Liberal and Loving It

Climate Action Plan answers

The Daily Camera asked the candidates "Last November, Boulder became the first city nationwide to tax carbon in order to reduce emissions. Is the city's Climate Action Plan going down the right path?" Here are my grades of their answers.

Frank D. Zoldak F+ : Just a bunch of generic platitudes.

Ken Wilson B+ : Talked in general about he is in conversations to minimize our carbon footprint - but no specifics. So he's starting but no answers yet. He then shoots into some good specifics on going to rural Colorado for wind and solar power.

John Welsh F- : John has given up running.

Tom Riley A+ : Wow, a good review of many of the major issues facing us on responsible energy production. And then numerous steps in order of achievement to accomplish in Boulder. And here in Boulder, he's not afraid to bring up the fact that at present nuclear is our only alternative to coal (alternatives can't pick up most of the slack yet). With Tom the CAP will be effective.

Susan K. Peterson F : At least Frank spoke to the question. Susan's answer could be used for most any question about any policy she is in favor of.

Eugene Pearson D- : A pretty empty reply that says both "we are off to a strong start" and we need to "informs businesses of efficiency upgrades available to them". So Eugene, what has the "strong start" accomplished then?

Alan O'Hashi C : Some good general ideas but it is general. Nothing specific about where we are and where he would like to see us go.

Kathryn Kramer B : Good discussion of what the CAP is trying to do and acknowledges that so far it's been just getting resources in place and not much action. She also brings up her background in company after company that is tied in to this effort.

Philip Hernandez F+ : An A+ for an honest answer. But an F- for not educating himself on this to answer (see Matthew Applebaum here for what voters expect on questions you don't know). This is a large issue for the Council - global warming needs to be fought at all levels.

Angelique Espinoza F+: Empty platitudes. Come on Angelique, you have a real shot at winning and you're giving us nothing about if you think the program is running well so far and where you would like it to go.

Shawn Coleman A- : A really good grasp of background. On where to go it's a bit more generic. Also Shawn really needs to tighten up his writing. All of what he writes is on point but could be covered in fewer words.

Philip J. Bradley D- : Is there an inside contest among the candidates about who can write the most vacuous statement on this question? And tradable tax credits? Lousy idea compared to a carbon tax.

Eric Bodenstab D- : Eric is apparently in the most generic answer contest too.

Matt Appelbaum B- : Nice general comments that are at least specifically address the CAP. But what initiatives does he foresee? What programs should we be implementing? He's not telling...

Editorial note: Everyone, I know it's rough campaigning. And most of you want this to be over. But this is one of the shortest low-key elections ever. Kudos to Tom, Kathryn, and Shawn for putting in the effort to provide detailed answers to the question. And to Ken and Matt for a decent response, albeit, light on details. To the rest, this is an important question for council candidates and the voters deserve to know where you stand on this.

If you think this is rough, how are you going to handle being on the council? Because trust me, this exact question will be in front of you, more than once, if you are on the council.

EcoCycle head wins Boulder City Council seat

In a suprise upset, the city clerk announced that the head of EcoCycle won the election in a stealth write in campaign. Over 1,200 ballots had his name written in which in an election with as small a turnout as this one, was sufficient to win the race.

He pointed to the all important prairie dog vote as what gave him this unexpected level of support. "The other candidates were not aware that the City's prairie dog policy included giving them the vote for municipal elections."

His main effort on council is expected to be to get the last 5,000 people in Boulder that actually work to retire so the entire city can devote every waking hour to living in harmony with the environment.

Latest candidate donation reports

Ok, the 6-29-07 campaign reports are in and the City actually scanned them in and posted them within 24 hours - amazing. And Frank Zoldak finally got his report in so we have all of them. (Can someone tell me why Ken Wilson's reports are all scanned in sideways?)

I look at these numbers not as an indication of who can buy the most advertising, but how much support a candidate has. Getting money from people shows you have support in the community. Short of polls it is the one clear measurement we have. For that reason these totals do not include funds from the candidate and do not include city matching funds. These are the donations these candidates have raised from others. So these numbers are lower than the totals the Daily Camera reports.

Spreadsheet here

I also noticed that a lot of Eugene Pearson's contributions are coming from out of state. So I looked at the next 4 (Applebaum, Wilson, Espinoza, and Riley) and they ran the gamut of 0 - 4 out of state donations (some obviously family). But the majority of Eugene's money is coming from out of state. So I have him in there twice, the "Eugene Pearson - CO" is his Colorado donations and that should be the number used to measure his support among voters as evidenced by donations.

So what do we see here? First off, we have a ton of money pouring in to elect Eugene Pearson, reportedly because he's gay. If this was Colorado Springs I would see that as a strong (not overriding) reason to support a candidate because that alone would be hugely symbolic. But here? Does anyone here even care?

Eugene is our own local test case of does money win elections or do winners get the money. If Eugene finishes in the top 3 or 4, money can buy results. If he is in the middle of the second tier then money, in this case at least, could not buy results. It will be interesting to see.

Angelique continues to show she is a prodigious fund-raiser. She's got Ken Wilson beat in the total if not the number of contributors and that is impressive. Discounting Eugene's out of state money, Angelique is one of the top 3 and retains a credible chance of winning.

Tom and Matthew clearly put no effort in to fund-raising over this last week. Coasting to the finish line is not a winning strategy guys.

And Ken keeps cranking along and holds his position at the top. But he sure has some others right up there with him.

It remains a 4 person race between (in order) Matthew Applebaum, Ken Wilson, Angelique Espinoza, and Eugene Pearson.

Most people have not voted yet

One of the council candidates emailed me that he figured most people had voted by this past weekend. I have to disagree.

Most people have not voted yet. Of course, most voters won't vote at all so by that measure my statement is definitely accurate. But every one of those that has not thrown out their ballot potentially could vote.

The other thing that's interesting is the stats for my blog on this. The largest day of hits to date was yesterday. So interest remains. Even more interesting, the number of hits coming from search engines continues to climb. I take those hits as people using the web to determine who to vote for.

I think as more and more people use the web as their primary means of making their decision, it allows them to put it off to the last day. And people will do so. It's not over once the endorsements are in any more - because there is additional information out there and people can read it anytime, on their schedule.

I hope the clerk lists the number of ballots in by day once they are all in - that would be interesting.

Update:

 

The above is the stats through 7/2/07. The final bar is for "today" but it runs on GMT time so midnight (date change) is I think 6:00 pm here. So even on a slow day it's around 200 unique visitors. People are still voting.

Shawn Coleman in November

This is the most difficult post I am writing in the entire election. Based on what I have read from all the candidates, Shawn is my first choice. Easily clearly my first choice. I could list out all the reasons why but that would just get him more votes.

Shawn can't win this race. There is 1 seat and it's really between Ken Wilson and "not Ken Wilson" but if that not vote gets spread, then the minority elects Ken. Shawn's name recognition is low and his paid media is non-existent.

Shawn, if this community voted the way they think people should vote (sit down, listen to each candidate, evaluate what they say, what they have done, what their experience is, etc), you would be in the top tier. But Boulder is part of America (yes hard to believe) and a lot of it is who supports each candidate, and what names are familiar.

(BTW - I knew nothing of any candidate before this election except Alan a couple of years ago on BVSD issues and Matthew's Camera column. And everything I have learned has been from their websites, their posts on the Daily Camera, and their answers to my questions. The web is a great tool by which to learn about candidates.)

Grades: Deserted Island: C+, Web Site: C-, Location: East of 28th, Prarie Dogs: A+, Budget Experience: B+, Broadband Availability B+, Helping Business: A, Climate Action Plan: A-

Alan O'Hashi in November

When the Daily Camera came out with their incredibly brave "we endorse everyone who has a chance" editorial I told myself I was not going to do that. There is one opening and spreading the vote really is saying elect Ken Wilson (who adds nothing to the council).

Alan O'Hashi is a smart, thoughtful, nice guy with lots of good ideas and approaches to problems. He also would bring a lot of experience on diversity issues which the city could sure use.

But, first off, Alan does not have a chance of winning in this election. It's 1 seat. And with all of the endorsements Ken Wilson has, he could have a prairie dog roast and still have the best odds. A vote for Alan is really a vote for Ken.

Second, I disagree with most of what Alan has proposed in his various posts. Because he would disagree with a lot of the council while listening to them and working towards a compromise, I think he would be a very valuable member of the council. And in November I almost certainly will vote for him. But he is not my first vote among the 14, he's my third.

So vote for Alan in November, but not this time.

Grades: Deserted Island: D-, Web Site: A+, Location: West of 28th, Prarie Dogs: C-, Budget Experience: B+, Broadband Availability B-, Helping Business: C-, Climate Action Plan: C

Candidate answers on Business in Boulder

The Daily Camera asked each candidate "What should Boulder do to attract and retain businesses?"

One thing I saw in almost no ones response was an understanding of the gigantic differences based on the type of company. The roadblocks from the City for a software company (with occasional exceptions like lack of broadband) tend to be pretty minor. The roadblocks for building a new development are gigantic. And for retail (assuming the building is there) they are significant but generally not gigantic.

Matthew Applebaum B+ : A really good laundry list of things to do. But reading it I didn't get any feeling behind the words. Maybe I'm reading too much into the tone but I don't think Matthew is impassioned on this issue.

Eric Bodenstab D- : Support for the existing plan (has it brought any company here?) and hiring more bureaucrats. No real understanding or new concepts here. In fact, only 2 old concepts.

Philip J. Bradley D- : Ok, to Philip the only problem with business is construction regulations. And what are we going to do to resolve this? Uh... no specifics.

Shawn Coleman A : Shawn continues to impress with clear, detailed, thoughtful answers. He sees the variety of problems and how the different types of industries interrelate. And he works for a private sector company here in Boulder - direct knowledge. In addition numerous new ideas on how to resolve this.

Angelique Espinoza D- : Same answer as Eric. As to getting the message out, the message is out to the real estate development community loud and clear - we will make your life a living hell if you want to pound a single nail.

Phil Hernandez C+ : Good listing of the problems, primarily the real estate ones but those are the biggest. And he lists the lack of affordable housing which is a big problem for most businesses. But no concrete suggestions on how to improve things.

Kathryn Kramer A+ : Wow! Ok, great list of major issue after major issue with interesting suggestions for each. And the problems faced by all businesses, not just developers. The only nit is she proposes a pause in office building until the existing space is filled. There is a lot of empty space but rents are still way up there. (A suggestion I heard from a friend - increase the property tax every 3 months space is empty so landlords are strongly incented to rent.)

Alan O'Hashi C- : Some interesting items identified and some solutions discussed. But Alan's primary focus appears to be on bringing in more arts/culture business. That's nice but stuff like that requires people working in the private sector to fund it. Alan would bring a lot to the council but making it more business friendly is not at the top of that list.

Eugene Pearson F+ : Generic and vague answer. Nothing to show he has any clear understanding of anything businesses face and no mention of what to do about those unmentioned problems.

Susan K. Peterson F : AAARRGH More vague and generic than Eugene's answer. Closing with an "I think puppies are cute" type of statement.

Tom Riley A : Tom is the other candidate (Shawn is the first) that I knew nothing about when this campaign started who has impressed me time after time. Great list of issues facing businesses and incredibly innovative suggestions for how to address them. Awesome.

John Welsh D : Quick answer of what a bar owner in an existing building most needs. As to all other types of business - your incentive is lower drink prices at John's bar.

Ken Wilson F+ : Ok, Ken is only mostly vague and generic while listing a bit of specifics on development. However while he talks a good story on making things work better, his main City government effort to date has been the University Hill Association which has been totally ineffective in improving things up there (how much space is still empty?). So in terms of effectiveness on the job F--.

Frank D. Zoldak D : Like John Welsh Frank's answer is 100% focused on what would help his type of business (apparently utility rates are the biggest thing the city hits him with). Someone who cannot see outside their own needs is not someone who can represent all of us on the council.

This was interesting in that the candidates really fell out into very good and "I have no idea." Only 2 C's the rest were either A/B or D/F. The bottom line on this is if you think Boulder needs to do a lot more to attract business, your only choices are Applebaum, Coleman, Kramer, or Riley.

Before you vote for a friend - be a good friend

I watched American Idol (once) and in the initial tryouts all I could think was - don't any of these people have someone who is a good enough friend to tell them "don't do it, all you'll do is embarrass yourself on national TV."

If you are a friend of one of the candidates who does not have a chance to win, before you vote for them think it through. Because their vote total is telling them if they should try again in November. Their vote total this time will tell them if they should run again. You are part of that message.

If they have it. If they are campaigning effectively, if they have clear and reasonable answers to the major issues, if they can raise money, if they have a tough enough skin to handle the slings and arrows (from people like me), then yes do vote for them.

But if they don't have any of this. If they can't connect with people, and a City Council election is retail level politics, if they can't articulate what they would do and why, if they can't raise money, if they can't handle the rough contact sport of politics - then be a good friend and do not vote for them.

If you're family - vote for them. Family comes first.

Contribution Report for candidates

A very good (not perfect) measure of a candidate's strength is the contributions they receive, both the total and the number of contributors. There is research that shows that it's not the candidate with the most money who wins but rather that winning candidates tend to raise more money.

Update:

So here are the candidate donations. I did not count self donations which reduced Philip Hernandez by $2,500.00. But I did count family which boosted Philip Bradley. Those with an * after their name do not have their latest filing posted yet (I guess the City government has the election staff registering prairie dogs instead) but all except Frank Zoldak have filed.

Ok, the city finally got everything posted. Large boosts for Eugene Pearson and Philip Hernandez - they both appear to be credible candidates based on their fundraising. Both are very impressive in the number of donations and the total for that period.

I asked the City why there was the long delay in getting everyone's numbers posted and received this reply "Had a scanner break down and an IT glitch". I translate that as "it was a nice day Friday and so we figured the scanning could wait while we hung around outside." Hey, they're not as bad as the water utility billing group.

(Click on the image to get a full size bitmap. Click here to get the Excel file.)

Matthew Applebaum and Ken Wilson are no major surprise. But the next two are, to me at least. Angelique clearly has a lot of support and Tom's numbers, especially his number of contributors is outstanding (and he doesn't have his most recent filing in yet).

The other big shockers are Alan and Shawn - a lot lower than I expected. Granted no one cares about this election and asking for money is difficult. But it's a key part of being a successful candidate.

Other random observations: Eugene Pearson has raised no money - very surprising. Now he may have dollars in his most recent filing (that the city has not posted yet) but still, nothing until then? Update: He did do a good job in this last period but still - nothing untill then???

Philip Bradley continues to do a decent job. Yes a lot of his donations are family (or at least people who have the same last name). But a lot are not and even hitting up family is difficult. It will be interesting to see his vote take but he could go on to have a credible chance in November.

So that's it for now, I have to go update The Big Line as this has a major effect on 4 6 candidates.

Election Update

Well things are changing in the election. People are actually starting to notice we have an election (over 500 hits/day on this blog now).

• Some changes in The Big Line. The biggest is moving Eugene Pearson up to "Have a Chance."
• Tom Riley has a website. He still does not have prayer in this election but he seems to be learning fast. He could be a strong contender in November. And I found his budget knowledge to be very compelling.
• Everyone except Susan Peterson answered my question about budget experience. This skill is key to doing a good job on council and there were 6 candidates (plus Ken Wilson as a ?) with a strong background. The answers are graded here.
• My next question is up - broadband availability. And I have a personal interest in this one.
• Does Matthew Appelbaum have a bio anywhere? He lists his government experience on his website - but how has he earned a living? What is his present job? Is he a trust fund baby? Does anyone know?

The Camera had an interesting pair of articles, first one on Alcohol Rules and then one on candidate Arrest Records:

The arrest that jumped out at me was the one for Philip Hernandez, not because it was a DUI but because his answer was "I don't see this incident as impacting on my ability to sit on council." I then looked at his answer on alcohol rules and it was a pretty minimal answer. To me this says that he doesn't his view DUI as important and doesn't view alcohol abuse as a significant issue.

Compare that to Susan Peterson who had a very good response both to her own DUI and to her suggestions for combating alcohol abuse. The alcohol abuse answer of hers shows that she did learn from her mistake. As for Philip Bradley's DWAI and alcohol abuse answers, not great but they're ok. Call it a wash for him.

Kathy Kramer comes off a little kooky with her ticket - but she then admits as much and so I think again this is a tie-breaker. If someone can't decide between her and another, she loses that vote. But probably not a big deal.

The one I think hurt the worst by the arrest article, after Philip, is John Welsh. He may have very good reasons for everything but the combination makes him come across as a bit of a jerk. And the pair of tickets shows a trend as opposed to a single incident.

Ken Wilson's is funny - being on UHNA and getting a ticket for trash accumulation. Probably not a biggie but it's never good for a politician when people are laughing at them.

As to the other answers on Alcohol Rules - one jumped out at me as clearly the wisest thing said. Matthew Appelbaum wrote the best answer including "... even a fresh look at the drinking age." That is arguably one of the best things we can do - Matthew is clearly thinking this through.

Shawn Coleman also had a very thoughtful answer including not getting the city involved in lawsuits it will lose. Every time I read his answers to the various questions I am more impressed.

Alan O'Hashi as always has a thoughtful and a clear picture of the situation. And, this is so Alan, is ready to dive in and fix it himself. He is the other candidate who impresses with every answer (except the deserted island one).

And that's today's wrap-up.