SECONDS COUNT! Disputes Traffic Circle Results

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

Contacts:

Warren Hultquist (303) 541-0151

David Wagner (303 440-1005

SECONDS COUNT! DISPUTES TRAFFIC CIRCLE RESULTS

Boulder, CO––August 8, 2000––Numerous mistakes, inconsistencies, and biased procedures cast serious doubt on opinion polls conducted recently by the City of Boulder to gauge neighborhood acceptance of permanent traffic circles on Pine Street and Balsam Avenue.  Discovered during an audit of polling forms returned to the city clerk’s office, these irregularities were so pervasive, they could easily reverse the conclusion announced by the city that affected neighborhoods support the traffic devices.  At the very least, they show procedures were flawed badly enough to invalidate the polls as a credible element of informed public policy-making.

The polls stem from direction given by Boulder’s City Council on April 4, 2000 that 60 percent neighborhood approval be obtained via balloting prior to permanent installation of any traffic mitigation devices, including at the experimental locations on Pine and Balsam.  Council instructed the city manager to consult with the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) on development of balloting procedures and to obtain a favorable recommendation from TAB prior to presenting the procedures to Council for approval.

Instead of following Council’s direction, the city manager’s transportation staff relied on earlier, preliminary discussions of TAB to craft a procedure for the Pine and Balsam projects, not for the mandated approval balloting, but for a non-binding opinion poll.  Staff told Council it had consulted TAB and obtained a favorable recommendation.  But in actual fact, TAB neither made a favorable recommendation nor included the topic on its agenda for public hearing, as would have been required by law prior to rendering any recommendation.

Staff’s polling procedure allotted one vote to each property owner and one vote to each dwelling unit within districts 400 feet either side of a proposed traffic device on the primary street and within one block on side streets.  These tiny districts ensured that citizens “downstream” of the proposed traffic devices, whose emergency service would be degraded, could not oppose the installations.  Likewise, residents of parallel streets, to which traffic has been diverted by experimental traffic circles, were excluded.

SECONDS COUNT!, the group backing a citizens’ initiative to remove traffic devices that delay emergency response, questioned the restrictive areas and uncontrolled nature of the polls before they commenced, but City Council accepted the staff approach even though it did not meet Council’s own requirements.  Unfortunately, the worst fears of the SECONDS COUNT! organization proved true when the group audited the polling forms on August 7, 2000. Examples of problems discovered include the following:

• Although Council formally directed that 60 percent neighborhood approval be obtained, response rates were so low that actual approval ranges only from 25 to 49 percent in the various districts.

• The city cannot verify whether people voting as tenants actually live at the eligible property.  (This situation occurs for 27 percent of all favorable responses.)

• Most resident owners opposing the traffic circles, who were entitled to two votes, were credited with only one. However, respondents voting in favor of the circles were credited for two votes under identical circumstances.

• Ballots postmarked before the deadline of July 26, 2000 were not opened or counted.

• Votes for the circles were counted from ballots missing the required signature.

• Votes for the circles were improperly counted from more than one person claiming to be the tenant of a property, from two people asserting non-resident ownership of a property, and from persons claiming ownership who are not the registered owners.

• Commercial owners voting against the circles were not credited as tenants of their own buildings.

• Extra ballots were sent to some addresses.

• Favorable votes were counted from addresses not on the city’s list of eligible properties.

• Three favorable votes were counted from a single, non-owner tenant.

• One church was allowed to cast both owner and tenant votes in favor of circles for three rental properties it owns.

• Votes against the circles by another church for rental properties it owns were not counted.  For other properties owned by that church, only the owner’s vote was counted.

• A vote against circles by one owner was not recorded as being received, despite being stamped by the clerk’s office.

• Some resident owners returned multiple ballots, though records do not explain how they obtained them.  This situation recurred many times for favorable votes, but only once for votes against the circles.

• Result tabulations were witnessed by known supporters of the proposed traffic circles, while opponents were not notified of the counting session.

In each of the four districts, the suspect ballots are more than numerous enough to potentially reverse the results.  SECONDS COUNT! Issues Director, David Wagner, said “I thought we might find one or two dubious interpretations.  But the undisguised biases and outright miscountings were bsolutely astonishing. I literally couldn’t believe what I was seeing.  We thought it was bad enough when the districts were defined to exclude everyone impacted by emergency response delays and traffic diversion.  But even the rigged process was abused to produce the desired result.  This is a perfect example of why the SECONDS COUNT! initiative is needed to protect our safety.”

Warren Hultquist, Chairman of SECONDS COUNT!, also expressed his concern, saying “The history of traffic mitigation in Boulder is one of misrepresentation and disregard for public opinion and objective facts.  Supporters of dangerous traffic mitigation have resisted any democratic approval process for years, and now they’ve manipulated and corrupted this one.  My biggest concern, though, is that we would let just a handful of people who live close to fire stations and have acceptable emergency response endanger thousands downstream who already get substandard service, but get no say in the matter.”

The staff’s conclusions will be presented to TAB on August 14, 2000 with a recommendation to build permanent traffic circles at the four affected locations.  Staff earlier announced its intention to propose constructing the circles immediately, even though opinion surveys suggest the SECONDS COUNT! measure will pass in November and they will have to be removed.  SECONDS COUNT! supporters will present their audit findings to TAB and urge the board to vote against the permanent traffic circles.  SECONDS COUNT! will also present information on the balloting flaws to City Council on August 15, 2000.  Council must give final approval before permanent traffic circles can be constructed.

SECONDS COUNT! is a November 2000 ballot initiative by Boulder, Colorado citizens to prohibit traffic devices that delay emergency response.  SECONDS COUNT! is online at http://www.secondscount.org.

# # #