Open Forum

CEB on election tactics

A disturbing response

The topic of Saturday’s Community Editorial Board, the ugly tactics used in this year’s election, elicited a disturbing response from Rachel Walker. She argued that we should accept a polarizing political atmosphere and ignore the negative consequences, which range from distrust of elected officials and of each other to policy gridlock.

We are, of course, entitled to voice and defend our opinions, but no one is entitled to lie, steal, and falsely smear the reputation of candidates, community members or organizations. Ms. Walker claims that opening fraudulent social media accounts in the name of election committees or candidates one opposes “is the reality of modern politics.” However, she fails to acknowledge that it is, in fact, a mechanism used to create and spread misinformation, and impersonating candidates and registered election committees is the very definition of misinformation.

When Ms. Walker asks for the solution to the “difficult” problem of “countering misinformation,” she suggests it is insurmountable. The solution is actually quite simple: don’t spread misinformation. Don’t be that person who creates false social media accounts, and don’t be that person who knowingly shares false information or who fails to do their own research to determine what is factual. Boulder has not seen this type of behavior before this election and hopefully will never see it again. I encourage all Boulder voters to demand fair elections going forward. many mansions, surely we can afford modest housing for those currently homeless, especially mothers. Not only is this more humane, but it saves money on social services in the long run.

A local nonprofit, Mother House, focuses on the needs of moms. Please join me in supporting them and other such organizations, so they can expand their ability to serve those in need, without restrictions.

Let’s hope our newly elected City Council gets to work quickly, keeps their campaign promises and provides more viable housing solutions for those currently experiencing homelessness, before we lose more lives this winter.

Whittier Square fire

Sitting and waiting for information

It has been over a week now since a horrific fire completely destroyed Whittier Square, and nobody appears to be asking some very important questions. In Boulder, that usually means (a) that either there are questions but they are being suppressed or (b) there really are none, and all of Boulder Officialdom is anxiously praying that nobody will ask or start to wonder about anything that might cause them either brain damage or to have to do any genuine work.

I am happy to begin the process, however. My first question, based on the views of the fire I had, is to wonder what this neighborhood and fire scene would have looked like if it had occurred on a “Chinook” day? And if that were to happen, what would the expected outcome likely be?

The second question would be to request an indepth review as to what specifications these buildings were built to that even with sprinklers and alarms, they would be totally consumed by fire. It appears that the fact that no lives were lost in as as much due to residents running door to door and shouting “Fire!” as to alarms and sprinklers. And even with sprinklers, the buildings were totally destroyed.

The third question would be to request an in-depth explanation of how the Whittier Square specifications differ from today’s requirements, especially since it appears that Boulder is building many more wooden buildings with more and more occupants and buildings crammed into much more tightly compacted spaces. I have read that the construction industry for years has been pushing the concept the

“wood is the new concrete,” but is this really true, or is Boulder’s ignorance simply setting us up a reenactment of the Great Chicago Fire that devastated that town when it was built of wood? I think that starts the ball rolling. I will sit back and wait for the lies.

CU South

We can all be proud

Ballot Question 302, “Let the voters decide on Annexation of CU South” has been defeated by a sizeable majority of Boulder voters. There will be much Monday morning quarterbacking and gnashing of teeth by some. But I hope those who have vocally opposed this annexation for years, who have written countless editorials and lobbied Council, can take some small comfort in 302’s defeat. That’s because it was through their efforts that the annexation agreement was improved multiple times.

Do you remember all the many drafts of the agreement last summer? During the agreement’s public hearings, annexation opponents highlighted many problems with CU South’s annexation, which the city addressed in draft after draft. It all got pretty confusing, but in the end, we had a pretty darned good annexation agreement. Boulder voters seem to concur. All the folks who lobbied so hard against the CU South annexation can be proud that, in the end, their exertions generated a pretty darned good annexation agreement.