Our View - Tuesday

‘DILAPIDATION' LANDLORD FREE
City's claim against Bruce pure harassment

It's too bad State Rep. Douglas Bruce sold his two fourplexes that were at the center of a dispute with the city. Because they've been sold, Colorado Springs officials have dropped their case against Bruce.

Bruce comes under unusual scrutiny at the state and local level, mostly because he authored the ingenious Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which protects citizens from whimsical governmental spending, debt and tax increases. Politicians and bureaucrats at all levels of government typically don't like TABOR, because it forces them to ask their constituents for permission to spend and it ratchets down government in relation to inflation. It makes government live like taxpayers do, within the boundaries of economic reality.

Bitter about governing with reasonable restraints, some politicians and bureaucrats like to hit Bruce with petty accusations and fines that seldom make sense. In recent months he has been accused of sexual harassment for apparently smiling at a woman at the state Capitol. He was accused of seeking a pittance of state reimbursement someone balked at, even though he donates all his legislative income. He was fined by his former colleagues on the El Paso County board of commissioners for an unexcused absence of sorts, when they knew full well he would be serving in the Legislature that day.

When Colorado Springs officials slapped him with a charge of owning a dilapidated building, it smacked of harassment. City officials believe they have the authority to force property owners to make improvements or risk losing their properties, based on a 2006 ordinance that ostensibly addresses blight. The new law says a building is "dilapidated" if it's dangerous, boarded up, vacant, tax delinquent, or has received more than three code violations in a year.

Bruce boarded up the buildings at issue on Ruskin Way at the city's insistence before the 2006 ordinance was approved. After they passed the new law, city officials told Bruce to replace the boards with screens "so the police could look inside for loiterers," says a Gazette news article. Bruce appealed the order, arguing that boards do not equal dilapidation.

Of course, he's right. Boarding a window does not make a building dangerous or in a state of decay.

What's most troubling about the city's order for Bruce to remove the boards, however, is the stated reason. They wanted to look inside for loiterers.

What part of "private property" do our city officials fail to understand? What part of privacy do they fail to respect? And what's next? How about an ordinance against curtains and blinds so city officials can look through windows for undesirables?

Doug Bruce has never cared much about being liked, but he isn't running for prom queen. Local and state officials should stop the ad hominem attacks. Still, it's too bad they won't be pressing their case. It would be fun to see city officials defend window peeping in a court of law.

USE LESS, PAY MORE FOR WATER

Colorado Springs Utilities wants to sell less but make the same money.

It goes like this: Utilities officials, concerned about water supplies, asked their customers to use less water and the customers complied. As a result, Utilities sold less and received less money. Now it wants a price increase so revenues will return.

Naturally, people don't like this picture, and some feel betrayed. Though Utilities asked customers to buy less, officials didn't anticipate a massive revenue shortfall. That's because they bet on continued growth in housing starts, which generate hookup fees and more customers buying water.

Turns out, it was a bad bet. The housing market slumped, housing starts stagnated, and Utilities faces a $33 million shortfall.

It's an equation that puts Utilities officials in an unenviable position. They asked customers to consume less, a behavior that ordinary businesses achieve by simply raising prices. A price is nothing but a control valve on the release of goods and services. If a farmer wants to sell fewer rutabagas, he raises the price and the sales decline.

Now, because Utilities officials asked for voluntary rationing, it appears they're in the business of punishing good behavior. You asked us to save, we saved, and now you're raising the price because our cooperation resulted in lower sales.

Before getting too upset, however, consumers should consider the fact that Utilities officials could have simply sought to raise prices in the first place, thus addressing supply concerns with force. Clearly, they were hoping to keep prices low and make up for the revenue loss by spreading the burden to new customers. They didn't ask for the housing slump. Instead of pointing fingers, be thankful they tried.

While water customers need to remain reasonable, however, so do the people who run Colorado Springs Utilities. As pointed out by Mayor Lionel Rivera and City Council members, rate hikes should not occur without internal spending constraints. Rivera suggested pay freezes and reductions in what Utilities spends on corporate sponsorships. Councilman Scott Hente suggested a possible hiring freeze, staff reductions through attrition, bringing some contracted services in-house, a reduction of corporate memberships, debt refinancing, deferred purchases of vehicles and equipment, and a freeze on travel.

All of the above sound like great ideas that should be given serious consideration before rate hikes take effect. The budget problems facing Colorado Springs Utilities relate directly to an economy that's causing hardship for most of the customers who would be asked to pay more for less. It would be unconscionable for Springs Utilities to raise rates without first tightening the agency's own belt.