• Holiday Lights Update – the public speaks

    I know I’ve been hitting on this topic quite a bit lately, but with this going on in my back yard I can’t help but comment.  Bethany clued me in on this latest story on the latest developments and the current version of the Holiday Lights policy.  Apparently the policy has evolved to now include input from City Council members, as well as from public input.  In the new policy, the “white lights only” has now expanded to allow colored lights and Christmas tree displays on the outside of buildings.

    Apparently the spokesperson from the task force objects to people outside of the task force offering input. 

    From the Coloradoan:

    “My primary concern is that the (hybrid) recommendation includes aspects that were neither in the original policy nor the task force recommendation,” task force spokesman Seth Anthony said. “I am concerned that some of the things were not thought all the way through and carefully (vetted) like the task force recommendations were.”

    Awwww, is the ACLU guy upset that the public can’t be circumvented in the vocal minority’s attempt to promote their own agenda?

    Anthony, who acknowledged the task force recommendations may not be directly in line with what a majority of the community favors, said the city’s hybrid policy risks being too restrictive, not inclusive, by its wording.

    I do find myself agreeing with Anthony in one part: I think the modified indoor-building policies, which state that only secular decorations may be used is too limiting.  My hope is that at the meeting tonight they’ll defer back to the “manager’s discretion” indoor policy, while maintaining an expansive outdoor policy.  Should be an interesting meeting tonight.

    Tags: , ,

  • Seth Anthony

    “Awwww, is the ACLU guy upset that the public can’t be circumvented in the vocal minority’s attempt to promote their own agenda?”

    Not in the slightest, although the Coloradoan article tried to spin my comments that way. It’s city council’s role and responsibility to enact the policies they see fit, but both public input and public accountability are non-negotiable parts of that process.

    I don’t object to the notion of a “hybrid” policy, or the idea of anyone (on the task force or off) providing input on what it should include. Nothing inappropriate has happened with respect to the process. That’s the way the process is supposed to work — we present our recommendations, there’s public comment, and then council does what they choose to do.

    Do I feel like it would have been better if the task force had been consulted regarding the hybrid recommendation? Sure, and I said so. I expressed a desire for more input, not a desire to circumvent the public process that we’re in now. But I have no right and no standing to demand that they bend to my wishes — and even if I did, that would be a horrible way to make policy.

    My only real concern about the hybrid policy is substantive, and it’s the same as yours — I feel, as you do, that the modified indoor policies are too limiting.

Switch to our mobile site