of more than 1,500 key planners, public health professionals, developers, government staff and elected officials Secretaries Donovan and LaHood and Assistant Administrator Stanislaus will discuss the ways their agencies are working together through the Obama Administration’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities to improve access to affordable housing, provide better transportation options, and protect public health and the environment.

“EPA, HUD and DOT are working together to rebuild our foundations for prosperity, a process that starts with rethinking the ways our communities grow,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “The interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities is working to give our communities what they need to grow and thrive with economic resilience and environmental sustainability.”

“I am proud to announce HUD’s brand new Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities today,” said Donovan. “Working with our partners at DOT and EPA, this new office will help us streamline our efforts to create stronger, more sustainable communities by connecting housing to jobs, fostering local innovation and building a clean energy economy.”

“Our Partnership really is a new way of doing business in Washington, to help our nation meet 21st century challenges,” said LaHood. “Working together, we’re creating jobs to revitalize our economy, while helping state and local transportation agencies to build the capacity they need to promote livable, walkable, sustainable communities.”

The President proposed $527 million in his budget for an ambitious new livability initiative at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Its Office of Livable Communities will be a focal point for initiatives such as expanding transit in low-income neighborhoods. It will fund a grant program to help state and local transportation agencies provide more transportation choices that spur economic development.

The New Partners for Smart Growth Conference, taking place Feb. 4-6, is the premier national smart growth conference, bringing together experts from a wide range of disciplines to discuss transportation, housing and urban development, public health, equitable development, environmental protection, and other topics. The partnership agencies are working together more closely than ever before to meet the president’s challenge to coordinate federal policies, programs, and resources to help urban, suburban, and rural areas build more sustainable communities.

The New Partners for Smart Growth Conference is managed by the Local Government Commission, in partnership with EPA, DOT, and other public and private sponsors.

More about the Partnership for Sustainable Communities:
http:/www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/partnership

More on EPA’s Smart Growth Program:
http:www.epa.gov/smartgrowth

More information on HUD’s Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities:
www.hud.gov/sustainability

Election season '10 is revving up

Yes, its true.  The special election in Massachusetts.  Several states are beginning to hold primary elections for Congressional seats.  

We all know that elections are, or at should be, about issues, not about candidates themselves.  For those of us who live in states that permit voter initiated measures, referendums, or both, each election does force us to consider at least a few issues outside of the typical representative democracy structure.  As I have written previously, voter initiatives, in particular, are situations that provide both proponents and opponents of those measures the opportunity to massage facts, embellish details, and hyperbolize benefits or consequences.

For those reasons, voter education is absolutely crucial to an effective and worthwhile initiative and referendum process.  In that vein, I want to share a website.  Ballotpedia is really a catalog of many state politics issues, including ballot initiatives.  On the site, you can learn which states have an I&R scheme.  You can find past ballot measures as well as learn about potential or proposed measures in upcoming elections.  

The closer we get to November, the more muddled and murky candidates and issues will become.  I urge you to start your education now.  In doing so, you might also find out how you can support or oppose the campaigns of ballot measures that are important to you.  Get educated.  Be involved.  Take advantage of your right to have a voice in various levels of government that touch your daily life. 

Everyone knows what happens when you don't pay your taxes.

Now, Colorado Springs, Colorado, shows you what happens when you don't collect your taxes.  Be warned - this is U - G - L - Y.

Reprinted from Sunday's Denver Post.

COLORADO SPRINGS — This tax-averse city is about to learn what it looks and feels like when budget cuts slash services most Americans consider part of the urban fabric.

More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.

The parks department removed trash cans last week, replacing them with signs urging users to pack out their own litter.

Neighbors are encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers to local green spaces, because parks workers will mow them only once every two weeks. If that.

Water cutbacks mean most parks will be dead, brown turf by July; the flower and fertilizer budget is zero.

City recreation centers, indoor and outdoor pools, and a handful of museums will close for good March 31 unless they find private funding to stay open. Buses no longer run on evenings and weekends. The city won't pay for any street paving, relying instead on a regional authority that can meet only about 10 percent of the need.

"I guess we're going to find out what the tolerance level is for people," said businessman Chuck Fowler, who is helping lead a private task force brainstorming for city budget fixes. "It's a new day."

Some residents are less sanguine, arguing that cuts to bus services, drug enforcement and treatment and job development are attacks on basic needs for the working class.

"How are people supposed to live? We're not a 'Mayberry R.F.D.' anymore," said Addy Hansen, a criminal justice student who has spoken out about safety cuts. "We're the second-largest city, and growing, in Colorado. We're in trouble. We're in big trouble."

Mayor flinches at revenue

Colorado Springs' woes are more visceral versions of local and state cuts across the nation. Denver has cut salaries and human services workers, trimmed library hours and raised fees; Aurora shuttered four libraries; the state budget has seen round after round of wholesale cuts in education and personnel.

The deep recession bit into Colorado Springs sales-tax collections, while pension and health care costs for city employees continued to soar. Sales-tax updates have become a regular exercise in flinching for Mayor Lionel Rivera.

"Every month I open it up, and I look for a plus in front of the numbers instead of a minus," he said. The 2010 sales-tax forecast is almost $22 million less than 2007.

Voters in November said an emphatic no to a tripling of property tax that would have restored $27.6 million to the city's $212 million general fund budget. Fowler and many other residents say voters don't trust city government to wisely spend a general tax increase and don't believe the current cuts are the only way to balance a budget.

Dead grass, dark streets

But the 2010 spending choices are complete, and local residents and businesses are preparing for a slew of changes:

• The steep parks and recreation cuts mean a radical reshifting of resources from more than 100 neighborhood parks to a few popular regional parks. The city cut watering drastically in 2009 but "got lucky" with weekly summer rains, said parks maintenance manager Kurt Schroeder.

With even more watering cuts, "if we repeat the weather of 2008, we're at risk of losing every bit of turf we have in our neighborhood parks," Schroeder said. Six city greenhouses are shut down. The city spent $19.6 million on parks in 2007; this year it will spend $3.1 million.

"If a playground burns down, I can't replace it," Schroeder said. Park fans' only hope is the possibility of a new ballot tax pledged to recreation spending that might win over skeptical voters.

• Community center and pool closures have parents worried about day-care costs, idle teenagers and shut-in grandparents with nowhere to go.

Hillside Community Center, on the southeastern edge of downtown Colorado Springs in a low- to moderate-income neighborhood, is scrambling to find private partners to stay open. Moms such as Kirsten Williams doubt they can replace Hillside's dedicated staff and preschool rates of $200 for six-week sessions.

"It's affordable, the program is phenomenal, and the staff all grew up here," Williams said. "You can't re-create that kind of magic."

Shutting down youth services is shortsighted, she argues. "You're going to pay now, or you're going to pay later. There's trouble if kids don't have things to do."

• Though officials and citizens put public safety above all in the budget, police and firefighting still lost more than $5.5 million this year. Positions that will go empty range from a domestic violence specialist to a deputy chief to juvenile offender officers. Fire squad 108 loses three firefighters. Putting the helicopters up for sale and eliminating the officers and a mechanic banked $877,000.

• Tourism outlets have attacked budget choices that hit them precisely as they're struggling to draw choosy visitors to the West.

The city cut three economic-development positions, land-use planning, long-range strategic planning and zoning and neighborhood inspectors. It also repossessed a large portion of a dedicated lodgers and car rental tax rather than transfer it to the visitors' bureau.

"It's going to hurt. If they don't at least market Colorado Springs, it doesn't get the people here," said Nancy Stovall, owner of Pine Creek Art Gallery on the tourism strip of Old Colorado City. Other states, such as New Mexico and Wyoming, will continue to market, and tourism losses will further erode city sales-tax revenue, merchants say.

• Turning out the lights, literally, is one of the high-profile trims aggravating some residents. The city-run Colorado Springs Utilities will shut down 8,000 to 10,000 of more than 24,000 streetlights, to save $1.2 million in energy and bulb replacement.

Hansen, the criminal-justice student, grows especially exasperated when recalling a scary incident a few years ago as she waited for a bus. She said a carload of drunken men approached her until the police helicopter that had been trailing them turned a spotlight on the men and chased them off. Now the helicopter is gone, and the streetlight she was waiting under is threatened as well.

"I don't know a person in this city who doesn't think that's just the stupidest thing on the planet," Hansen said. "Colorado Springs leaders put patches on problems and hope that will handle it."

Employee pay criticized

Community business leaders have jumped into the budget debate, some questioning city spending on what they see as "Ferrari"-level benefits for employees and high salaries in middle management. Broadmoor luxury resort chief executive Steve Bartolin wrote an open letter asking why the city spends $89,000 per employee, when his enterprise has a similar number of workers and spends only $24,000 on each.

Businessman Fowler, saying he is now speaking for the task force Bartolin supports, said the city should study the Broadmoor's use of seasonal employees and realistic manager pay.

"I don't know if people are convinced that the water needed to be turned off in the parks, or the trash cans need to come out, or the lights need to go off," Fowler said. "I think we'll have a big turnover in City Council a year from April. Until we get a new group in there, people aren't really going to believe much of anything."

Mayor and council are part-time jobs in Colorado Springs, points out Mayor Rivera, that pay $6,250 a year ($250 extra for the mayor). "We have jobs, we pay taxes, we use services, just like they do," Rivera said, acknowledging there is a "level of distrust" of public officials at many levels.

Rivera said he welcomes help from Bartolin, the private task force and any other source volunteering to rethink government. He is slightly encouraged, for now, that his monthly sales-tax reports are just ahead of budget predictions.

Officials across the city know their phone lines will light up as parks go brown, trash gathers in the weeds, and streets and alleys go dark.

"There's a lot of anger, a lot of frustration about how governments spend their money," Rivera said. "It's not unique to Colorado Springs."

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473?source=pop_section_news#ixzz0eJZAGFWl

More on marijuana

Two weeks ago, I put down some thoughts about the philosophical foundation underlying marijuana use and how that "limbo" has extended beyond philosophy to the legal and regulatory sphere.  The Colorado legislature continues to debate new approaches to handle the medical marijuana industry in this state, an industry formed by voter initiative in 2000.  In the meantime, the debate over the place marijuana should ultimately hold in society continues as well.  Here's a piece from Post writer Ed Quillen.

Livability vs. Cost Effectiveness

Administration officials said they were reversing guidelines put in place by the Bush administration that called for evaluating new transit projects largely by how much they cost and how much travel time they would save. . . .

Mr. LaHood said the administration would establish new guidelines that take what he called “livability” into account — evaluating projects not only by how much they shorten commutes but also by their environmental, community and economic benefits.

 

- Administration Loosens Purse Strings for Transit Projects, NY Times, 01/13/2010

Realizing, as its predecessors apparently did not, that alternative transportation is not simply about saving time and money, the Obama administration is altering the criteria by which transit projects will be scrutinized for federal funding.  Rather than a cost effectiveness model, the new guidelines hone in on environmental impacts as well as community benefits and economic development associated with the transit lines.  As posted on the Secretary of Transportation's blog, the DOT is moving away from the "narrow" performance criteria and moving to a set of six broader performance requirements that reflect "key livability factors" - "economic development, mobility improvement, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, cost effectiveness and land use."  While cost certainly remains a consideration, it, rightly so, is not the only factor by which projects are judged.

 

I will admit that this new system could make individual projects more difficult to judge and could further open fund awards to back-room negotiations and political favors.  The key will be how clearly and thoughtfully the DOT can define some basis of metrics for evaluating the performance criteria that could become more ethereal than concrete.  But in any case, this is a step in the right direction, I believe.  In a land of freedom, liberty, and opportunity, one area where many citizens have no choice is transportation.  Hopefully this policy shift will become and remain an effective tool for providing that choice to more of America's people.

Official DOT Press Release

A report from Houston about how the new guidelines are affecting existing rail plans.

Consitutional Issues in Health Care Reform

For those of you who read here regularly, you know that I am unabashedly in favor of some manner of health care reform.  And I think a lot of folks would agree that, even if they are happy with their personal health care coverage, the system itself needs reform in order to ensure more Americans receive even a portion of that care. 

I am also not afraid to say that the resulting bill is turning into a big hot mess.  Questionable negotiation tactics - such as the "Cornhusker Kickback" that supposedly won Sen. Nelson's vote - and closed-door meetings have a lot of folks questioning the final product that will emerge from the Capitol.

Beyond questions of ethics and policy, the bill may have a greater hurdle to hurdle - namely the U.S. Constitution, as the two linked articles below discuss.

Mike Coffman: Health care bill an affront to Constitution (Denver Post)

George F. Will: That rock in the health care road? It's called the Constitution (Washington Post)

Reports and Analysis of American Needle v. NFL

While I have not been closely following the NFL antitrust saga, I have been checking in from time-to -time.  Mostly I am interested in the outcome of this case because I am leery of the NFL's growing ego.  The NFL is currently the most successful sports league in the United States and possibly the world.  And the league knows as much.  When power is money and money is power and an entity has plenty of both, I become a little concern about how power is wielded.

Anyhow, oral arguments in the case of American Needle v. NFL were heard by the Supreme Court justices yesterday (January 13th).  Basically, the NFL would like the Supreme Court to rule that it  and its thirty-two distinct members function as a single entity for business purposes.  Such a ruling would remove the NFL's activities beyond the reaches of US antitrust law and the Sherman Act.  It seems as though the justices are resisting such an overarching ruling.  Without muddling things up with more of my own analysis, I thought I would share some reports of the action.

ESPN: Justices seem skeptical of arguments

SCOTUSblog: A playoff, or sorts, in store of NFL?

Drew Brees, quarterback for the New Orleans Saints, published this piece in the Washington Post.  Though, I have little doubt the NFL Players Association lawyers had a hand in this one. 

Finally, perhaps my favorite analysis thus.  Clear.  Concise.  From deadspin.com. 

Is it medical, or is it not?

A proposed ordinance in Denver would impose licensing fees on medical marijuana dispensaries that are, according to the bill's sponsor, "based on those paid by adult cabarets."  ($3,000 per year, if you were wondering . . . .)  That's the word from a Denver Post editorial.  That provision says quite  a bit about the attitude of some lawmakers toward medical marijuana.  Rather than a legitimate medical option, they obviously view it as a vice on which governments can capitalize.  Alcohol, tobacco, and medical marijuana.

What word is out of place there?  Oh, right, medical.  Marijuana, in Colorado at least, is in a philosophical limbo.  As a result, it also finds itself in a legal and regulatory limbo.  No one is quite sure what to do with it.  Here's a solution - pick a story and stick with it.

One option is to recognize a legitimate medical use for marijuana.  In that case, its distribution and use ought to be regulated like any other pharmaceutical, period.  Whether Walgreens, Target, and Walmart want to offer medical marijuana in their pharmacies will be up to those companies.  Any other dispensing operation should be regulated like other pharmacies.

The other option is legitimize marijuana use.  That's how governments deal with other intoxicants.  And they generate quite a bit of revenue through special taxes, licenses, and fees.  This approach has a lot of benefits.  Off the top of my head, I can think of three.  One - it eliminates (or at least reduces the need for) a huge illegitimate market and source of crime in this country.  Two - governments can control the quality and quantity of the product in the open market.  Three - As I said, it could help to fill the huge revenue gap that many cities, counties, and states are facing due to the current economic crisis.

A third option is obviously to eliminate legitimate uses of marijuana - i.e., discontinue medical marijuana use.  For a lot of reasons, though, I do not believe this is a workable solution any longer.  As one Denver city councilman said, that would just force patients "back into parks and back alleys" and further exacerbate the crime problems already associated with medical marijuana.  Not to mention depriving patients who actually rely on the various reliefs brought by medical marijuana of a legitimate source of those benefits. 

The key to deciding a real solution for marijuana will be deciding where it fits in society.  Right now, mixed signals abound.  This nebulous legitimacy that surrounds marijuana needs to be more settled.  Not unyielding and stubborn, but more settled.  Is it legit or not?  The answer to that will determine where marijuana policy, law, and regulation goes in the future.

Here are recent Denver Post stories about the medical marijuana issue in Colorado.

Carroll: Dispensaries may work after all

A plan for medical marijuana

New medical-pot bill to restrict providers

Thinking out loud about who really drives policy

I have been thinking quite a bit lately about who drives practical policy decisions in this country.  I am not talking about health care reform or climate change legislation or any other hare-brained scheme that may or may not actually emerge from Washington, D.C., at any point in my lifetime.  Rather, I am referring to actions and reactions, how those become ingrained in our lives, and the unwitting consequences that flow therefrom.  Two illustrations will help.

(1) The first is a story that ran in the Denver Post and later garnered national headlines about a health insurance provider who refused to cover an infant because of its weight.  The child measured in the 99th percentile for weight, and the parents' insurer rejected coverage based on a preexisting condition of obesity.  Eventually - no doubt after its ridiculous policy made national headlines - the insurer reversed course and extended coverage to the baby.  But permit me to muse for a few moments about some of the messages that could be drawn from this story. 

First of all, while obesity is definitely a health concern among adults and children, I find it absolutely absurd that an insurer would even have a policy with weight-based preexisting conditions for infants.  Having a small child of my own, and having more than handful of friends with children in close proximity, infancy is probably the only time in life in which a hefty waistline is not considered a medical problem.  Spare me the 265-pound infant tabloid headlines.  I am attempting to be serious here.  What mother is going to complain about her infant maintaining a healthy weight?  None that I know.  In infants, weight gain and maintenance is indicative of so many aspects of good health.  Why on earth would an insurer punish a child for being healthy?

Secondly, the baby in question was exclusively breastfed at the time he was denied health coverage.  This, no doubt, contributed to the weight "problem."  The great irony here is that, despite any drawbacks from his weight (if there were any), this baby is probably ten times as healthy as children of the same age who are exclusively formula-fed, even if those other infants fit more nicely into the insurer's percentile charts.  Infants who are exclusively formula-fed miss out on a host of health benefits from mother's milk early in life, not the least of which is antibody and immune boosters from the mother.  That's right, there's a good chance the obese baby will have fewer sick-child visits at the pediatrician's office.  That's right, insurance company, the baby you initially rejected will probably  cost you less money over time than the 50th percentile babies you take without a glance.

As I said, the insurer in this case eventually reneged and covered the infant, but the cynic in me wonders if that would have happened without the negative publicity.  In that vein, think about the messages that an average person could draw from the insurer's policy.  Do I need to deny my child food to keep their weight within acceptable limits?  Do I need to change what I feed them, even if that means taking away the most nutritive option, to keep them within an insurer's policy? 

Even if the insurer's policy was based on sound criteria - a big if - do we want insurance company policy determining what infants are fed?  I said - but did not promise - that I would avoid opening the can of health care reform worms, but the relevant question today is "Who is driving policy?"  In the medical field, it seems clear that insurers have at least as heavy a hand as care providers, if not more so.  Without the insurance, there may be no access to the care provider.  To pare down the message: money drives policy.  And that is unfortunate.  Opponents of government-sponsored health plans cry that a bureaucratic health care system would remove the human element from medical decisions.  Frankly, I do not see how the two would be all that different.

(2) Enough ranting about health care, and on to the second illustration.  An editorial ran in the New Year's Eve edition of the Denver Post relating airline baggage fees to terrorism.  Simple comparison, right?  If not terrorism, baggage fees must at least be some kind of crime.  In all seriousness, though, the editorial opined that the increase in checked-bag fees has, obviously, led to more travelers carrying more luggage onto flights.  In turn, this means more items for TSA officers to inspect at security checkpoints.  (If any of my loyal readers post a comment stating that they are just willing to wait longer in security lines,  I will know that those readers do not fly that often.)  The point of the editorial was that both of these consequences of the checked-bag fees - more luggage in the cabin of the plane plus less time for security officers to spend on each piece of luggage or individual - expose flights to a greater risk of criminal or terrorist activity.  When two and two are put together in one sentence, that seems like a commonsense proposition.

The Post editors urged airlines to reconsider their policies in light of the Christmas Day terrorist attempt.  But somehow I have a feeling that the $740 million in bag fees collected in the third quarter of 2009 alone will speak just as loudly.  (That stat is from the L.A. Times, via the Post editorial.)  Look, I know that airlines and the air travel industry have suffered mightily since 9/11.  And I know that they have to put measures in place to ensure they can still provide some services.  But at what cost to the rest of us?  When a bottom line drives policy, those with no stake in that line often shoulder the consequences.  In this case, it appears travelers are left with the options of longer security waits and more invasive screening procedures or further heightened fear.

I do realize what I am advocating by arguing against policies like those illustrated in the two instances above.  Do I absolutely and universally favor a heavy government hand in all aspects of life?  No.  But if the alternatives are limited, I may have no choice at all.  The Post editorial summarized the incongruity succinctly and poignantly: "It would be a shame for the industry to be regulated into doing what is best for all concerned, but it very well may come to that."

In my absence . . .

Please enjoy a friendly bump for the "That's What She Said" blog, an effort from the employment lawyers at Ford & Harrison.  The writers here attempt to place a monetary value on the incidents from The Office (American version) that could lead to employment suits.  If you've seen The Office, and I imagine many of you have, you know they have plenty of fresh material with each new episode.  Enjoy.

Also, I have posted feeds to blogs that I enjoy.  You can see their latest updates somewhere along the menu on the left-hand side of the page.  Check them out.