Before every election I publish an issue focused exclusively on election endorsements and recommendations. For those interested in my thoughts on this year’s election, here you go. For those who aren’t interested, you can skip this email and tune back in with the next issue of the Update.
If you haven't registered to vote here in Golden, or you've changed your address since the last time you registered, it only takes a few minutes (the Post Office will not forward your ballot!). If you aren't registered under the right address you won't get your ballot. You should be able to confirm that you are registered and get any other questions answered on Jeffco’s election page.
Mayor: Don Cameron
I'll start by saying that we are fortunate to have two qualified candidates running for mayor, both of whom are knowledgeable, experienced, and genuinely committed to Golden. I personally like Laura, and I respect her intelligence and hard work. The same is true for Don. And on some issues I think their perspectives are pretty similar. But I'm supporting Don because I think he is more likely to provide the kind of leadership Golden most needs right now.
I think sometimes a community is best served by a mayor focused on maintaining things as they are (a more "managerial" approach to the role). But at other times a community needs bigger adjustments with a more energetic and proactive type of leadership that articulates a vision and works hard to achieve it. The issues I'm most concerned about now, that I think Golden most needs to tackle, are those types of issues. We've seen a long string of inappropriate developments that threaten to take Golden down a very different growth path than the one we've fought so hard to establish. Yes, making the city's zoning code more understandable would be helpful, but the central reason we've got so many inappropriate developments is that our code allows them, and until City Council fixes those actual zoning requirements they are going keep happening. I think it's terrific that the City Council is starting to tackle zoning code updates, but it took a really long time and a bunch of inappropriate developments happened that could have been prevented. Other issues that are high on my list of Golden's most pressing challenges include housing affordability (we've heard talk for a long time but haven't seen much action or success), the city's financial health (in the midst of a relative boom economy we are hearing the city talk about declining financial reserves and cutting important programs), and the continued loss of open space around Golden (the undeveloped properties around Golden's perimeter that keep getting turned into housing developments).
I want to know what a candidate believes our future should look like. I want to know what a candidate is willing to fight hard for, and what battles they are willing to take political risks on. I share the view that doing the process well is important, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of also offering a clear vision and commitments.
Politicians tend to be cautious by temperament, avoiding saying things that might offend or taking positions that some people won't like. Don is not a natural politician. I know he can sometimes come off as very direct or even brusque. And of course I don't always agree with him. But I do agree with him often, I know what his vision is, and I know he's willing to fight hard to move us in that direction even when it can sometimes mean disagreeing with city staff or with the political establishment. I'm supporting Don because I think he is more likely to effectively tackle Golden's most important challenges.
Sometimes I think the differences between candidates are so stark that the wrong candidate winning could be truly dangerous for a community's quality of life and economy. I don't think that's the case here, and if Laura wins I'm sure she'll be competent and thoughtful. But I think Don is more likely to really take on the hard challenges that we need strong leadership on right now.
City Council District 1: No Recommendation
I like both candidates a lot. They are knowledgeable and competent and they both care a great deal about Golden (and they are both friends).
City Council District 2: Casey Brown
Casey is running unopposed, so this is an easy decision from that perspective. I also think Casey has been doing a really strong job on City Council. He worked hard behind the scenes, for instance, to make sure the City Council adopted what I believe were crucial updates to the zoning code, and I know he is committed to making sure the city completes the other key zoning updates that are on the table. I don't always agree with Casey but I agree with him much more often than not. He's willing to listen and explore and change his mind, and he has made clear that he supports reducing the amount of inappropriate development. And the fact that he is taking the campaign seriously despite not having an opponent - that he is working hard to earn votes even though he doesn't have to - is a good example of the type of leader he is. He has earned my vote.
Jefferson County School Board
District 3: Stephanie Schooley
District 4: Joan Chávez Lee
I don't know much about these two School Board races, but folks whose judgment I trust (who are themselves strong public schools supporters) are supporting Stephanie Schooley and Joan Chávez Lee.
Proposition CC: Yes
This is Colorado's so-called "debrucing" ballot measure. Under the state constitution, government spending is limited and that limit slowly ratchets down over time. The result is that the State of Colorado is unable to keep pace with the cost of providing services to their constituents as our population grows over time and as inflation drives prices up over time.
Proposition CC would eliminate this ratchet effect for the State of Colorado (which many local governments, including Golden, have already done). Voting yes on Proposition CC would not change the current requirement that voters get to decide on any proposed tax increase. Any proposed state tax increase would still have to go to the voters for approval.
For those interested in a bit more detail: Because the limit on growth in spending each year is closely tied to spending the prior year, when population and the economy are growing at modest rates then spending can sometimes sort-of keep up with the needs and expectations of voters. But when the economy is growing quickly, the spending limit prevents spending from keeping pace. Economic downturns are especially problematic because the ratchet sets the lowered spending as the new baseline, preventing the government from bringing services back up to their earlier levels even as the economy recovers. The result is that the state budget shrinks over time relative to the size of Colorado's population and economy. We keep asking our state and local governments to do a better job providing more services - maintaining streets, providing police and fire, plowing the snow, preventing flooding, preparing our kids for the 21st Century economy, offering a safe and supportive environment for our youth and our elderly - but this ratchet effect ensures that state and local government have fewer and fewer resources with which to do all of that.
Proposition DD: No
This would legalize sports betting in Colorado and allocate a portion of the new tax revenues to water projects. It sounds tempting because we know Colorado will face increasingly difficult water challenges in the years to come, and creating a new tax stream sounds like easy money. But it would make Colorado's ability to tackle our water issues dependent on persuading ever-growing numbers of people to spend and lose ever-increasing amounts of money on gambling. Adding yet another large, powerful industry (sports gambling) to the mix - whose purpose is to persuade more people to spend more money gambling - seems likely to distort Colorado's politics even more than they already are.
Issue 1A: Yes
This is Jefferson County's so-called "debrucing" ballot measure. The ratcheting effect described above applies to Jefferson County in the same way that it applies to the State of Colorado. Issue 1A would suspend this ratcheting effect in Jefferson County for seven years. Just as with Proposition CC, voting yes on Issue 1A would not change the current requirement that voters get to decide on any proposed Jefferson County tax increase. Any proposed tax increase in Jeffco would still have to go to the voters for approval.