Thread by @shayshinecastle

Moving on to our public hearings for all the citizen petitions that will be on your ballot. Here is the language for those: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

You can learn a bit more about them here: boulderbeat.news/2021/06/18/bed…

And here: boulderbeat.news/2021/07/17/cit…

Sandra Llanes, city attorney, explaining why Bob Yates and Junie Joseph — who recused themselves from the CU South annexation vote — don't have to sit this one out. boulderbeat.news/2021/08/10/two…

Basically, bc these petitions are going to the ballot no matter what. Council has nothing to do with it. Though they could simply adopt these measures and avoid a public vote — 0% chance they will do that.

They also could make changes (if the campaigns agree, which is again unlikely) or put their own competing version on the ballot, which they've said they won't do.

The big ask from the CU South petition group is to not do annexation until after the election — because if this measure passes, it will substitute new terms that CU will have to agree to.

Council likely to reject that argument, as we saw with the 6-1 first reading vote (Nagle dissenting). They want to get flood control done and, they note, annexation is not done by election: It's an agreement between the gov't and a private landowner. (CU, in this case)

Note: Annexations by election *are* a thing, but not general election. The election is of the ppl living in the area to be annexed. Like if Gunbarrel wanted to annex, they would put it to a vote for all the residents of Gunbarrel only.

Gary Urling arguing that all city council but one member should recuse themselves from the annexation vote.

A 2021 annexation has been the plan for the last couple years. When the city was planning the public engagement process, they specifically went with 2021 instead of 2020 to allow for the full, usual engagement schedule.

That became more hyper focused after Boulder approved floot mitigation plans in mid-2020. boulderbeat.news/2020/06/12/bou…

LOL flood protection.

Though we could probably use protecting from floot, too, whatever it is. Sounds dangerous.

I have decided Floot = what floats during a flood (like flotsam and jetsam but specific to floodwaters)

Steven Tellen asking that Boulder write into its annexation agreement that it will not be effective until after the November election.

Wallach: I assume that not putting this on the ballot is not an option?
Correct, Luis Toro says. You're really just approving the ballot title.

Brockett: Council members whose homes benefit from flood protection don't have to recuse themselves, do they?
No, Toro says. It's a benefit that the general public is getting as well. Not something above and beyond that; there's no conflict.

Weaver: There were many things asserted in the testimony that don't have to do with tonight's decision. We're just approving the ballot language.

Nagle makes the motion to put this on the ballot.

"I think this is incredibly important," she says. "I support putting all three petitions on this ballot bc they got the required signatures and this is the democratic process. The work has been done, the signatures have been gathered."

Wallach seconds and echoes Nagle. "I'm not going to speak to the substance of it."

Unanimous vote puts that one on the ballot. Well, sets the language.

Next up: Bedrooms Are For People.

Quite a few more speakers for this public hearing: 57 people(!) compared to 11 for the last one. This will take a while.

Weaver reminding speakers that council "has very little choice in the matter to put this on the ballot or not. You all may speak as much as you like" but we're not addressing substance.

Neese Schnepf, volunteer with BAFP and Out Boulder County, reminding council that Out endorsed this ballot measure, its first ever endorsement, Schnepf says.

LGBTQ folks more likely to face housing challenges and to be homeless than the general population.

"Having a rainbow flag isn't enough. Please join Out Boulder County in taking a real stand" for queer and trans residents, Schnepf says.

Fiona Pigott bought her house with a friend and has two roommates. It's a 6BR. None of her neighbors have a problem with their house; it's the students they have issues with.

"People admit they want occupancy limits so they can evict neighbors they don't like."

They look the other way when people they know are breaking the rules, Pigott says.

Knew I'd find this story about Pigott! Wrote it for the 2019 Community Foundation TRENDS report: commfound.org/blog/buy-house…

First reference to Buddhism of the night! (and in fact in the last several months)

Blake Stone: I do not wish to be married or have children. I am not an investor. I do not have family here. I am queer; I have a chosen, function family.

"Whether you respect (that) or not, that is how I've been living for the last 17 years," Stone says. That means I've been living illegally. It is very stressful, hard to sum up the impacts in just a few minutes.

LOL. Should Bedrooms fail, Stone says, I will run for the state legislature and sponsor a bill banning occupancy limits.

Maria Colvin: "What possible biz is it of the city council whether the ppl I choose to live with are related to me? It seems intrusive."

Macon Cowles saying his son (or maybe just a younger person he knows? missed that) has been evicted 3X due to occupancy limits in Boulder.

I like when speakers explain the rule to council, as if they don't know. (I mean, sometimes they don't, but I think in this case, it's pretty clear.)

We're at speaker 30-something and our first opponent! Joy Rohde, who worries that this will push for-sale home prices out of reach of of lower- and middle-income buyers.

Boulder's current median home price: $1.35M dailycamera.com/2021/08/16/hom…

Opponent No. 2 Ray Bambha making the same point.

Opponent No. 3: Lisa Nelson, too. The theory being that investors will buy up homes and convert them to student rentals, raising prices.

Adalyn Fyhrie: I lived over-occupied for 5 years, with other CU grad students.

That's a point on the pro side: Ppl are already living this way, subject to eviction. Legalizing it will mean they no longer would be subject to eviction.

Ana Fernandez Frank is here on behalf of EFAA, which assists low-income families with children, supporting this.

Lots of calls to "decriminalize" occupancy. I get what they're saying but legalize is not the same thing as decriminalizing. You can be evicted for it (not good) but that's not the same thing as being prosecuted for a crime.

Opponent No. 4 (we're at speaker 40-something) Lisa Spalding

Ora Goldman converted her single-family home into a co-op for activists. Cool!

We are done with that public hearing. Brockett moves to put Bedrooms on the ballot as-is.

"This is a required action on our part, but I do thank everyone for their moving testimony," he says.

Wallach seconds. No other comments, and everyone votes for the ballot language.

Last petition: Fur-Free Boulder. I believe this will be on the ballot as the Humane Clothing Act. It will ban the sale or manufacture of new fur products.

The campaign claims no biz in Boulder are doing this anyway. While there are no co. whose primary biz is fur, but I believe a couple still sell some fur products, like on shoes and stuff (working to confirm).

Also a ton of exemptions, for leather and used fur (at thrift stores, vintage, etc.) and a few other things that I can't remember. Except for dog and cat fur, bc apparently ppl like to make sweaters or blankets out of that...

By like collecting the old hair/fur, I believe. Lord knows I had enough when Sydney was alive. Could have outfitted a village. RIP, you fuzzy beast.

Eva Hamer: Animals do feel. They are capable of all the same emotions that we do, and are just like us in every way that matters. Boulder is a city of animal lovers; they don't deserve to die for such an unnecessary reason as fur.

Campaign behind this is asking for a small word-change, which is to add the word "animal" to the text to clarify that this applies to animal fur.

(As opposed to... human fur? Douglas Fir?)

Council will have to do that and then pass this on emergency (6 votes). They might, since it's such a small change.

Friend: Will there be any biz impacted by this law?

Holding off on that answer for now, Toro explaining why it's difficult to make changes to the ballot language. "It should have been brought forward earlier."

Apparently they would have to have another hearing if they make changes, and there's no time bc ballot language has to be finalized.

Nagle: "I would personally pass this into law. I don't care if it would affect every business." Fur farming is cruel and needs to stop.

Young makes a motion; Nagle seconds.

Joseph: If we don't specify animal fur products, are there other types of fur products we would be referring to?
Toro: No, and the rest of the language is really clear about what's exempted and not.

Just remembered another exemption! For indigenous peoples.

Weaver can't resist a lecture to campaign organizers in needed some tweaks to the language. That should be vetted before it gets to this point, he says.

Everyone votes for it, so it goes forth as-is. Look for that on your ballot and my story about it soon-ish.

The other 2 petitions are taking me a bit of time, as they require a lot of research.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!