|
|
Growth Is Not The Issue
At election time in Boulder, we don't sling mud.
We sling land use.
If you believe the partisans involved, next Tuesday's election is a single-issue affair. Ruth Blackmore's supporters claim the wise and foresighted slow-growth position, and damn Tom Eldridge and his fellow travelers as rapacious, bought-and-paid-for pro-growthers.
Eldridge & Co. also claim slow, reasonable growth as their objective, and condemn Blackmore et al as closed-minded, special interest no-growthers.
This narrow focus on the pace of growth is misplaced: Boulder is going to grow slowly no matter who gets elected. In this election, the rate of growth is a surrogate for a different, ugly issue: the manner with which slow growth measures will be developed and enforced.
Since the early '60's, Boulder has invented and deployed layer on layer of growth control. At every turn, many people have feared that in the name of preserving our quality of life our controls would ruin our economy. Instead, each measure has made Boulder a more and more attractive place to live, and we have the best small town economy on the planet.
The single most important reason for the success of these controls has been the manner in which they were developed: in open debate, with careful and fair deliberation, flexibility, and awareness of the consequences to those affected.
Two weeks ago, the Daily Camera published a tough editorial criticizing the behavior of four council members: the "Pomerance Group" -- Steve Pomerance, Spence Havlik, Allyn Feinberg, and Lisa Morzel -- all supporters of Ruth Blackmore's campaign. The response to criticism will often tell you more about the validity of the charge than any other evidence presented.
Mr. Pomerance responded with an ill-considered effort at sarcasm, referring to the Camera as "the daily fishwrap," to its editor as "Kidneydrip," and offered not the slightest thoughtful rebuttal. He also claimed that Realtor spokesman Ken Hotard controls the Camera's editorial opinion. It may be a coincidence, but Mr. Pomerance lost his RTD election bid, while Mr. Hotard subsequently served as RTD's excellent chairman.
Ms. Morzel at least tried to play it straight, but could do no better than counter-accuse the Camera of "tabloid" journalism, captivity to "big-spending advertisers," "dishonesty and deceit" (so often as to lose rhetorical impact), and, incredibly, a lack of civility.
It's dangerous to characterize an individual, let alone a group of four plus one. Ruth Blackmore hasn't had a chance to serve on council, and Ms. Morzel has only a few months' track record there. However, next time you watch a city council meeting, compare the airtime taken by Bob Greenlee (no matter how you feel about his politics), or B.J. Miller, to that consumed by Mr. Pomerance and Mr. Havlik. Also compare tone: is the speaker in search of the heart of the matter, and consensus? Or wandering in repetitive minutiae, unable to decide, unable to decide not to decide, or allow anybody else to reach a decision?
This election will not make or break the situation on council. The councils of fifteen and twenty years ago, to which we owe so much of our good fortune, are long gone. On those councils, individual members accepted a concise, advisory role, deferred agenda and process to a strong Mayor, and set policy for a strong City Manager and staff.
The "Pomerance Group" is no monolith, and growth to five will not produce an absolute majority. The greater danger is the apparently growing belief among voters sending the Pomerancers to council that any and all growth control, no matter how conceived, implemented, or administered will work as well as that in the past.
It won't.
|
