Posts tagged review
Mountain residents urged to review insurance policies
Jul 16th
Boulder County, Colo. – Recent fires all along the Front Range have served as catastrophic reminders of the need for foothills and mountain dwellers to make sure they are adequately insured before disaster strikes.
Now is a critical time for mountain residents to check their insurance policies and ensure their homes are adequately covered and to take some easy steps to prepare for any disaster.
Foothills United Way and Boulder County are holding two free educational workshops to help residents make sure they are properly insured and to learn how to be prepared for any natural disaster:
- Nederland – Monday, July 23, 7-8:30 p.m.
Nederland Community Center, 750 Highway 72
- Boulder – Tuesday, July 24, 6:30-8 p.m.
Commissioners’ Hearing Room, Boulder County Courthouse, third floor, 1325 Pearl St.
The workshops will cover several topics, including:
- Lessons learned from Fourmile Canyon Fire Survivors
- Tips from United Policyholders’ ‘Roadmap to Preparedness’ Program (www.uphelp.org)
- How to ensure your insurance policy accurately reflects the real cost of rebuilding in the mountains west of Boulder
- Practical ways your family can be prepared in the case of a natural disaster
Often, the cost to rebuild, especially in the mountains, exceeds the amount of coverage policyholders carry for their homes and other property. Adding to this problem is the homeowner’s lack of awareness that the policies they carry are inadequate.
“One of the hard lessons of the Fourmile Canyon Fire was that more than 60 percent of property owners were underinsured,” said Garry Sanfaçon, Boulder County’s Fourmile Fire Recovery Manager. “These workshops will give people the tools they need to make sure they are adequately covered.”
Brigham-Gate and Tom Carr's Past by Rob Smoke: Boulder Colorado
May 18th
Boulder’s City Attorney Tom Carr professes Seth Brigham a growing menace, progressing daily closer to violence against the Boulder city council. It’s an entertaining notion — Seth kidnapping council and turning them into his personal slaves would make a great horror-flick — however it is crap.
Interesting that Brigham-gate should touch on that issue of unpredictable violence, when the most discussed issue of Tom’s 2009 lost Seattle city attorney campaign hinged on the same issue in another context.
During Tom’s tenure as Seattle city attorney, there were extensive “excessive use of force” complaints against the police department of the city of Seattle. Imagine you’re the mom of a developmentally disabled
teenager who gets his face smashed by a Seattle police officer — an officer who had done something similar
on other occasions, but was still on the force because of corrupt internal review. Let’s be clear: Under
Tom Carr there were 400 back-to-back-to-back non-disciplined “excessive use of force” cases.
In other words, the officer was not held accountable with removal or suspension of his job — and in many cases, where an adjunct review board did recommend to Tom that he take disciplinary action, which Tom was actually
responsible for doing, he did nothing.
The Federal Justice Dept. came in, and the Deputy Attorney General of the Human Rights Division, Thomas Perez, cited the entire oversight process as broken. In point of fact, he could have cited Tom Carr, but instead cited everyone including Tom. It was, however, up to Tom to act if others wouldn’t — or at the very minimum,
act more appropriately on a case by case basis with victims of brutality. Google “Seattle police brutality”.
In other videotaped cases, an innocent hispanic man is kicked in the head by an officer while lying on the ground.
In another case, a pregnant woman was tasered multiple times by three officers and Tom appealed a Federal judge’s
ruling to allow the woman to move forward with a civil claim for damages.
Tom did not lose the 2009 Seattle city attorney’s race to a relative newcomer
by some weird accident, or, as he claims, because it was a “bad year for incumbents.”
No, he lost the race in an absolute landslide because people were sick to death of seeing reports about police brutality and suffering victims. Jon Kita, an asian restaurant owner, interviewed in the Seattle press about the videotaped “excessive use of force” assault he endured, put it this way, “How is it possible to get to 400 cases in a row with no discipline?”
Indeed, how is it possible? It must be noted, Tom absolutely oversaw the contracts for
civil claims defense of police officers alleged to have harmed people. During Tom’s tenure, the bill added up
to over $18 million dollars, which all went to one law firm which Tom helped choose. If at any time during those
400 non-disciplined cases there was a turnaround towards implementation of discipline, that would have caused the costs for handling those cases — the billings — to nosedive. Tom prevented that from happening. By the way, Tom’s replacement in Seattle, made it a first order of business to dissolve that highly questionable contract — and guess what? The firm itself has since dissolved.
The question remains, at what point in time did Tom become aware that the city of Seattle was receiving bad publicity for its brutality problems? Was it a year before the election? Could Tom have a rational understanding that he would lose — that in fact, the other side could nominate a doorknob, and he’d probably lose? In other words, what was the nature of Tom’s commitment to having this highly-paid bunch of lawyers defend brutal officers? Did Tom somehow feel that his own personal sense of justice and duty serving the city of Seattle was more significant than the information he was getting from the ever-growing list of injured residents seeking bare compensation or apology for their suffering?
Or did someone pay him to take his election loss with a smile and the “it was a bad year for incumbents” remark?
And how did the city of Boulder manage to hire him, at a pay increase of about $50k per year, without ever discussing
the 2-to-1 margin of loss in the 2009 election, and the brutality issues which always went unresolved and which were
lead stories in the local news, time and again — the hallmark of his term as city attorney?
Rob Smoke is a columnist for Boulder Channel 1. He writes about city of Boulder Politics
Boulder sheriff wants a fireworks ban in county
May 17th
Public invited to comment at hearing scheduled for May 22 at 9:30 a.m.
Boulder County, Colo. – The Boulder County Commissioners will review recommended modifications to the county’s existing ordinance restricting open fires on “red flag” days at a public hearing on Tuesday.
The Boulder County Sheriff’s Office is recommending that the current ordinance be repealed and replaced with an updated policy that requires permitting for non-agricultural burns and further restricts open burning where the danger of forest or grass fires is found to be high. The new ordinance will address identification of red flag warning days, notification regarding open burning, and penalties for violating statute, ordinance, and requirements of the open burn permit system or the notification system.
“A relatively new state law requires counties to develop a permit system this year, for property owners wanting to burn slash and conduct open burning,” Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle said. “The Sheriff’s Office has been working closely with the Department of Public Health to develop a ‘one stop’ permit process which incorporates both the requirements of the state regarding air quality, and our needs regarding safety.”
Part of the plan includes educational and training materials for the individuals seeking permits. It is being developed to be administered online. These proposed new permit requirements do not apply to agricultural burning. They would primarily affect people in unincorporated Boulder County wanting to burn slash piles.
Also to be considered is the recommendation that fire restrictions go into effect under an expanded list of circumstances that contribute to high fire danger, such as during High Wind Advisories. Currently the ordinance only specifies that all open burning, including agricultural burning, be prohibited when the National Weather Service issues a “Red Flag Warning” for fire danger.
“We have found that fires continue to grow out of control on days when the county is under a High Wind Watch or Advisory, and that common sense sometimes does not prevail when deciding whether or not to burn on windy days,” added Pelle. “We wish to include those windy weather conditions under the proposed new ordinance, as times when open burning would be illegal.”
Members of the public are invited to review the draft ordinance online and provide comments in writing or in person at the hearing.
The first reading for the ordinance will be held:
When: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 22
What: Public hearing on an ordinance establishing an open burn permit system, notification process of open burns, and restrictions during red flag days, high wind watch days and high wind warning days
Where: Boulder County Courthouse, 3rd Floor, Commissioners’ Hearing Room, 1325 Pearl Street, Boulder
The hearing can be viewed online at: www.bouldercounty.org/stream.
A copy of the draft ordinance is available at: www.bouldercounty.org (search by keyword “ordinances.”)
On a related note, the Sheriff’s Office will be presenting an amendment to the fire ban currently in effect for the mountain areas of Boulder County at the Commissioners’ next business meeting. The proposed amendment will include a provision to extend the ban on the sale and use of fireworks to all of unincorporated Boulder County. The public is invited to attend and comment on the proposed changes at 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 22 in the Commissioners’ Hearing Room.