Term limits: An unnecessary new regulation
I'm urging a "no" vote on the proposal to impose term limits on Boulder City Council members. We already have term limits, and they're called elections. Incumbents normally have advantages in an election, so that's no excuse to create unnecessary regulations. Furthermore, the incumbent advantage hasn't stopped Boulder voters from electing new people to our City Council.
My main objection to term limits is that I want my representatives on City Council to be competent. These people are required to amass huge amounts of knowledge and skill in multiple areas: planning, architecture, social work, energy policy, land use, water management, environmental science, finance and economic development — the list goes on. It takes several years to master all this policy. For three years, I was the board president of an HOA with 160 units. The biggest problem we face with our HOA board is high turnover and lack of experience. New board members with no institutional memory are bound to repeat the same mistakes — they unwittingly choose bad policies. We don't want this happening with the Boulder City Council.
Why is anyone asking for term limits? I'm not party to inside information, but I'm guessing this proposal is a bit of a wolf in sheep's clothing — nothing but an end run around democracy. Perhaps people who object to issues that past city councils have supported think a new council will give them what they want? Maybe they want to allow mountain bikes in open space, squash that pesky municipal electric utility, or give free rein to real estate developers in Boulder? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If that's what you care about, then elect someone who will vote for the policies you want. It's that simple.
Lili Francklyn, Boulder