By Max R. Weller
Boulder County, CO a.k.a. the Boulder Bubble
Read the story in the Daily Camera. Quoting from it below:
As the Boulder County commissioners test the community’s temperature toward a new tax to pay for sustainability programs, District Attorney Stan Garnett says he’ll encourage them to scrap that conversation and focus on “real world” issues he feels threaten the basic functionality of several county offices.
“In good budget times, I think (a sustainability tax) would be fine. I’d probably even vote for it,” Garnett said. “But we should be going on essential core service issues. Sustainability is an issue that’s kind of fluffy, kind of a luxury.
“It’s important, but it’s not a core issue of the county.”
Utopia is not sustainable? Who knew? Continuing excerpt:
The potential tax is still in its infancy, and is far from a sure thing. But previous discussions have yielded a slew of areas it might address, including water conservation programs, recycling and composting facilities, improvements to the local organic food system, and renewable, efficient energy services such as EnergySmart, among others.
The county commissioners must decide by Aug. 12 whether to place any measures on the November ballot
“We listen to the community, and our community asks us to act on its values,” Commissioner Cindy Domenico said. “There are things that matter to people here around energy efficiency and climate change. Those are on people’s minds.”
Certainly on the minds of wealthy white elites who form the PLAN-Boulder County cabal and their stooges holding elective office in both the city and county of Boulder, but most people are more interested in the day-to-day basic services government is supposed to provide.
Other elected officials are concerned, too:
Potential ballot language isn’t finalized but, according to the commissioners’ staff, a 0.15 percent sales tax could generate a projected $4.5 million annually, while a 0.75-mill property tax, about $5.5 million a year.
That’s money, Garnett said, that would go a long way toward fixing the county’s jail overcrowding problem, or offering better pay.
“Staff compensation continues to be a real challenge,” he said. “I’ve had trouble keeping pace with what other district attorneys’ offices are able to pay their staff, and I know other county offices have that problem as well.”
Garnett said his senior staffers often make about 20 percent less than what they’d be offered in other counties.
Boulder County Coroner Emma Hall said that compensation is an issue for her staff as well. On top of that, she’s trying to make do with about the same amount of funding for a caseload that’s gone from 186 autopsies in 2012 to 244 in 2013.
“I think that’s where there can certainly be some frustration — when there’s an idea to start a sales tax for other programs, when we’ve already got things that we’re struggling to do,” Hall said.
Additionally, Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle has been vocal about the need for funding to relieve severe jail overcrowding, whether through an auxiliary facility or otherwise.
And consider this letter-to-the-editor of the DC. Online comment by “donwrege” is copied below:
Boulder County’s Road Fund has been reduced by 59 percent, diminishing from $2.6 million in 2000 to $1.1 million in 2010. However, social services expenditures have increased by over 200 percent during this same period
2000 Boulder County Budget:
– Road Fund = $2,620,709
– Social Services Fund = $2,325,001
2011 Boulder County Budget:
– Road and Bridge Fund = $1,075,955
– Social Services Fund = $6,536,717
So, for many years now, Boulder County Commissioners have shortchanged basic services in favor of social engineering — good for transients from Denver and elsewhere, NOT good for residents here.
Closing comment by DA Garnett from the DC article:
“We think the commissioners are great folks,” Garnett said. “We just want to make sure they remember there’s core services that have been short-changed for many budget cycles now, and we want to make sure those are funded before we ask for taxpayer money for non-essential services.”
This just in, Supreme Court: Employers with religious objections can refuse to pay for contraception from the Associated Press via the DC. Quoting from the report:
The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.
Alito also said the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” Alito said.
It should be noted that local homeless shelter/services providers in Boulder, CO have made free condoms available for years, so why should anybody else pay for your preferred method of birth control?
I understand that Boulder Outreach for Homeless Overflow, which operates emergency warming centers at a network of churches and a synagogue here in Boulder, CO during the wintertime, has opened a new summertime women’s shelter just recently. The interesting thing to me is that it has a residency requirement and is limited to just 18 women. It’s staffed by women, exclusively. Bad actors are not welcome, and that is determined by the would-be client’s history of behavior at BOHO, Boulder Shelter for the Homeless, and Bridge House. When I’m able to find a link which spells it out in detail, I’ll be sure to post it; the info above comes from a flyer I saw posted at BSH.
That’s all for now, folks.