Bingo. Hopefully, they won't roll over and let the kids win again.

Um...no. Most reasonable (meaning conservative) American Christians know that, other than basic respectful everyday tasks like not littering, it's God's job to take care of the planet. It's our job to take care of our lives. But I'm sure God gets a hearty laugh out of the idea that presumptuous humans think they can "save" the planet, when in reality, it's a good day when the terminally self-deluded, pompous and arrogant can successfully tie their shoes.

The message: No more Democrat-lite. As in a government shutdown because of a refusal to fund that house of horrors known as Planned Parenthood- and then blaming Republican conservatives for the same. It's the progressive way you know- no wonder Hollywood keeps on remaking Peter Pan. They should concentrate on The Exorcist instead.

This entire matter gets more curious all the time. On the one hand the idea of limiting growth makes perfect sense- not everyone can live in one's house- or community. But it would appear the devil is in the details.

Limiting growth, to ordinary and reasonable people, means limiting the number of creation of NEW HOUSEHOLDS, which put a burden on the services and quality of life in the Boulder community. Amen. However, "limiting growth" to many, if not most, of the proponents of these amendments seems to mean also maintaining, if not increasing, the choke-hold rules, regulations, intrusions and costs which are imposed on EXISTING households and citizens as well- via the endless machinations of progressive socialists and busybodies. Well screw that. We are still entitled to personal property rights and ordinary freedoms. This is still America, and despite the best efforts of those who have invaded and now dominate here, this is still Boulder- a community founded and built by conservative Christian people, upon those very principles. If people genuinely want historic preservation here- they have to accept that that is the deal. But of course, most of these amendment loveing interlopers don't really want that- always the form without the substance, with these folks. They don't have to embrace Boulder's founding principles, of course, but if they object to them, then these transplants, primarily progressive urban elites, are no better than the "profiteering developers" who they seek to limit, while claiming that they are destroying life here. Pot meet kettle.

Therein lies the problem. The vast majority of people who are most vocal about these amendments, seemingly are not from Boulder- not a requirement of course- but as ungrateful and disrespectful transplants, refuse to accept the fact that they have been as big a curse to this community as those who they are seeking to prevent moving or developing here. Many of them have brought nothing but rules, regulations, costs, controls, and an absolutely foreign "value system" to this community. They are so arrogant that they think the history of Boulder began with their arrival in this once relatively normal western town, and with their own little self-absorbed "special" way of life. But the record of Boulder is in the newspapers over the last few decades. And in the structures which are evident everywhere- all the large churches throughout the city, especially right in the center of town, the ordinary homes in Martin Acres and Tables Mesa, the coveted old structures which were built without process or permits, etc.. Do these things sound like the current bunch of rotten transplants who now are seeking to shut the gate behind them, but also to keep on ever intruding into the lives of ordinary citizens with their reprehensible socialism and other liberal dreck?

Nowhere is the effect of the invasion of those who are now protesting the invasion of others, more profound than in Unincorporated Boulder County- the virtual last bastion of normal western life in Boulder County. Notice that almost all of the amendment proponents, utter not a peep about the impact of their own "growth", and the regulations and costs upon UBC residents, and our property and our freedoms as a result. Instead City of Boulder residents natter on about "their" open space- which of course exists in "our" UBC "neighborhood". They seem to have no concern, as when they moved to the City of Boulder and destroyed a way of life there, about moving their own "growth"- meaning activities, controls, nuisance, etc. out into UBC, without batting an eyelash. Now limiting the number of households in the City of Boulder can only benefit our way of life in UBC impactwise- but only if urbanites intend to leave us alone otherwise. That doesn't appear likely. These transplants will whine and moan about growth and impact only long enough to achieve their selfish desires and then likely go back to screwing the rural neighbors with their own stuff. If that be the intent, then please do what is really right to preserve Boulder- find a community- or state- or country, for that matter, which really can appreciate all that you have to offer.

Honestly lady- did you even read what I said before you began your reply?

Let me try again. Look, there is no invention of man which can't be abused- a knife, a gun, desserts,.... capitalism. The lesson which history teaches over and over and over again, is that the solution is NOT giving over wholesale the fundamental implements which generally benefit mankind to the government- which never has the continuing motivation or an appropriate engine to drive anything well- only the bus into the ground- while those at the helm live endlessly well, and generally without consequence, of course. Government may be a necessary evil- but it is to be minimized at all costs, in favor of personal freedom. For all the talk of the founders these days- that is one thing which the founders clearly understood. Also clearl, however, is that does not stop secular progressive boobs from continuing to pursue an alternative socialist route whenever possible. Ever convinced of their own "special wisdom", and that the only reason some form of socialism hasn't worked yet is that the "right" people haven't tried it yet- you end up with the always predictable assortment of leftists whose mission in life apparently is to collect power, produce little, and above all, while visiting and spreading misery, rule over the masses in some fashion knowing what's "best for us" and for our proclaimed own good.

Ordinary and reasonable people understand reasonable restraint on anything. Liberals do not- they always view the same as a vast opportunity of which to take advantage under the guise of reasonable restraint. That's why our current president is just thrilled to death over the pronouncements of our Papal visitor. When capitalism is abused, it is overwhelmingly because of the failure of the human heart- aka the same mindset which drives the secular progressive and results in basic failures of right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral. Given his job title, it is the failure to have the presence of Christ in the hearts of corrupt men and women which the Pope should be addressing in his area of expertise, as the problem- NOT capitalism per se as the problem, along with its attendant private property, liberty, and self-interest which allow the creation of wealth for which men and women of actual integrity may treat others right and might have the means with which to share with the less fortunate. As they see fit- whether by themselves, or within business organizations. Not as the result of always doomed to fail socialism.

I hope this helps.

"Slighted by PUC staff, Boulder offers to be more flexible with municipal utility"

Why is it the City of Boulder always reminds me of Smeagol in Lord of the Rings?

Great. Another fungible "professor emeritus", ready to defend that which time and again, proves that it never works. The socialist paradigm in one form or another- this particular version apparently rooted in the well meaning, but misguided musings of a perceived left-leaning Pope. And Oh! what a vehicle such ruminations provide for our progressive friends.

When one cuts through all the verbiage which Mr. Sawyer puts forth, it would be a lot more useful for said learned one to simply review the basic principle which the early settlers learned at Jamestown- once they decided to quit the socialist model and embrace the seed of private property and self interest. It was the difference between "the starving times" (or something like that) and survival and relative prosperity. The pursuit of self interest ever seems somehow "evil" to the terminally confused- who seemingly include our Mr. Sawyer. As if that somehow inherently negates charity towards others- something which is separate and apart from capitalism itself. If one can't enrich one's self, just how are they supposed to help others, Mr. Sawyer? Relative socialists never seem to embrace this fundamental concept- certainly by the correct means of moral and spiritual integrity- except by means of government, of course. Hence, the travesties of history. Nevertheless, the cornerstone of capitalism has sustained a nation, and made it model of liberty and well being for our American populace. And it is part and parcel of why people have been dying to get into this country since its foundation- and dying to get out of other nations which embrace in one form or another, the apparent philosophy of this Pope, our President, and our apparently ever-learning, left-leaning, Mr. Sawyer. It seemingly never occurs to him that much of the abuse of capitalism, comes at the behest of the control of those who seek its eventual demise. The fact that capitalism can suffer from abuse, as with the rest of the human condition, does not detract that the alternative leads to spiritual, legal, moral, and financial enslavement. And always failure.

But since this version 1.0 of socialist anti-capitalist lite comes attached to the Pope, Mr. Sawyer- and the Pope- since they apparently wish to participate in the Biblical arena with the subject of capitalism, would be far better off familiarizing themselves, rather than with George Will, instead with the Bible lesson of Ananias and Sapphira:

"Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? ”

As told at the beginning of Acts chapter 5 Ananias and Sapphira sold their land but secretly withheld a portion of the proceeds. Then they decided to lie to God about keeping the dough- as if they had kept ALL of their proceeds, it would have somehow been a sin. Clearly, not. No, their apparent misdeed was not capitalism. Apparently, they paid an unfortunate price for that.

Liberty, private property- meaning capitalism- is a bedrock principle for the well being of humanity Mr. Sawyer. It's as good as it's ever going to get, as a system benefitting humanity, while we are here on earth. The restraint on abuse of that system will come effectively, not from a bunch socialists and academics, nor even well meaning, but fallible church leaders, but from a right relationship of the human soul- something which secular humanism will always inherently pervert and destroy. That is never going to change Mr. Sawyer. despite your apparent desire to deride those have embraced it, and despite our capitalist system having allowed you to presumably live rather comfortably while producing apparently little of economic value. More power to you, I guess.

But now, instead of studying and "teaching" for years on end dear "professor emeritus"- why not instead, actually go and learn something.

Or how about this- why not strictly require that sexuality, whatever it might be, be kept to one's self while engaged in the academic process. Including graduation speeches. Thus eliminating the need for "climate surveys" and a bunch of other social engineering junk, which have no bearing on traditional academic pursuits. Of course, that would also eliminate the need for progressive busybodies and endless intrusion and oversight into the lives of others and their children in our society.

"Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

-John Jay- First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court
Letter to John Murray (12 October 1816) as published in The Life of John Jay (1833) by William Jay, Vol. 2, p. 376

Yes, Ms. Parker- we do have an idiocy problem in this country. Much of it resides in the journalistic community. You are correct about the religious test aspect of our Constitution. So what? That has nothing to do with the comments of Trump or Carson- whose remarks reflect the views of normal thinking Americans who are aware of our heritage, of what is going on in the world, and what prudence for our traditional way of life would most likely require. It's possible, of course, for a Muslim to legally be our President- but it is also unlikely that if he/she were to substantially adhere to its teachings, that there would be harmony with our Constitution, our laws, our culture, and our way of life.

Your professed fear is of ignoramuses Ms. Parker?

I wouldn't look too closely in the mirror.

Genuine neighborhood nuisance is a legitimate concern. However, reading your comment, with all of its hyperbole, then citing Ron Stewart as justification, pretty much tells us all we need to know. Just another Boulder busybody progressive, ready to tell normal Unincorporated Boulder County residents how to live.

CHR has 50 acres. They should be allowed to build what they want. Why is that Boulder County's business- or yours Ms Clements? It is highly unlikely that CHR desires to "drive wildlife away" or wants to "kill them"- although that may be necessary. They much more likely are dealing with pest control. If only there was an effective pest control for Boulder progressives. The real disruption to life in Boulder County is more apt to be obnoxious likely transplants such as yourself who move here and drive away people who engage in a normal western rural way of life. If you want to "preserve the prairie dogs, Kay- YOU take them. Or else, perhaps you can buy the CHR property and preserve the rodents at your own pleasure and expense. Otherwise, mind your own business and find something useful to do with your life.

Now as for YOUR property Ms. Clements....we have some concerns....