Council term limits a positive step for Boulder

What a difference a day makes, or a year makes, looking at our local election coming up in November.  Comparing the city ballot issues from 2015 to this year, well, it has to put a smile on your face.  Especially if your mug has been the victim of Sugary Drink cavities!

Thankfully, no one has even brought up the term “right sizing” this year.  The war on the automobile seems to have subsided momentarily, and in contrast to 2015, we aren’t looking at conflicts created by potentially onerous zoning changes.  Also worth noting, it seems as if viewership of city council meetings on Channel 8 has gone back to its former audience level of, well, not very many people.

Flash forward to 2016, and this year we have the red hot issue of Sugary Drinks on the ballot.  Now if that doesn’t get you going, I don’t know what will.  The fact that we haven’t all perished from this crisis of sugar is quite remarkable, and shows the resiliency of the average Boulderite.  But finally here is an initiative that will protect us from the sticky demon lurking in vending machines everywhere.  It’s probably inevitable that the anti-sugar movement begins to head our way.  After all, ice cream sales at local swimming pools barely survived the summer of 2016 without being eradicated for good. We should all be cognizant of the hidden dangers that ice cream presents, and frankly, it’s almost as bad as the horror of the outdoor ping pong table!  It makes you wonder, what’s next on the chopping block? Hamburgers, pizza, anything not made of hemp?  Scary stuff.

One other issue that made it on the local ballot this year is Question 302.  That proposal would limit the terms of our elected city council members to three terms in the person’s lifetime. Interestingly enough, this was created and brought to the electorate by Open Boulder.  Relatively new to the scene here, Open Boulder is well organized, well thought out, and is giving the “old guard” (that would be Plan Boulder) a run for their money.

I’m kind of surprised that our current council members didn’t come up with this ballot initiative themselves.  Question 302 for council members is kind of like looking forward to a martini post work. They could take comfort in knowing that their Tuesday evenings three years from now could be a little less stressful.  Now, if they could just limit the amount of time meetings are allowed to run, things would start to make sense.  Not to say that current council hasn’t done a fine job, but I think it’s time that we bring some fresh faces, imagination, a little innovation and open the council race to those who wouldn’t necessarily have a chance against the legacy incumbents.

It seems to me that Question 302 is a natural first step in shaking up a well-intentioned but archaic system of city government in dire need of a tune up.  Hopefully, the next move after 302, will be an initiative to amend the City Charter to create a ward or districting system for the election of city council members.   Voting “where you live” would be a positive move and a good way for a lot more of the community to get involved in the local government process.

The other issue, which is really a no brainer, is County Issue 1A, the Road and Bridge Mill Levy Increase.  Also known as “let’s fix the roads, streets and bridges.”   Is there anyone out there who supports bad roads and pot holes?    Although it’s essentially a property-tax increase, I don’t know how you couldn’t get behind it.  If you don’t support this one, your car, bike or skateboard may never come out of the other side of that pothole on a county road next spring.

All in all, this seems like a pretty mellow election year.  But, just to be on the safe side, and in case the Sugary Drinks initiative passes, I have started hoarding Dr. Pepper and Mountain Dew.  I may be selling it on the black market here shortly.  I’ll let you know what the pricing looks like in my next column.

Geoffrey Keys is president of Keys Commercial Real Estate in Boulder.

on Facebook on LinkedIn