Steve Pomerance

1 week ago | dailycamera.com | Steve Pomerance

Flooding in Boulder will get worse as climate change increases storm intensity and frequency. Thus, making good decisions about flood protection is critical; they should be based on facts, not speculation or defensiveness about past decisions. The assertion being made that the dam and floodwall currently proposed for South Boulder Creek will be “lifesaving” is a good sound bite.

3 weeks ago | dailycamera.com | Steve Pomerance

A few weeks ago, the council authorized “by emergency” a $66 million dollar bond issue to cover (some of) the remaining costs of its attempts to protect downstream properties when South Boulder Creek floods again. SBC has had major floods in the past, including in 1893, 1934 and 1969. The City has a map of what buildings would and would not be “protected” by the proposed Phase 1 dam from a “100-year” flood.

1 month ago | dailycamera.com | Steve Pomerance

In my last column, I provided some information that was inaccurate. Unfortunately, the real information is worse. I had said that the proposed South Boulder Creek dam along U.S. 36 and Table Mesa Drive would “protect” around 600 structures for a cost of around $90 million. The 1/25/24 council memo states that 600 structures are in that floodplain and that the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project will protect only 260 of them from a 100-year flood.

1 month ago | dailycamera.com | Steve Pomerance

In my observations around town, I almost never see people pushing carts or carrying bags from supermarkets back to neighboring residential areas. Students are the only group that seems to consistently walk, like from New Vista or Fairview to nearby shopping hubs. Plus, we now have delivery services, online shopping, etc., all of which make the “15-minute neighborhood” concept even more irrelevant. Subscribe to continue reading this article.

2 months ago | dailycamera.com | Steve Pomerance

Earlier this year, the February 6 city council agenda provided notice for Boulder’s first executive session with the opaque explanation: “pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) for conference with attorneys for the City for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions regarding meeting management and the First Amendment.” This behind-closed-door session was actually about how the council was finally going to wrest control of its meetings back from the protesters, after a...