If the folks that live in the canyon are happy then I'm happy.

I bike that stretch all the time and there is such little traffic that I never felt the need for additional shoulder. Don't have an opinion one way or another about specific improvements.

Unlike a heavily used canyon such as Left Hand, Four Mile is not a through road. Benefit of the doubt about particulars of road work should be given to people who live up there.

Excellent editorial and list of candidates to consider.

Agree 100% that there need to be a few members with real-world business expertise. A corporate CFO would bring a new perspective to council.

The council, the staff, the advisory boards are now dominated by people with backgrounds in non-profit activism. Its great to have a few folks with this experience. But the lack of diversity and intellectual rigor has become stifling.

Of the incumbents Plass and Jones are the worst offenders. I've found Lisa Morzel to be thoughtful and responsive to different points of view. She went along with the Folsom project but quickly realized it was a mistake and proposed to reverse it. Brockett strikes me to be out of the Jones mold: follow the activist trend where ever it leads.

Every candidate on the ballot is in favor of open space, bikes, affordable housing, etc. The biggest differences are around level of real world experience and common sense.

Q: Why do they take so long? Is it too much talking?
A: Yeah! We've got nine people! I try not to say something about every issue.

Thanks George. As much as I complain about council I couldn't muster the patience to sit through these meetings. There are a few members who not only speak on every minor point, they repeat themselves at least once to make sure they were heard.

A properly run meeting could be much shorter. And the council could do less. For example, while the muni thing is going on was it necessary to launch a major remodel of the civic center? It's a great area as it is and even if it needs updating there is no rush.

Council should focus on doing fewer things well. Instead of rubber stamping ill-conceived projects like right sizing. Paid cycling activists, city staff activists, and advisory board activists were able to ram the project through without any real analysis by the city manager or by council.

Actually mayor Matt voted for right sizing. Now he's trying to downplay that.

Lisa Morzel voted yes but once it was deployed she realized the mistake and is seeking to take it out.

Plass and Jones are the main offenders. They've said the want the data collection to continue so the city will do a better job when they take out lanes on Iris.

It is time to scrap the ordinance. The city council talks about "doubling down" on affordable housing. Sharing of the existing housing stock is one of greatest reservoirs of affordability. Not all forms affordability have to be under the thumb of Boulder Housing Partners.

The folks who testified tonight also made compelling case for the communal nature of house sharing. A few years ago council fell all over itself to praise the community benefits of Washington School co-housing. But not all forms of co-housing have to be under the thumb of real estate developers selling "luxury urban residences."

Does the council believe its rhetoric about affordability and community applies broadly? Or does it selectively use this sort of language when it suits their other objectives but then turn their backs on these concepts in order to protect affluent single family homeowners? I was opposed to this ordinance 30 years ago when I was a struggling student and I'm still opposed now that I'm a single family homeowner.

Boulder has a number of 10 story-type buildings and they fit in fine. If BCH wanted to build 100 foot and it results in less sprawl on the rest of the site then why not? It all depends how the building is situated.

There's a difference between plopping a 55+ foot building inside a tightly developed neighborhood and putting 5-10 stories on a large parcel whether BCH or east side of old Pollard area or other spots. The city's 55 ft limit seems to be about right. But we shouldn't reflexively oppose a really tall building if it were done in right way on right spot.

>>Palo Alto has normal bicycle lanes and people use them.

I rode my bike up and down the old Folsom for 15+ years. It was a great street for bikes as well as cars.

Then almost overnight a handful of paid bike activists, inexperienced city staff and like-minded TAB members were able to ram something through before anyone understood the consequences. And once citizens started complaining, People for Bikes and Community Cycles mobilized the troops to flood the zone with warnings of a "shrill" campaign by "selfish" motorists.

Protected bike lanes make perfect sense in the right situation as Denver and many towns have shown. But when you have a city council that doesn't require hard-nosed analysis, then any ill-conceived plan is possible. A few blocks of protected lanes were dropped onto street that was one of the smoothest flowing in Boulder. And the "protection" only last a few blocks before dead ending at Canyon.

The city manager has apologized profusely but that is only because this time she kicked a hornets nest and got caught. Sadly the chummy world of paid activist/staff activist/advisory board activist is how many decisions in Boulder are made these days. There no indication that the city manager or the council see any problem with this.

Fortunately council members like Lisa Morzel quickly realized the mistake and are seeking to roll it back. Others seem to be searching for a face saving exit. But still others (perhaps a majority) seem determined to stay the course and hope things blow over.

If you haven't commented to council then now is the time: council@bouldercolorado.gov.

Boulder voted for Amendment 64 by higher margin than any town in state. Simple premise: treat pot like alcohol. There's no reason to force shops to close at 7pm. Time to scrap all the punitive, complex city regs.

>>Folsom was better and safer for bicyclists the way it was.

I'm not sure I'd say Folsom is more dangerous. But it used to be a really great balance of car and bike access.

The problem with Folsom project is that an abstract concept was dropped into an area where it just doesn't make sense. We get a few blocks of wider bike lane that suddenly dead ends at Canyon.

And now those of us with concerns are being call "vitriolic."

Yet it is PeopleforBikes telling folks to push a button to auto-generate emails to city council to counter the "SHRILL" campaign of selfish motorists.

The city staff worked with like-minded paid "cycling advocates" and like-minded TAB members to force something through before the general public had any idea what was coming.

Then when public complains, Community Cycles has the power to mobilize an 8000 person email list to counter selfish motorists. The backlash against reasonable pubic reaction has approached a scorched earth campaign. Nothing against community cycles, they are a fine organization in terms of their bike shop and donations, etc.

I'm worried about long-term ramifications for Boulder. We have a world class cycling infrastructure that the whole town seems to support. But suddenly the advocacy groups have (without intending it, I'm sure) pitted cyclists against motorists.

The worst part about this "insider consensus" approach is that it lets the city make lazy decisions. There's little need for hard nosed data collection and engineering when the process is fast tracked. It becomes more about ideology and less about methodology.

I bike 2/3 of time in summer and 1/3 in winter. I use Goose Creek bike path and it is the most amazing through way. Not a single light from Broadway to 63rd. But it is lightly used during morning commute in summer. It is practically deserted in winter. That's where the conversation needs to start. We are an affluent town of environmentalists who drive our SUVs to Moab for a weekend of biking. Myself included.

It is interesting that PfB scrubbed their web site of the word "shrill" and the other combative language.

When the goal was to muscle the Folsom project through in conjunction with like-minded city staff and TAB members their web site and emails used the language of battle.

Now that citizens are dealing with the aftermath PfB erased all trace and replaced with a plea for cooperation and patience.