Boulder’s elections in 2021 will be critical for climate action, affordable housing, and social justice. I appreciate you for allowing me to share my research and opinions with you all.
For more than five years, I’ve written a voter guide for every election Boulder. I want to start with a thank you to local journalists Shay Castle (Boulder Beat), Deborah Swearingen and writers at the Boulder Daily Camera, the Boulder Weekly, and Richard Valenty. Without their dedication and terrific reporting, guides like this wouldn’t be possible. I’ve also linked to great reporting from The Denver Post, Colorado Sun, Colorado Newsline and other outlets. Consider subscribing!
You can subscribe to Shay Castle’s Patreon to get weekly local news, or you can subscribe to the Boulder Daily Camera and Boulder Weekly which support a number of local journalists and editorials.
November 2nd, 2021 Coordinated Election in Boulder, Colorado
- City of Boulder Council Candidates
- Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District B (4 Years)
- Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District E (4 Years)
- Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District F (4 Years)
- Amendment 78 (Constitutional)
- Proposition 119 (Statutory)
- Proposition 120 (Statutory)
- CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE 2I / 2J
- City of Boulder Ballot Question 2K
- City of Boulder Ballot Question 2L
- City of Boulder Ballot Question 2M
- City of Boulder Ballot Question 300
- City of Boulder Ballot Question 301
- City of Boulder Ballot Question 302
Municipal Offices
City of Boulder Council Candidates
(Vote for no more than Five)
Lauren Folkerts
Matt Benjamin
Nicole Speer
Dan Williams
The City of Boulder has nine people on its city council. Every two years, five of those seats come up for election. In 2021, we have ten candidates running for those five seats. Voters may vote for up to five candidates.
I’m voting for the four candidates who I believe will prioritize and work on Boulder’s biggest challenges. Taking action on climate change, promoting policies that allow for more affordable housing options, and furthering social justice:
Lauren Folkerts
Matt Benjamin
Nicole Speer
Dan Williams
Full disclosure: I’m part of the Boulder Coalition which has endorsed these candidates. Over the past four months, I’ve been able to meet and ask questions of all the candidates running. Lauren, Matt, Nicole, and Dan have consistently shown to be the ones with the deepest community roots, most empathetic to a diversity of views and people in the community, and have put in the work to make Boulder a better place.
Here’s a helpful graphic put together by Kristen Eller showing how candidate group endorsements stack up:
These candidates have all been endorsed by the Boulder Coalition, as well as the Sierra Club, and the Boulder Weekly. Brendan and Caitlin at the Weekly wrote a few ideas summing up what’s at stake in this election which really resonated with me:
“Look, we appreciate the open space and the Blue Line and the height limit and how radical those ideas were for their time. But today Boulder faces challenges that demand even more revolutionary ideas. Expanding housing density without compromising environmental and lifestyle ideals, embracing and encouraging diversity in the community, providing effective, compassionate services to the less fortunate among us—these are all issues we believe are solvable with fresh ideas and an awareness that change is inescapable.” I think these four candidates exemplify the kind of change that Boulder needs.
People may ask me what I’m doing with my fifth vote. In some elections it makes sense to find other candidates in partial alignment to vote for. But this year I’m not finding a fifth that makes sense, and will choose only to vote for the four I most want to serve the community.
I will also mention that Steve Rosenblum has filed a lawsuit against myself and progressive members of our community (“Boulder City Council candidate files complaint against community members”). I will not be voting for him.
Candidate Profiles and Endorsement Write-ups
Candidate Profiles – Boulder Beat
For Lauren Folkerts, community is the magic ingredient
Boulder City Council: Lauren Folkerts
Boulder City Council: Matt Benjamin is ‘wholly different’ candidate second time around
Matt Benjamin hopes third time’s the charm
Dr. Nicole Speer: Let equity drive Boulder’s decision-making
Boulder City Council: Nicole Speer
Dan Williams wants Boulder’s reality to match its rhetoric
Boulder City Council: Dan Williams
Richard Valenty: Your 2021 Boulder City Council Candidates
School District Offices
Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District B (4 Years)
Nicole Rajpal
I’m voting for Nicole Rajpal. Nicole has direct experience working on school and district accountability, and has been doing the work to try to address inequities between schools in the district. I’ve been able to talk to Nicole about the big issues facing the school district and think she’s the best candidate to take on this role.
Note: Gala Orba has withdrawn from this race but is still on the ballot.
Potential BVSD recall election: “Recall petitions have been submitted to the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder for three of seven BVSD Board of Education directors.” The recall centers over pandemic safety measures including vaccination and mask usage. Please decline to sign any recall petition of school board members.
Candidate Profiles and Endorsement Write-ups
Boulder Valley School Board District B: Nicole Rajpal
Boulder Valley School District – 2021 Elections
Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District E (4 Years)
Beth Niznik
I’m voting for Beth Niznik. She is a teacher, a BVSD parent, and strongly believes in supporting public education. There are three candidates in this race and I think that Beth has gained a lot of support which is important in a race where two more progressive candidates may end up splitting the vote.
Potential BVSD recall election: “Recall petitions have been submitted to the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder for three of seven BVSD Board of Education directors.” The recall centers over pandemic safety measures including vaccination and mask usage. Please decline to sign any recall petition of school board members.
Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District F (4 Years)
Kitty Sargent
I’m voting for Kitty Sargent (unopposed).
Potential BVSD recall election: “Recall petitions have been submitted to the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder for three of seven BVSD Board of Education directors.” The recall centers over pandemic safety measures including vaccination and mask usage. Please decline to sign any recall petition of school board members.
State Ballot Measures
Amendment 78 (Constitutional)
No / Against
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution and a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning money that the state receives, and, in connection therewith, requiring all money received by the state, including money provided to the state for a particular purpose, known as custodial money, to be subject to appropriation by the general assembly after a public hearing; repealing the authority to disburse money from the state treasury by any other means; requiring all custodial money to be deposited into the newly created custodial funds transparency fund and the earnings on those deposits to be transferred to the general fund; and allowing the state to retain and spend all custodial money and earnings and revenue on that custodial money as a voter-approved revenue change?
I’m voting No/Against Amendment 78. On the politics of the measure, Amendment 78 was placed onto the ballot by the “conservative organization called Colorado Rising Action” led by Michael Fields, who “previously served as the state director of Americans for Prosperity Colorado… founded by wealthy business magnate brothers David and Charles Koch.” (Amendment 78: Colorado voters will decide if lawmakers should have more oversight of state spending, Colorado Sun) The measure attempts to add friction and politicization of “custodial funds,” examples of which are emergency relief funds, legal settlements, transportation funding, grants, gifts and donations, and other money from the federal government, according to the Colorado Blue Book.
If the measure were to pass, we’d see several negative effects. Emergency type funding would be delayed and require action from the legislature (which is only in session five months of the year). Other forms of funding, which are already dedicated for particular uses, would be subject to additional bureaucracy and process. The state legislature would need additional time and hearings that would likely add little value to the outcome but would prevent our legislature from working on other key priorities.
Explainers and opinion:
2021 election guide: Coloradans to vote on three statewide fiscal measures
Amendment 78 – Colorado Secretary of State
Proposition 119 (Statutory)
No / Against
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $137,600,000 ANNUALLY ON RETAIL MARIJUANA SALES BY A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING THE CREATION OF A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE OUT-OF-SCHOOL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLORADO CHILDREN AGED 5 TO 17, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, CREATING AN INDEPENDENT STATE AGENCY TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM FOR OUT-OF-SCHOOL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES CHOSEN BY PARENTS; FUNDING THE PROGRAM BY INCREASING THE RETAIL MARIJUANA SALES TAX BY 5% BY 2024 AND REALLOCATING A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL LANDS INCOME; AUTHORIZING TRANSFERS AND REVENUE FOR PROGRAM FUNDING AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; SPECIFYING THAT LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES INCLUDE TUTORING AND EXTRA INSTRUCTION IN SUBJECTS INCLUDING READING, MATH, SCIENCE, WRITING, MUSIC, AND ART, TARGETED SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS AND LEARNING DISABILITIES, CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION TRAINING, AND OTHER ACADEMIC OR ENRICHMENT OPPORTUNITIES; AND PRIORITIZING PROGRAM FINANCIAL AID FOR LOW-INCOME STUDENTS?
I’m voting No/Against Proposition 119. The amendment is an attempt to divert funding away from public schools. The primary source of funding is a statewide increase on cannabis taxes and “diverts approximately $20 million annually from the State Land Trust, which helps fund public schools,” according to the Colorado Blue Book. “The Colorado State Land Board owns, stewards, and leases four million acres of trust land in order to earn money for Colorado public schools.”
Aside from the revenue source, the measure is also troubling in how it will prioritize and allocate funds. In their piece in the Daily Camera (Guest Opinion: Rollie and Josie Heath: No on Proposition 119” Boulder Daily Camera), the Heaths state: “Proposition 119 further misleads voters by saying that the revenue raised through this proposition will be used to help low income children improve their academic performance. Certainly, this is a worthy goal. In fact, it only needs to do this for the first two years. After its second year of implementation, all students regardless of their family’s income status, can access these dollars. It also allows public money to be directed to private out of school advisors, instead of investing it directly into public schools.”
Additionally, the lack of oversight on this program is also concerning. Per the Colorado Blue Book, “The measure establishes a new state agency called the Colorado Learning Authority (authority), which is independent from oversight by the State Board of Education and the Colorado Department of Education.“ It’s hard to justify a program that purports to support the educational system when it’s outside the authority of existing public education entities.
Explainers and opinion:
2021 election guide: Coloradans to vote on three statewide fiscal measures
Coloradans Will Vote on Taxes and State Funding Oversight
Proposition 120 (Statutory)
No / Against
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning property tax reductions, and, in connection therewith, reducing property tax revenue by an estimated $1.03 billion in 2023 and by comparable amounts thereafter by reducing the residential property tax assessment rate from 7.15% to 6.5% and reducing the property tax assessment rate for all other property, excluding producing mines and lands or leaseholds producing oil or gas, from 29% to 26.4% and allowing the state to annually retain and spend up to $25 million of excess state revenue, if any, for state fiscal years 2022-23 through 2026-27 as a voter-approved revenue change to offset lost revenue resulting from the property tax rate reductions and to reimburse local governments for revenue lost due to the homestead exemptions for qualifying seniors and disabled veterans?
I’m voting No/Against Proposition 120. As with Amendment 78, Proposition 120 was placed onto the ballot by the conservative organization Colorado Rising Action. The move continues a Republican/conservative strategy of starving our state’s budget, similar to Colorado Proposition 116, Decrease Income Tax Rate from 4.63% to 4.55% Initiative” from Ballotpedia. The 2020 measure passed with 58% of the vote, which cut $154 million in funding from the state budget.
The proposed property tax cut in Proposition 120 “reduces property tax revenue to most local governments, compared to what would be collected without the measure, and may impact local services such as education, fire protection, police, transportation, and libraries” according to the Colorado Blue Book.
As noted, cities and counties with a higher mix of “multifamily housing and lodging properties will be more heavily impacted.“
Another important factor: “Mill levies – actual mill levies are determined at the local level. Local governments could choose to ask voters to raise future mill levies. Some local governments already have permission from their voters to adjust the tax rate to make up for reductions in assessment rates, and thus may not experience any revenue impacts.“
Of course there’s another wrinkle in the story. Anticipating this ballot measure, the Colorado legislature passed SB21-293 which undercuts some of the effects of Proposition 120. (Colorado lawmakers launch last-minute effort to drive down property taxes and combat skyrocketing assessments, Colorado Sun) “The measure, Senate Bill 293, would also allow people to put off a portion of their increased residential property tax payments until they sell their property, starting in the 2023 tax year.”
So the legislature has tried to address sharp increases in property taxes and tried to avoid cuts in funding to local governments as a result in a way that is less harmful than Proposition 120.
Explainers and opinion:
ENDORSEMENT: Prop 120 would benefit landlords, not tenants. Vote no.
Local Ballot Measures
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE 2I / 2J
Yes / For
WITHOUT RAISING THE CURRENT TAX RATE, SHALL THE EXISTING COMMUNITY CULTURE AND SAFETY SALES AND USE TAX OF 0.3 CENTS, SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2021, BE EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 31, 2036, AND BE KNOWN AS THE COMMUNITY RESILIENCE AND SAFETY TAX, WITH THE REVENUE FROM SUCH TAX EXTENSION AND ALL EARNINGS THEREON BE USED TO FUND CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS SUCH AS… (truncated)
Ballot Issue 2I
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $110,000,000 (PRINCIPAL AMOUNT) WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $158,000,000 (SUCH AMOUNT BEING THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST THAT COULD BE PAYABLE OVER THE MAXIMUM LIFE OF THE DEBT) TO BE PAYABLE SOLELY FROM THE EXTENSION OF THE COMMUNITY RESILIENCE AND SAFETY SALES AND USE TAX OF 0.3 CENTS (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE COMMUNITY, CULTURE AND SAFETY TAX), IF SEPARATELY APPROVED;… (truncated)
Ballot Issue 2J
I’m voting Yes/For BALLOT ISSUE 2I and BALLOT ISSUE 2J. The measure funds critical local infrastructure, parks, fire stations, and to a lesser extent arts and nonprofits in Boulder. The measure is not a tax increase but an extension of an existing .3% sales tax. Issue 2J gives the city authority to release bonds that allow the city to spend the money immediately (and get the benefits sooner), and then repay those bonds with interest.
Most of the debate at city council on the issue centered around how much money to allocate to infrastructure vs what’s going to arts and other community amenities. Unfortunately, arts and the “culture” portion of the tax have been reduced from 20% to 10% in this proposed extension.
Shay Castle / Boulder Beat has a great write-up on the details:
Ballot issues 2I and 2J – Community, Culture, Resilience and Safety tax extension, bond issuance
Explainers and opinion:
Richard Valenty: City of Boulder Ballot Issues 2I and 2J: Infrastructure Tax and Bonding
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2K
Yes / For
Shall Section 9, “Meetings of Council,” of the Boulder City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No.8478 to (a) remove provisions that expired in December 2017, (b) explicitly allow council to appoint council committees that generally contain no more than two councilmembers and in no event equal or exceed a quorum of council and allow councilmembers not appointed to the committee to attend, but not participate in council committee meeting, and (c) require council to appoint a recruitment committee of no more than two members for each of the three council appointments?
I’m voting Yes/For BALLOT QUESTION 2K. Boulder City Council typically uses subcommittees when taking on big issues (the most recent notable examples being the CU South annexation and Xcel energy settlement and franchise agreement). Fitting with Colorado’s open meeting laws, subcommittees need to provide the same level of transparency given to full city council meetings while allowing the council to make progress outside of regular meetings. Often the council will try to ensure that any subcommittee represents the range of viewpoints on the council
Issue 2K will clarify these rules and ensure that our council is operating in a consistent, transparent way, particularly since subcommittees are often used for bigger and more contentious issues.
Shay Castle / Boulder Beat has a great write-up on the details:
Ballot Question 2K – Council subcommittees
Explainers and opinion:
Richard Valenty: City of Boulder Ballot Question 2K: Council Committees
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2L
Yes / For
Shall Sections 38A, “Signatures required for initiative, referenda and recall petitions,” 44, “Referendum petition,” and 46, “Certificate of petition,” of the Boulder City Charter be amended to clarify that the number of signatures for initiative, referenda and recall petitions are required to be registered electors of the city and that the number of signatures of registered electors on a referendum petition must be at least ten percent of the average number of voters in the previous two municipal candidate elections consistent with other changes approved by the voters in 2018?
I’m voting Yes/For BALLOT QUESTION 2L. Back in 2017, the City of Boulder adopted changes to its election code for direct democracy, determining how many signatures from registered voters were required to get a measure on the ballot. Overall, this change lowered signature thresholds for initiatives (a citizen effort to create or update a law), referendums (an effort to block / put to a vote a recently-passed law) and recalls (an effort to remove a city council member). The intent of the changes was to require “10% of the average number of people who voted in the last two city council candidate elections” per Shay Castle at the Boulder Beat. For 2021, that number was determined to be 3,336 signatures.
However, another section of the code had not been updated to reflect this change, and still referenced a signature threshold based on registered voters. Issue 2L would correct that difference to be based on the metric above, voters in municipal elections.
Boulder needs to correct this contradiction, which is not the only one from the 2017 changes. The city also has contradictory language in its election laws about Charter amendments, which caused myself and co-lead Chelsea Castellano from Bedrooms Are For People to have to sue the City of Boulder in 2020 (“Bedrooms Are For People sues city of Boulder for ballot access” in the Daily Camera).
When the City Council found errors in their election guidelines, they reinterpreted their election laws to double the amount of signatures required and to set a much earlier date for those signatures to be due, keeping Bedrooms Are For People off the 2020 ballot.
It’s really important that our election laws are clear and without contradiction.
Explainers and opinion:
Richard Valenty: City of Boulder Ballot Question 2L: Clarification of Signatures For Petitions
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2M
Yes / For
Shall Section 7, “Compensation,” of the Boulder City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 8477 to allow council members serving on January 1, 2022 and thereafter, and the mayor elected in November 2023 and thereafter, to receive compensation for fifty-two meetings each year on the same schedule as other city employees or on a schedule prepared by the city manager?
I’m voting Yes/For BALLOT QUESTION 2M. At a salary of roughly $12k per year, Boulder City Council members are underpaid for what is essentially a part-time job. Issue 2M would not increase council pay, but would improve the frequency and schedule of when council members are paid to account for the timing of council meetings. We should not penalize council people even further for their public service.
Explainers and opinion:
Richard Valenty: City of Boulder Ballot Question 2M: Council Payment Schedule
City of Boulder Ballot Question 300
Yes / For
Shall the City of Boulder expand access to housing by allowing all housing units to be occupied by a number of people equal to the number of legal bedrooms, plus one additional person per home, provided that relevant health and safety codes are met?
I’m voting Yes/For BALLOT QUESTION 300. In full disclosure, I am a co-lead on Measure 300 / the Bedrooms Are For People campaign, which I consider the most important advocacy I’ve done in my life.
In most of Boulder, it is illegal for more than three unrelated people to live together. It’s illegal no matter how big the house, how old the residents are, or even if the owner lives in the home. Housing occupancy limits have been illegal at the federal level to enforce against blood-related families but are still aggressively enforced against people who have no such relation. People in Boulder are regularly evicted or lose their housing over this law.
This law yields many negative results, so let’s name a few:
LIBERTY & JUSTICE FOR ALL – We believe that all people should have equal access to housing, regardless of the relationship between the residents
AFFORDABILITY – Sharing housing is a critical strategy that lower-income families and individuals use to afford housing in Boulder today.
PROPERTY RIGHTS – The current law restricts people’s freedom to choose who they live with in their own private residence.
HOUSING SECURITY – The current occupancy law forces people to live in vulnerable housing situations, with the risk of eviction being just one phone call away.
FAIR HOUSING LAWS – The Fair Housing Act recommends allowing two people per bedroom to prevent discrimination
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT – When people live over-occupied they are less likely to engage civically, connect with their elected officials, register to vote, or even talk to their neighbors because they are afraid of getting evicted. The effect is to silence people who are not rich enough or who prefer to live with their “chosen” family
ENVIRONMENT – Sharing housing uses less energy per person and allows people to live closer to where they work, both of which help to reduce GHG emissions contributing to our climate crisis.
Measure 300 puts forth a solution that will overturn the discriminatory and restrictive occupancy law that has been in place for a few too many decades. We believe a simple, common-sense change would be to set occupancy limits for unrelated people based on the number of bedrooms in a home.
Bedrooms Are For People released a 12 minute video explaining why Boulder should vote YES on 300 to expand access to housing, covering some of the reasons I’ve mentioned here and other details:
Three of the four members who will be on council through 2023 support our measure as do four council candidates.
These individuals have co-signed this statement “Boulder’s restrictive occupancy limits cause harm to many people in our community. Bedrooms Are For People brings greatly needed change to our city’s housing laws. Since several city councils have chosen not to address the issue, we fully support this measure and will work to ensure that the whole community benefits from its passage.” -Aaron Brockett, Rachel Friend, Matt Benjamin, Nicole Speer, Dan Williams, Lauren Folkerts
Bedrooms Are For People has received endorsements from every area of Boulder – from housing groups to LQBTQ+ advocates, to the Boulder Chamber, to labor unions, to environmental groups.
While I’m not a neutral source on the issue, I want to provide a number of opinions / writing from the community to help inform readers on the issue. Bedrooms Are For People does have an opposition campaign. While I don’t find their critiques to be compelling reasons not to change this discriminatory housing law, I do think they’ve helped us answer a number of questions in our FAQ:
Bedrooms Are For People Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- How is a “bedroom” defined?
- What about safety?
- Can City Council modify this measure after it is passed?
- Will this measure change occupancy rules for families?
- How will this help families?
- What safeguards are in place to limit change to existing houses?
- Does expanding access to housing incentivize investors?
- How does letting unrelated people live together help keep people housed?
- How many people are going to want to live with three or more unrelated housemates?
- I’ve seen a few people living in unsafe conditions—how will this help them?
- I have an empty bedroom. Will I be forced to rent it out after this measure passes?
In 2015, I gave a talk at Ignite Boulder on the problems of occupancy limits and how we could move forward:
Explainers and opinion:
Boulder Beat: Ballot Question 300 – Bedrooms Are For People
League of Women Voters — Measure 300
Daily Camera Editorial: YES on Bedrooms Are For People
Boulder Weekly Voter Guide: YES on Bedrooms Are For People
Richard Valenty: City of Boulder Ballot Question 300: Bedrooms Are For People
City of Boulder Ordinance 8475 Full Text
City of Boulder Ballot Question 301
Yes / For
Shall the City of Boulder prohibit the sale and manufacture for sale of certain fur products?
I’m voting Yes/For BALLOT QUESTION 301. Of all the questions on this year’s ballot, I believe the fur ban may require the most additional research and thought, so I encourage readers to try to educate themselves with the resources I’ve provided here.
Banning the sale and manufacture of fur in the City of Boulder, with exceptions, would make a small impact locally but could signal a larger movement away from animal products and particularly animal cruelty that they can bring.
On the merits and implementation, I recommend reading Shay Castle’s piece in full:
Ballot Question 301 – Humane Clothing Act
I agree that Julie Marshall’s piece in the Daily Camera well-covered many of the pros and cons. Editorial: Fur measure needs fixes
Additionally, I think that reading City of Boulder Ordinance 8480 with the official proposed code is also extremely helpful
The main critiques, as I see them:
- The definition of fur is too broad: “any animal skin or part thereof with fur, fleece or fur fibers attached thereto, either in its raw or processed state.” From my reading of this language, I do not believe this would ban materials that were sheared or otherwise not attached to the skin
- On conflicts with state law, per Daily Camera – “this measure could inadvertently include banning pelts from animals legally trapped in Colorado’s wild places. In other words, there are potential preemptive conflicts with state law.” In the ordinance, section 5-6-17 b(1) states – “This prohibition does not extend to A Fur Product where the activity is expressly authorized by federal or state law.” This may mean that the city could require some staff time to make proposed updates to state law. If the measure passes, the city should proactively address any potential litigation by not enforcing conflicting provisions. The proposal can certainly be tweaked by city council if necessary to come into compliance and would be an amendment that does not “alter or modify the basic intent” as outlined in the City of Boulder Charter section 54. Any clarification to fully comply with state law is the intent of the authors.
- The impacts to local businesses are small but not zero. This is more of a question of values than whether the business impacts themselves are significant to Boulder’s economy (which I believe they are not).
Explainers and opinion:
Richard Valenty: City of Boulder Ballot Question 301: Humane Clothing Act
City of Boulder Ballot Question 302
No / Against
Shall the voters of the City of Boulder adopt changes to the City of Boulder, Colorado, Revised Code to require that any agreement with the University of Colorado regarding terms of annexation for the land known as CU South include certain specific details, and that the annexation agreement gain voter approval in an election prior to provision of city utilities and services other than flood control facilities to or on any portion of CU South?
I’m voting No/Against BALLOT QUESTION 302. A few things have been true for many years: South Boulder Creek is prone to significant flooding risk in East Boulder, and the University of Colorado owns a parcel in southeast Boulder dubbed “CU South,” bearing a sign that says “To serve the needs of future students.”
Question 302 is about providing critically needed flood protection to 2,300+ Boulder residents and building the housing that CU and our city critically needs. Read “CU South annexation: A primer” from Shay Castle to get the full backstory.
Boulder City Council approved the CU South annexation into the City of Boulder on September 21st, completing a recent process of several years and more than 25 years of controversy over this parcel of land (“Boulder City Council approves CU South annexation agreement“ in the Boulder Daily Camera)
The agreement will preserve 155 acres of land for open space, flood protection for 2,300+ residents, and five acres dedicated to permanently affordable housing. Additionally the university plans to build 1,100 housing units for its students, faculty, and staff, many of whom have great difficulty to afford to live in Boulder.
Earlier this year, a group called “Save South Boulder” and PLAN Boulder put a measure on the ballot to try to block the annexation. “Citizen’s Conditions for Annexation of CU-South” is now measure 302, and attempts to require the city to put any annexation to a vote of the city before approval. Given that the annexation has already been approved, measure 302 can only serve two purposes: 1. to give residents the opportunity to sue the city over the already-approved annexation, and 2. if for some reason the annexation were to be undone (either via referendum or by terms in the annexation agreement, such as a difficulty in achieving flood control permits).
In addition to this effort, the two groups supporting ballot measure 302 are currently gathering the 3,336 valid signatures they need by October 21th (30 days since passage) to overturn this annexation agreement via a referendum. I strongly recommend declining to sign their petition.
Measure 302 is so flawed in its concept and binding on our elected representatives that even the candidates backed by PLAN Boulder (except Jacques Decalo) are not in favor of this measure.
The health and safety of our community requires us to move forward. Measure 302 will only serve to delay that effort, harming all of us. Please vote no.
Explainers and opinion:
Boulder Beat: Ballot Question 302 – Let the Voters Decide on CU South Annexation
Thank you
Please share with anyone to whom this guide might be helpful.
A reminder that ballots must be mailed no later than October 25th and ballots may be dropped off by 7pm on Election Day, Tuesday November 2rd, 2021.
If you’re not a registered voter or you need to update your registration, you can register online now at Go Vote Colorado! (all you need is an updated Colorado driver’s license). If you register now, you will receive a ballot in the mail. Otherwise, you can register and vote through election day.
Questions, comments, or otherwise can be emailed to me Eric Budd at ericbudd@gmail.com or on Twitter @ericmbudd
Boulder Colorado Voter Guide - Eric Budd 
Thank you Eric, this represents a lot of work and research and is very helpful!