http://www.munibondadvisor.com/SaleChoice.htm

Stay with me just one moment: Two years ago, Macon Cowles made a stern announcement which he also presented in an op-ed piece -- he wanted to see the City borrow funds for its utility purchase via a "negotiated bid" issuance, which he claimed was important because it would allow more local investors to pick up the bonds. Well...if you click the link above, you can see immediately that "negotiated bid" sales do not qualify when a City has good credit, and Boulder has very good credit. A study was done across thousands of municipal bond issues, and negotiated bid sales outperform for their issuers only a fraction of one-percent of the time. In other words...Cowles was advocating (without saying as much) for a bond sale that would likely be several million dollars above what it should be cost-wise to the City. When I checked in with the City about it, no one had data to back up Cowles' assertions. The financial guy for the City, who has since retired, told me that the negotiated bid aspect fell under the general heading of "best practices", which the City had researched. Meanwhile, negotiated bid sales also allow for a channeling of funds through one underwriter, who is deciding on a non-indexed rate and is in control of the amount they make on the sale. There are other aspects that are questionable, but it was in fact a negotiated bid sale in Florida that led to the conviction of a council member there who did -- only what Cowles has been doing -- providing direction towards the implementation of a negotiated bid sale of bonds. Seriously...when you hear Cowles or another council member voice sentiments on a topic where the big underlying issue is ...money...do you sincerely believe their comments are purely from an unbiased analytic view? Or is there something else going on?

You can gin up hatred for the homeless, but I doubt very much that the stat you made up has any sort of metric validity at all. Additionally, there are many homeless people who do not panhandle, and if one (or both) of these two poor souls was a panhandler, what of it? It seems very unlikely that the willingness of people to help those in need equals creating the circumstances for their death -- and yes, I respect the fact that you are entitled to believe something as stupid as that.

Good letter. Walk the Hill on a Saturday night and it's not the "over-occupied" co-ops that are launching beer bottles off of terraces, or throwing up in bushes -- it's people who rent $1,800 two-bedroom "student" condos. Major apologies for inserting some tiny bit of truth into the comment forum.

... it's as if the city council were all smoking some incredibly bad weed

I like that --- or maybe "drug rehab" credits? Buy me weed and I'll give you permission to keep smoking crack --

Ahead of the curve, but behind the Obama administration? Tell me how that works, Matt:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/homeless-crim...

The study does not examine the opportunity costs of other paths to lowering CO2 consumption. For instance: How would you rate a systemic change that would allow Boulder to partner on a solar energy project that sells its product over Xcel's equipment? Joe and Macon and the "Empower" gang do not even rate this as doable, even though the necessary legislative input would represent a fairly minor change that has been popular in other states and nations. Once Boulder becomes the new "local power monopoly", it will have even less incentive to allow decentralized solar or alt-source production. Meanwhile...Macon Cowles still wants to do a "negotiated bid" of City bonds...which is cited by mainstream sources in the municipal bond arena as a complete waste of money for cities that have good credit. Boulder has excellent credit, but still wants to pay extra for the negotiated bonds -- narrowing the flow chart for the money and increasing the odds that a corrupt deal can occur. People tend to ignore these details, but they're actually pretty significant, as the people who are guiding the "creation" of the utility are also deeply involved in the financial details.

Trolls contradict themselves constantly.

Couple of things wrong here -- one of them is putting this quote at the end: "If you're above tree line, there's nothing to do." First of all, if you can get a little below tree line, to a spot where there's -- say -- a small grove of aspens -- you're in much better shape -- but also, if you are above tree line, you can get on the ground and sit on your butt and wrapping your arms around your knees, lift your feet off the ground. Believe it or not, that reduces your exposure. This is pretty standard advice -- if you're writing about lightning strikes, why not include it?

First off, if the City had even reasonably good intentions, it could have revealed that it planned substantial increased rates over the first 3 years. If they had revealed the info that eventually was revealed due to the pressure applied, it's quite likely that people would have voted "no" by at least a few hundred votes -- maybe more -- such info would have been a negative selling point that would most likely have been noticed. It also contrasts starkly with the notion of "starting out at the same rate" -- which was used as a selling point.

There are several holes in the City's plan -- several drawback. If the City had good intentions, it would squarely address those issues -- but instead, Heather Bailey's guest op made statements about whether or not we really want the opportunity to confront global warming -- as if that opportunity was trashed if we don't all follow along.

The underlying question is whether the City is acting in good faith -- bumbling through difficult issues and questions and answers -- or whether they know they don't have good answers to the questions raised -- by myself, by people like Pat and Steve and the others who simply get rebuked for asking meaningful questions. I think at this point we are clearly in the "bad faith" territory. Critics can take a hike -- the City seeks conversation only with those who "love Boulder" enough to agree with them.

Not good circumstances at all.