Looking at a map - if you draw a line straight down 28th than I guess it falls in SE Boulder. Doing that makes most of Boulder south of Baseline "east". But in 25 years here I've never though of Tantra as being in east Boulder. Generally I've heard Martin Acres, Majestic Heights and Tantra just referred to as South Boulder - SoBo, south of Baseline, west of 36, which is why hearing it called south east Boulder here is so jarring. Living in this general area I've never heard residents refer to it as Southeast Boulder.

And the area is connected to Table Mesa not South Boulder Rd. that transition happens at the Table Mesa Park-n-Ride/Foothills on-ramp. So I completely don't understand why they say South Boulder Rd. If I hadn't read the text of the story I would have thought the bears were east of US 36 somewhere south of South Boulder Rd.

I think of Fraiser Meadows and East Boulder Rec Ctr as being southeast Boulder with US 36 as the E-W divider.

Update: They've edited the story to say South not South East Boulder.

I thought east of US 36/28th st is East Boulder? So where's East Boulder Rec Center then? East South East Boulder?

It's definitely Table Mesa at that point - it doesn't become South Boulder Rd. until you get east of the Table Mesa Park-N-Ride

Google Maps clearly shows Table Mesa http://goo.gl/maps/Uzhx

Update: The story text has been edited to read South Boulder - not SouthEast Boulder.

Brainard is a national recreation area administered by the US Forest Service

The page is titled NPS Fee Demonstration Program - so I wouldn't be the only one thinking the NPS was involved in the old fee demonstration program. http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/feedemo/index.htm
About the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
With the signing of the FY 2005 Appropriations Act, the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) replaced the Recreational Fee Demonstration and National Park Pass authorities.

My point was not all out of state registrations are to avoid fees here - and it's not automatic that fees elsewhere are cheaper - which was your original assertion as quoted

"Stop trying to cheat the system and pay cheaper registration and license fees!"

"Trustees Billig and Putnum both pointed out that Boulder would not be unique in charging trailhead fees. Now, visitors pay to visit Rocky Mountain National Park, Brainard Lake"

Okay - apples and oranges -
First these are entrance fees not parking fees(which is what they're asserting they're charging), secondly
RMNP - national park
Brainard - national recreation area
Neither of these is an appropriate comparison to city open space - and there's been many objections to the National Park Services fee demonstration areas as they've expanded them.

Sad to hear open space in Larimer is charging. So will it eventually end up that only place you'll be able to hike in Colorado without whipping out your wallet is the county you live in?

Makes me think of Beijing where everyone has to buy a pass to their local park - and we had to pay to visit.

"If you are a non-resident active duty member of the U.S. Armed Forces or a non-resident full-time student attending a Colorado college or university, you are not required to title or register your vehicle."

Of course most students change residency to CO to qualify for in-state tuition as soon as possible.

But car's registered elsewhere are not automatically paying less. I paid all of $60 to register my car in Boulder this year. Of course that was up from the $26 I used pay, in Boulder, after the state raised licensing fees.

I live in Boulder - others in my family live in Jeffco and Adams county. So if we go to hike in my car it's free. If we go in another family members car we pay $5?

I can tell you what will happen. Anytime we need a car that fits more people than mine we won't be hiking at a trail head that charges. Which means Boulder doesn't get the $$$$ from post hike meal we usually have in town. Net loss will be more than the $5 cost of parking. As it is we never go up Flagstaff unless it's in my car.

The other objection I have - I worked in Boulder and commuted in for years saving money to buy here. So all the money I spent in town during those years would not have counted simply because I wasn't sleeping in town (about the only time I wasn't here)? So the lunch time and after work hikes would have cost me $5?

Given that more people commute into to town to work than not this seems punitive.

And I hope that Denver doesn't start charging for all the mountain parks, Jeffco for their open space etc.

WRT to the 75 people who must sign the nomination petition in person at the city offices:
It's the "sign in person during city business hours" part that's the issue more than the number of signatures required.

Can a person sign a nominating petition for more than one person?

If so - then raising the numbers of signatures favors organization sponsored candidates rather than independent participants. A group/club can organize members to show up and sign multiple nominating petitions - effectively reducing the amount of nominating signatures their slate -er, endorsements - has to come up with.

If a person can only sign a single nominating petition then that doesn't give groups a huge advantage. Each candidate has to find 75 people - meaning a slate of 5 candidates has to come up with 375 people not 100 - 150 to sign.

Because people have to show up in person to sign the petition - tripling the number of signatures needed appears to further favor behind the scenes groups in Boulder's "no political parties" (sic) council races.

Given the lack of geographic diversity in current city council members (as pointed out elsewhere all but 2 live north of Baseline and Matt Applebaum, who lives in Fraiser Meadows, is the only council member that lives west of 20th st.) this seems intended to further favor group backed city council candidates rather than actual independent candidates.

SmarmyMarm's comment below cleared up the confusion.

"Xcel's regulated profits are based on their capital investment, not their annual revenues. The more they buy, the more they make, which is why their rates have been jumping 10% every 6-12 months. "

This was the key missing bit of info missing from the article.

Ah, thanks that's the missing piece of info linking the numbers that clears up the confusion. Which highlights a big failing of a rate of return business model. There is no incentive to control costs, more of an incentive to inflate them wherever possible to maximize the return.