Fees on Open Space

My Camera Editorial Advisory Board comment published on Oct. 17, 2009, in response to the Camera’s question: The Boulder City Council and the Open Space and Mountain Parks Board of Trustees are discussing how to set priorities and continue to fund open space purchases. Among the suggestions for creating more revenue to fund remaining purchases is to begin charging a fee for non-Boulder County residents who use certain city-owned trails. What do you think of the suggestion?

Boulder has a huge appetite for open space, which isn’t a bad thing if it can afford it. The problem is Boulder doesn’t seem to want more residents, just more money to pay for another 5,800 acres to add to its already 45,000 acres. Therefore, it becomes quite appealing that non-residents pay for open space use. This way Boulder’s friends, neighbors, former residents and visitors will fill the city’s coffers for open space purchases while its limited-growth or no-growth population pays only sales tax on food and retail purchases as its contribution. The idea is not fair as there is no credit to those who have already paid taxes in Boulder, and it likely will have negative consequences.

Government is great at changing behaviors by adding fees and taxes. Take taxes on tobacco products, alcohol and the current attempt to tax sodas and sugary drinks. These taxes are designed to discourage use as they bring in revenue. A user fee for non-residents will have the same effect on young people attempting to establish healthy outdoor habits and older people wanting to maintain what they’ve started.

The words “open space” suggest space is open to all, not free from humans. If the latter is the definition Boulder City Council ultimately goes with, one dear friend who raised her family in Boulder and moved to Broomfield will be one of many not able to afford the fee, a fee with the same effect as a tax on cigarettes.

‘Hot Seat Freshman Questions’ out of bounds

My Camera Editorial Advisory Board comment published on Oct. 3, 2009:

After recently discussing student and family privacy with a Broomfield parent, the parent gave me a copy of “Hot Seat Freshman Questions.” The questionnaire was used in a Broomfield High Freshman Seminar August get-acquainted activity. Principal Ginger Ramsey quickly and kindly clarified for me: Teachers and upperclass student helpers “break the ice” in class by answering the questions first. Students can “pass” on any question and voluntarily take the “hot seat” in front of the class.

Nevertheless, peer pressure can take its toll and disclosing personal information gives bullies something to use. There is no value in teachers asking students in class: “Do you have a significant other? Who is it?” and “Who do you have a crush on?” In fact, answering honestly requires students to divulge their sexual orientation and lack of or interest in a “significant other.”

It sounds like we’re training students for the Oprah Winfrey Show. Students responding with creative fiction may fit the bill more than their passing on out-of-bounds questions.

I applaud Ramsey for her open door for anyone with concerns about the 3-year-old program. We all need to know whether this required seminar is an academic course or counseling program, whether students will be further questioned about their personal lives and whether materials are available for review. Also, I urge the school board to look carefully at district policies addressing the matter.

*This title was not part of the Camera publication.

Campaign finance rules and the Supreme Court

My Camera Editorial Advisory Board comment published on Sept. 12, 2009, in response to the Camera’s question: The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may let businesses and unions spend freely to help their favored candidates in time for next year’s elections. Congress included limits on these so-called issue ads in the belief that they were campaign ads in disguise. What do you think?
Free speech is a significant portion of the case of “Citizens United v. The Federal Election” before the Supreme Court. One side argues corporations shouldn’t be allowed free speech because they aren’t flesh and blood but profit-making, economic entities government allowed to form. On the other side is the idea that “Congress should make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,” so speech is good from any source, including corporations and unions.
The case that started out ruling on a 2008 political documentary, “Hillary: The Movie,” funded by a corporation, has broader ramifications. In March the Solicitor General raised an audible breath from the Supreme Court in response to a comment she made to opposing council. Elena Kagen said Congress has constitutional powers over not only television and cable during an election but also book publications. Therefore, it would be a crime if a corporation published a political book during an election time. We’ll soon see what the court says.
During elections, I get tired of political ads but would rather hear more voices identified by their sources than have government curtail speech.* Instead, stockholders, members and customers should keep corporate and union speech in check. Some local residents displayed recently how this works when John Mackey, founder and Whole Foods’ CEO, wrote his own opinion in the Wall Street Journal. They reacted by boycotting Whole Foods and writing letters to the editor. In response, Whole Foods clarified its lack of position on the issue.

*Note: Only the first the first sentence of the last paragraph was published though the entire paragraph was submitted. 

The value of babies to the country*

My Camera Editorial Advisory Board comment published on Sept. 5, 2009:

How much is it worth to a country for mothers to have babies? As one who feels a special feeling holding a new baby and looking at its face and tiny fingers and toes, I was interested in Japan’s answer. As announced this week, the Democrats in Japan plan to give families 26,000 yen ($275) a month per child through junior high to encourage women to have babies.

Though this amount won’t cover the total cost of raising a child, just like tax credits in the U.S. don’t, it clearly says Japan wants more babies. Japan’s population of 127.6 million peaked in 2006. By 2050, it is expected to decline below 100 million.

I was also encouraged to hear that pro-family leaders and groups from 63 countries met in Amsterdam in August in the fifth World Congress of Families. They discussed issues facing families and, therefore, countries. Issues included the impact of decling birth rates, human trafficking in women and children, HIV and AIDS, the effect of child care, the role of mothers and fathers and Internet pornography. Ultimately, resolving these issues and others facing the family take all of us working together, which is much more valuable than money.

*This title was not part of the Camera publication.

GMOs on Open Space land

My Camera Editorial Advisory Board comment published on Aug. 29, 2009:

The six local farmers wisely requested the County Commissioners delay their decision about growing modified sugar beets on county open space. In turn, the commissioners were wise to hold off on their decision, a request also made by the Parks and Open Space Department. The main reason is the high level of emotion packaged with information on the beets needs to be sorted out with rational, clear-thinking heads. Additionally, so as not to repeat this same scenario another year with another product, the commissioners should take this pause to also craft an over-arching policy for all genetically modified crops for any future requests.

As a granddaughter of a farmer who owned his own land and planted whatever he wished, I feel sorry for the farmers who are farming open space as tenants. They contribute to the beauty and productivity of Boulder open space and want to be good neighbors. As such, they requested to plant a more economically sound crop for themselves to bring to market. There is no fault in them for that.

However, the farmers` request lit up a debate far beyond the value and safety of genetically modified beets to include the amount of sugar in the American diet and protecting Boulder`s image in the organic and health food world. Though it`s wise to take a break and sort out what is fair to the farmers and to the public wanting safe and economical foods, the farmers deserve that decision in time for planting in 2011.

BVSD and teacher compensation

My Camera Editorial Advisory Board comment published on Aug. 22, 2009, in response to the Camera’s question: On Tuesday, the Boulder Valley teachers union overwhelmingly rejected a tentative contract agreement that would give members a 1 percent stipend for one year only, and no cost-of-living raise. Some say local teachers are underpaid and that the district did not negotiate in good faith, while others say that in these tough economic times, the offer to the teachers was more generous than what most American workers are seeing. What do you think?

Governor Ritter announced Tuesday his plans to cut $320 million from the state budget, which will cut 266 state employee jobs. The unemployment rate of 9.4 shows job losses in major industries, and furloughs are common in the public and private sectors. But, there is also good news. The cost of living is down so salaries buy more. Amid these economic indicators and others, the Boulder Valley School District appears prudent in offering its teachers no cost-of-living raise and a 1 percent stipend for only one year.

Apparently, these facts were not what 94 percent of the Boulder Valley Education Association’s members thought of when they rejected the contract with the district last week. Maybe they know something the rest of us don’t. By comparison with Denver metro area teachers are BVSD teachers underpaid? Are Amendment 23 and the mill levy increase for K-2 of a few years ago being directed away from classrooms? Could money be better spend without an increasing numbers of assistant principals and other administrators, in-house legal council and a district spokesman? Depending on these answers, BVEA President Melissa Tingley may have good reason to say the district places “little value on the critically important role that teachers play in the district.”

Consequently, it’s a puzzle why the BVEA resists unbiased third-party “fact finding,” a provision of its 2008-09 contract. The school board and superintendent continue to ask the union for this. It’s time the union takes this opportunity for help in stating its case.

Cash for clunkers

My Camera Editorial Advisory Board comment published on Aug. 8, 2009:

What a happy little scene for car dealers and makers. Americans receiving up to $4,500 from cash for clunkers race to showrooms so government can help foot the bill for their new cars. It appears President Obama and Congress’ $3 billion (so far) taxpayer-funded program is the stimulus program automakers should have had rather than bailouts. All seems peachy as those qualifying smartly take advantage of “free” money.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as “free” money and the tax and spend liberals are acting more like Robin Hood than Santa Claus. The government subsidy comes out of taxpayers’ pockets and robs America’s future by adding to the $1.8 trillion budget deficit. In addition, the program is driving up new car prices and driving down car salvage operations. It doesn’t create jobs or national wealth, and there is no indication that once the give-away is over car sales will maintain the current burst.

Giving tax dollars to people who were going to buy a new car anyway in the relatively near future makes no economic sense. The poor who cannot afford to take advantage of the give-away still cannot afford to buy a new car. And, the rich who can afford it have every right to the cash.

The environment is supposed to be a big beneficiary, but that result is cloudy at best. Weighing in that equation is the energy wasted by smashing clunkers and preventing even worse offenders from trading up at the salvage yard.

Huge database bane to student and family privacy*

My Camera Editorial Advisory Board comment published on Aug. 1, 2009:

Parents teach their children to be safe by not sharing personal information on the Web. Likewise, the U. S. Justice Department advises individuals to be “stingy” in sharing and to adopt a “need to know” approach. In contrast, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper announced in early July he is talking with Palantir Technologies to develop a huge database for Denver. With no apparent clearer goal than to better help Denver school children, parents and children are to surrender their privacy. Their information would be shared within the city, the school district and possibly nonprofit entities.

Some children may benefit from teachers, social workers and the like turning to the computer rather than to them or their parents. However, children across the board will lose. Their data, errors and all, will be available for individuals to analyze and in other ways act like all-knowing beings peering in and poking around. Lives of children and their families will become an open book.

The same lure of free money and “help” attracting Hickenlooper hangs over local communities and school districts. They may have the same luck as Denver with the database. Palantir Technologies, the developer, plans to make it a donation. Additionally, the database may help school districts catch some of the $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund, the largest K-12 education reform discretionary pot in our country’s history. Unfortunately, these funds hook us into a more national K-12 educational system, a move we should disdain in favor of local control.

*This title was not part of the Camera publication.

Health care reform

My Camera Editorial Advisory Board comment published on July 18, 2009, in response to the Camera’s question: As Congress debates health care reform, tell us what — if anything — you think should be changed about the U.S. health care system.

U.S. health care definitely needs fixing. Cost and the increasing numbers of the uninsured are obvious reasons. However, President Obama and the steamrolling Democrats in Congress need to take the Hippocratic Oath, to “above all, do no harm.” Congress fixing health care before its August recess with bills of over 1,000 pages is not only sure to cause serious harm, it cannot address the magnitude of the problem or include the necessary safeguards.

We have much to protect. Because we pay much ourselves, we have an incentive for self-care and containing our own costs. We have a good number of excellent doctors (except in some rural areas). We have choice, no waiting in endless lines, and new medical innovations and drugs.

Unfortunately, the United States also has much to fix. Doctors must carry high-cost malpractice insurance and over-prescribe tests to cover themselves in lawsuits. Some don’t keep up with new medical knowledge. We have drug companies advertising on TV and in magazines. And, among other problems we have increasing numbers of American jobs going to workers overseas and unsecured borders allowing illegal aliens to enter our country, in part, for medical care.

Media coverage of mourning Michael Jackson*

My Camera Editorial Advisory Board comment published on July 11, 2009, in response to the Camera’s question: The memorial service for pop icon Michael Jackson this week garnered a lot of attention. Some critics say that the media coverage of the aftermath of his death at age 50 has been overblown, while others contend that it has been appropriate, since he was a controversial figure, but also an entertainer of great magnitude. What do you think?

I received a caller who turned out to be a friend on Tuesday with a semi-robotic voice asking, “What is your favorite Michael Jackson song?” The second question came after a pause, “What is your favorite Michael Jackson moment?” My favorite moment was when Jackson dangled his baby over a balcony showing he really valued children. No song comes to mind though I liked his moonwalk. Our conversation underscored the media’s ridiculous attention to Jackson.

Despite that, CBS was the only network to explain why American’s Fourth Estate went googly-eyed. CBS reported their normal news cycle was “seized — and then saturated — by the death of Michael Jackson.” Somehow CBS could do nothing but air the full memorial and send Katie Couric to broadcast the evening news from the site.

With the major news focus on Jackson, we missed hearing about why Obama’s popularity is slipping though those paying attention on NBC may have heard a bit of the debate. Interestingly, Obama was often compared to a rock star during the campaign. Now, Obama, the “King of Politics,” or President of the United States, was overshadowed by the “King of Pop” to the point Obama was asked for a sound bite on Jackson. Yes, Obama has some Jackson songs on his iPod.

We many never know the news we missed. We do know, however, Obama was not received in Europe as he was during his Berlin speech. In Russia, no one swooned when Obama gave a graduation speech in Moscow, and elsewhere he was just another visiting dignitary.

*This title was not part of the Camera publication.