By Alan Bernstein
Wait, what? You do not want to allow us to vote on the newly negotiated agreement with Xcel Energy, which requires ratification before it takes effect?
First, to what agreement am I referring? I am referring to the agreement negotiated by Mayor Sam Weaver and Mayor Pro Tem Bob Yates and Xcel to create a new 20-year franchise agreement between the parties, as reported in the Daily Camera.
The agreement would at least temporarily end the city’s efforts to create its own municipal electric utility. It would not necessarily be permanent, because there are several specific opportunities built into the agreement that would enable Boulder to resume its municipalization efforts, if desired.
But my purpose here is not to argue the merits of the proposed agreement, but instead to consider the curious arguments being offered to prevent Boulderites from voting on the proposal Nov. 3.
So who is the “you” I referenced above? The answer is some council members, Tim Schoechle, the author of a recent guest column, and others, including Suzanne Bhatt of the Indian Peaks Sierra Club.
Without specifying who is offering which arguments, here they are:
There isn’t enough time to understand the proposed agreement nor to sufficiently discuss it. My reaction: Yes, there is. First, the agreement is explained on the city’s website. Second, Councilman Yates published his own, more in-depth synopsis of the agreement, available for all to read. Third, the full agreement is also posted on the city’s website. Thus, anyone who wants to understand the agreement can easily do so. From the date the Daily Camera published its article about the finalized agreement to Nov. 3 is 90 days. That seems more than enough time to read the documents and thoroughly discuss them.
The City Council promised that Boulderites would be able to vote on municipalization. That is exactly what putting the proposed agreement on the November ballot would do. Here’s why: The status quo is that Boulder is pursuing its own municipal utility. If nothing changes, that will remain true. A “no” vote on the proposal would be a vote for the status quo. Therefore, a “no” vote would be a vote for creating Boulder’s own muni.
We would be abandoning $20 million of investment and a decade of work. The reality is, these are “sunk costs.” The time, effort, and dollars are gone. The correct analysis is to establish exactly where we are now, then to assess what the range of required possible additional costs and levels of effort will be to get what we want, and then to compare those to what the proposed agreement offers. With that comparison in hand, decide to accept the agreement or to continue to pursue the muni option. But let me emphasize, focusing on “sunk costs” is plain wrong. If you do not believe me, Google “Theory of Sunk Costs.” Your screen will light up with scores of articles, many of which have the word “fallacy” in the title.
The proper process is being short circuited and the City Council would be abrogating its responsibility by having the populace vote on the proposal. On the contrary, the understanding all along has been that Boulderites would be required to vote in favor before a city-run muni would take effect. A vote on the proposal with Xcel would be either to continue to pursue the muni or to accept the proposal, exactly as the understanding we already have regarding the muni dictates.
City Attorney Tom Carr erred regarding the deadlines for collecting signatures to put two initiatives on November’s ballot and Carr was involved in the negotiations with Xcel. Therefore, we should not trust the veracity of the proposed agreement. This seems an ad hominem attack. Yes, Carr messed up regarding the signature deadlines, but that does not mean that he always errs, nor that he did with regard to the proposal at hand. Further, I believe the lead negotiators were council members Weaver and Yates. Are they also suspect?
I think the proposal should be on this November’s ballot. Study the agreement. Ask questions. Discuss the pros and cons. You have time. Vote “yes” to accept the agreement. Vote “no” to continue pursuing the muni. But do not muzzle our voices.
Alan Bernstein is a retired management consultant and 21-year resident of Boulder.
"wait" - Google News
August 19, 2020 at 05:03AM
https://ift.tt/3g98XlC
Guest opinion: Alan Bernstein: Why wait on franchise vote? - The Daily Camera
"wait" - Google News
https://ift.tt/35qAU4J
https://ift.tt/2Ssyayj
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Guest opinion: Alan Bernstein: Why wait on franchise vote? - The Daily Camera"
Post a Comment