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.

More on Denver's Living Streets Initiative

A few weeks ago, I blogged critically about the perspective of a Denver Post opinion writer regarding Denver's Living Streets initiative.  Now the co-chair of Living Streets has responded as well.  His brief letter to the editor raises some of the same objections to Carroll's column that I did. 

For People Who Hate Driving and Long Commutes

U.S. News and World Report: 15 Cities for People Who Hate Driving and Long Commutes

I like this report because it balances two often opposed concerns: (1) wanting to drive less and (2) maintaining a reasonable commute time.  As the article notes, some cities with heavy public transit ridership did not make the list because of the time it takes to commute on public transit.  That statement may be a little misleading.  There are certainly other factors to consider in those long-transit-commute cities - auto traffic, parking availability and cost, convenience - that make public transit the preferred option for folks despite the time commitment.  Cities in this category should not be surprising: New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, among others.

The cities that did make this list have a common element - compactness.  That characteristic makes non-motorized commuting a viable option.  There should also be little surprise that several college towns make the list - Chapel Hill, Boulder, Eugene, Madison, and others.

The desirability of commuting options - including walking, cycling, and the like - has led some cities to try and incorporate elements of the named towns into neighborhood design.  Denver's Living Streets Initiative is one example.  Some of the aims of the initiative are multi-model transportation access (including non-motorized transportation) and increased mobility for the population in general; efficiency (increasing convenient stops per outing); sustainability; community; and encouraging a healthy lifestyle.  The initiative is integrated with the zoning code revision that I have written about several times recently, particularly the new code's Main Street districts.  In some neighborhood commercial areas, for example, the initiative would narrow lanes to slow car speeds and allow for wider sidewalks.  I live near the University of Denver in Denver.  The restaurants and shops along both Evans Avenue and University Boulevard are perfect for such a design.  For one thing, parking is not sufficient.  It is incredibly frustrating to try to drive to and park at many of the restaurants, especially during peak times.  Secondly, because of the rate at which traffic moves along both Evans and University, I sometimes do not absolutely safe walking, particularly at night or when I have either my dogs or infant son with me.  In short, the skeleton of great, compact, walkable neighborhood are there, so why not implement the necessary policies and physical changes to encourage that profile?

Such planning is not without its critics.  A recent opinion column in the Denver Post criticized and ridiculed the Living Streets Initiative.  But I think the author is ignoring an important aspect of the initiative - it will not work for every street in Denver.  Two of the roads he mentions, Colorado Boulevard and Hampden Avenue are major arterial streets (three lanes in most places) and serve very busy commercial districts.  While it might be nice to make those commercial areas more accessible, the reality is that it would require significant alteration of the infrastructure already in place.  Any of you who live in Denver and know the areas to which I am referring know there is a vast difference between Evans near DU and Colorado Boulevard.  I could also counter the author's arguments about traffic and induced congestion, but I will not belabor that point.  I will say, generally speaking, that advocating the status quo,  as the author does, certainly will not alleviate and is more likely to perpetuate the complaints he describes.  At least a fresh perspective represents a chance at progress, even if it ultimately fails. 

For those of us who feel tied to our cars, the cities in the U.S. News and World Report article are encouraging and inspiring, even if a bit aspirational.  Personally, I appreciate the efforts of my city to provide myself and fellow Denverites with options.  

Let's be honest . . .

Yesterday, Denver voters defeated Initiative 300.  The measure would have given Denver police broader authority to impound vehicles on the spot if the driver did not have a driver's license or certain other identification on them at the time they were stopped by the officer.  Aside from questions about the highest and best use of police time and resources, this measure and its predecessor embodied a principle that is very troubling to me. 

For those readers that do not live in Colorado or Denver, let me give a bit a background to bring you up to speed.  Both the State of Colorado and the City and County of Denver allow citizens to take the legislative process into their own hands.  In short, anyone can submit a piece of proposed legislation; yes, there is some red tape to cut and proponents must obtain signatures of a certain percentage of voters.  Overall, though, it is fairly easy for anyone who wants to put in the time and effort to get a proposed constitutional or statutory amendment on the state ballot or a proposed initiative to force city council action on a local ballot.  Then the respective voters get to decide issues directly rather than through their elected officials.

This process has been used cleverly in the past to achieve worthy aims ignored by or stymied in the state legislature.  Even members of the legislature have used this process in lieu of the General Assembly floor to make law.  I will ignore the obvious tangent that is building here and forge ahead. 

Needless to say, the direct democracy mechanisms have been used here in both good and bad ways.  Initiative 300 is, in my opinion, an example of an abuse of that process.  The initiative targeted illegal immigrants.  Some proponents will admit this; others will deny it.  But the probable consequences and most likely cases of enforcement would point to this initiative being an anti-immigrant measure, or, at best, a license to profile. 

My issue with Initiative 300 and others like it - notably, the attempts to define "personhood" in the Colorado Constitution - is this: they are underhanded, back-door attempts to make laws that the voting public would not approve if stated in plain language.  Rather than be honest with the voters about what they are asking, proponents of such measures instead seek to exploit voters who do not read the verbose initiative  language closely, take time to think through all the possible ramifications, or read others' reports and opinions about the measures.  In short, proponents of measures like Initiative 300 know that voters would overwhelmingly disapprove of their proposed laws if the purposes were stated clearly and succinctly.  Instead, they disguise true motives and try to fleece voters into approving their language.

My challenge to the authors of Initiative 300 and the others like them is to be honest with the public.  Be truthful about your motives and goals.  Stop abusing the democratic system you have at your disposal.  If your aims are truly worthwhile and beneficial to the state or the city, voters will recognize that.  If not, smoke and mirrors are not honorable ways to achieve those aims. 

Let a Little Sunshine In . . .

Disclaimer: This post will be primarily of interest to you Denver readers out there.

If you are not already aware, Denver is undertaking a massive rewrite of its zoning code. The rewrite aims to overhaul how the city handles planning, zoning, and land use matters. The new code is also taking particular care to incorporate sustainable practices and the variety of mobility options available in Denver. Despite being basically a from-scratch rewrite of the zoning code, the new version is based significantly on the neighborhood characteristics and building types that already exist in the city.

I suppose one downfall of such an ambitious project is the possibility for little issues to become lost in the shuffle. The link below to a Denver Post commentary illustrates one such issue that seems minor in the abstract but would be quite noticeable in practice.

"Retain Solar Access in Code"

For those readers in Denver, I would encourage you to check out the site www.newcodedenver.org. There you can find all sorts of information, summaries, blogs, and profiles of the folks who are actively working on this project. I would also encourage you to take a look at the proposed zoning maps and see how your property or neighborhood might be impacted by the code revision. On the site, you can also find information about public comment, meetings, and hearings if you do have concerns about how the new code will affect you. I am working my way through the second draft of the proposed code, so if you have questions, feel free to get in touch with me and I will see if I can be of any help.

(If you are really really interested (read: nerdy interested) in Denver zoning, you can compare the old zoning code with the new proposed code. The old code can be found here. Scroll down the table of contents on the left to Chapter 59 - Zoning.)

Considering the Usefulness of the Carbon Footprint Concept

Chuck Plunkett published an editorial in the Denver Post this past Sunday entitled, "Prius effect: energy efficient cars undercut the appeal of light rail." Today, Post contributor Ed Quillen responded with an opinion piece, "Fallacy of the carbon footprint." I want to take a look at both of these articles for two fairly distinct reasons. First, as Quillen clearly hints, I want to discuss the admitted narrowness of Plunkett's analysis and how that limitation, at least in my mind, does much to discredit an attempt at a well-reasoned argument. Secondly, I want to think about how effective the concept of the carbon footprint actually is, as it is being used in studies like that relied on by Plunkett.

Plunkett's premise is that as the fuel efficiency of automobiles improves, transit options such as light rail become less appealing. Plunkett admits that his analysis focuses on one perceived benefit of light rail - environmental effects - though I believe he attempts to bury this admission. Furthermore, as Quillen points out, that singular focus is not even fully analyzed. The study Plunkett utilizes seems limited to energy consumption of the transportation modes themselves without accounting for all the incidental environmental effects. In Plunkett's defense, these are almost too numerous to name, let alone account for in a statistical study; however, the failure to even acknowledge them is unacceptable. What about comparing the environmental effects of highway versus rail infrastructure? What about the effects on watersheds of all the impervious surfacing needed to accommodate a metropolitan area moved by cars (or buses)? Plunkett also does not broach the subject of how his automobile carbon analysis would change in citywide standstill traffic. How would all of those cars essentially idling for minutes at time effect the per passenger per mile analysis? Given all these glaring absences, I cannot understand how Plunkett can make the statement that light rail is "a transit option our environment can no longer afford," unless, of course, he's powered by the same agenda as Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute, who contributed the data utilized by Plunkett.

Aside from Plunkett's limited environmental analysis, he ignores other benefits of light rail and public transportation. When all car commuting expenses in a city like Denver are accounted for - gas, car maintenance, parking, etc. - light rail can be an enticing option economically for many commuters. This is particularly true if employers are providing or subsidizing the cost of transit passes. And what about safety? Look, we all know that transit proponents will throw out some exaggerated traffic fatality statistics. However, I think it is safe to assume that more people die every year in the United States in personal automobile accidents than in light rail, commuter train, or bus accidents. There are a host of other benefits I could mention - productivity during commuting, potential time savings, etc. The take home point here is that, as regular readers know, I value inclusive and well-rounded analysis of any issue. For me, Plunkett's argument falls fatally short of that mark.

Quillen raises the same questions in his response to Plunkett's article. He does so in a way that challenges the concept of the carbon footprint, a fixture in the escalating discussion about reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Plunkett's article is evidence that, when one can pick and choose factors for statistical analysis, that person can customize the statistics results to justify almost any conclusion. This is certainly the trap to which calculations like a carbon footprint can fall prey. Like interpreting a work of art, there are a variety of angles and perspectives that are simultaneously legitimate and contradictory. Depending on which set of these are chosen as criteria for a particular analysis, results can widely vary.

I am not advocating discarding the concept for that sake. Rather, I do believe the world needs some sort of index that attempts to quantify the impact of products, projects, and activities on the environment. Such an index must be as inclusive as possible to be truly useful, but this is also where complexity enters the picture. Practicality necessitates a paring down of factors included in the index to those whose impacts are readily ascertainable and quantifiable. Striking this balance between accuracy and practicality leaves a tool that is imperfect but a tool which may still be useful as an indicator for ballparking environmental impact. For some examples of corporate attempts at indexing their environmental impact, see Patagonia's Footprint Chronicles as well as Walmart's proposed sustainability index (and a New York Times article about the index).

I think this is essentially what we have in the carbon footprint concept. The key is remembering that, as a tool only addressing one aspect of environmental impact, the concept is inherently limited and must be utilized with that in mind. Thus, for Plunkett to base his conclusion solely on the per passenger per mile carbon footprint of light rail versus automobile commuting ignores other necessary aspects of the analysis, even if that analysis is limited solely to environmental considerations. And as I stated before, even if his environmental arguments are given credence, the fact that he completely ignores economic or social aspects still, in my mind, dooms his conclusion.

Again, all of this babbling is to remind all of us that we cannot solve our local, national, or global problems with piecemeal analysis or solutions. Realizing that a completely inclusive analysis of all environmental impacts of any one item is nearly impossible, we must also realize the limitations of the practical tools at our disposal and strive to think as inclusively as that practicality allows.