Comments for Dennis Polhill

Comment on Term Limits Quotes by all about quote

all about quote — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:56:42 +0000

all about quote…

[...]Term Limits Quotes » Dennis Polhill[...]…

Comment on The Constitutional Controversy Over Federal Government Involvement in Transportation by Ascot

Ascot — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:32:37 +0000

quotes about change…

this is stunning quotesvery helped me, thank you…

Comment on Moldova by Tosh

Tosh — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:49:10 +0000

Good site and very interesting

Comment on Outlook for Practical Alternative Energy Sources for Free-Wheeling Vehicles by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:59:02 +0000

Time for a word from the author. The initial comment above seeks to provide context and motivation for the research and writing. After the 1973 oil embargo, there was a perception that the world was out of fuel for autos. This raised the question of whether there would be autos in the future. With a relatively small amount of research and open minded thinking, this 28 year old engineer was able to ascertain that autos would persist. That conclusion holds as strongly today as it did nearly 40 years ago. Energy sources to power autos are numerous and plentiful.

Comment on Deflection Analysis and Case Illustration of Thin Asphalt Pavements for Overlay Design by reseller hosting guide

reseller hosting guide — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:02:22 +0000

I've been browsing online more than 3 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It is pretty worth enough for me. Personally, if all site owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the web will be much more useful than ever before. reseller hosting | reseller web hosting |

Comment on Term Limits Quotes by Matthew Gahr

Matthew Gahr — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 06:02:55 +0000

We live in a representative democracy that has become so distorted with big money lobbyists and career politicians that money is the only thing represented. How have we come to that? An entity is represented. What about “We The People”? I firmly believe that term limits may not completely eradicate this polluted form of democracy, but I think it would put a large dent in it. Am I too idealistic? Probably, if that is possible. Term limits are paramount to restoring the form of democracy that the framers laid out for us. I am John Q. Public but my voice should be heard through my elected representatives and I feel that it’s impossible with career congressmen/women and senators. It is not only our right but our duty as citizens to question our government when we see problems in our government. So, as a citizen of the United States of America, I say,”Term limits are imperative to begin to make this country the best that it can be.” Matthew J. Gahr Sr.

Comment on How Do We Tackle the Infrastructure Problem? (Municipal Management) by {natural gas companies

{natural gas companies — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 08:18:12 +0000

I genuinely enjoyed reading your write-up and found it extremely informative and engaging. It is encouraging to see that actual journalism nonetheless exist and people today with opinions and suggestions still share them with the masses. I choose to be apart of this website far more normally and will stop by again to leave my thoughts. Thanks for sharing your platform and please continue to share terrific points using the community. Have a fantastic day!

Comment on Outlook for Practical Alternative Energy Sources for Free-Wheeling Vehicles by female reproductive system video

female reproductive system video — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:59:17 +0000

alternative energy is the way to go, clean and green power source is always the best,,

Comment on Term Limits Quotes by Mike

Mike — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 17:03:24 +0000

Thanks for putting this together.

Comment on Pavement Management: Major Elements, User Requirements, Costs, Benefits and the Potential Role of Consultants by M Kim Soucek

M Kim Soucek — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 23:13:56 +0000

Excellent article that goes a step further than the network and project level requirements of a good Pavement Management System, in considering the legislative issues and questions. Thanks for the great work. Interesting that its still valid today.

Comment on Outlook for Practical Alternative Energy Sources for Free-Wheeling Vehicles by Acne Treatment ·

Acne Treatment · — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 16:26:44 +0000

there is no better way of harnessing nature’s energy other than the use of alternative energy sources ..

Comment on Outlook for Practical Alternative Energy Sources for Free-Wheeling Vehicles by Chipboard Sheets

Chipboard Sheets — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:18:55 +0000

alternative energy is the best option that we can choose if we really want clean sources of power*~`

Comment on Outlook for Practical Alternative Energy Sources for Free-Wheeling Vehicles by Scarlett Morgan

Scarlett Morgan — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 06:37:01 +0000

we should ban all sorts of fossil fuels and invest more on alternative energy.:-

Comment on Outlook for Practical Alternative Energy Sources for Free-Wheeling Vehicles by Emilia Palmer

Emilia Palmer — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 06:12:20 +0000

oh how i wish that we are all using Alternative sources of energy instead of oil “

Comment on Term Limits Quotes by Rita Smith

Rita Smith — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:33:17 +0000

Thank you so much for taking the time to put this valuable information together.
I think we need to return to what our Founding Fathers intended.

Comment on Outlook for Practical Alternative Energy Sources for Free-Wheeling Vehicles by Blake Butler

Blake Butler — Sat, 01 May 2010 05:52:23 +0000

Every government should focus more on Alternative Energy so as not to be too dependent on Oil and avoid air pollution as well.*-;

Comment on Pavement Management (Road and Street Maintenance Conference) by Steve Mueller

Steve Mueller — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:38:18 +0000

Dennis and all readers:
Today’s date is December 10, 2009 – 27 years after you published this paper with Ralph Haas. I still see the “$1.00 spent here saves $4-$5 here” graph — with no accounting for inflation. Doesn’t it have to be worse? Traffic control, traffic delays, more rapid construction inflation costs in comparison to general inflation? I make this arguement over and over — but no one (well, maybe a few here and there) have produced the data to say it is more costly to delay the repairs than it was in 1982. Get out your napkin and make an updated graph — and publish the damn thing with Ralph or his kid — again!!!
Steve.

Comment on Term Limits Quotes by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:42:54 +0000

I have collected inspirational and informative quotes since 1990. In 2007 I realized that many had relevance to term limits and went through the entire list to isolate those that offer a direct and specific relationship to term limits. The extremism of the Founders is highlighted by the first stated above by John Adams. He says one year terms with no re-election. My goodness, how times have changed. Political leaders feel deprived if they cannot stay in office … and we empathize with that view. WOW!!

Comment on Outlook for Practical Alternative Energy Sources for Free-Wheeling Vehicles by Macnet

Macnet — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:37:49 +0000

We should concentrate more on Alternative Energy sources like hydrogen and solar because fossil fuels are already depleted and they are polluting the environment

Comment on Moldova by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:44:40 +0000

In December 2008 I was asked to relate some of my experience with Socialism to a breakfast club. In so doing I concluded that I had been derelict in failing to convey my observations to others. I found the cryptic diary that I kept while there, typed it, added sections for Background, Culture and Epilogue. I hope others will find my observations instructive.

Comment on Providing Definition to Privatization (Colorado in the Balance) by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado in the Balance

Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado in the Balance — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:31:29 +0000

[...] Providing Definition to Privatization [...]

Comment on Water Policy (Colorado in the Balance) by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado in the Balance (Colorado in the Balance)

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:30:36 +0000

[...] Water Policy [...]

Comment on Are Coloradans Fit to Make Their Own Laws by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Democracy’s Journey (Original Version)

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:59:05 +0000

[...] more extensive discussion of each is provided in “Are Coloradans fit to make their own laws?” By Dennis Polhill, Oct. 1996 which can be found at [...]

Comment on Socializing Property Threatens America by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Socializing Property Threatens America

Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Socializing Property Threatens America — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:25:32 +0000

[...] The result of this mood is the adoption of various tax -limitation and spending-limitation measures and an increasing unwillingness of taxpayers to approve new taxes or increases in tax rates even when the proposed public project is …[Continue Reading] [...]

Comment on Deflection Analysis and Case Illustration of Thin Asphalt Pavements for Overlay Design by Chuck Larson

Chuck Larson — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:24:20 +0000

Hi Dennis, we might have met over the years at various PM events, I but I joined Stantec two years ago replacing Matt Karan as Practice Leader for the former PMSL group. It is really nice to see you post some of these early reports.

I will be doing more of this myself on a website http://www.oneteaminfinitesolutions.com showcasing some of the good work done by the staff over the years.

I could really use your help locating some of the reports that PMSL prepared for clients in the late 1970s and early 80s. I talked to Frank and he has not been able to get me too much. Perhaps you can help? I am very interested in anything produced for the DOTs such as Idaho, an early client of PMSL.

I am enjoying your blog.

Thanks for your help.
Best regards,
Chuck

Comment on A Soviet Journey by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » A Soviet Journey | debtrecruitment.com

Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » A Soviet Journey | debtrecruitment.com — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:46:08 +0000

[...] Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » A Soviet Journey [...]

Comment on Privatization of Public Works by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:19 +0000

This was my first article that included the word “privatization.” The reaction caused me to realize that certain words are banned from the lexicon of acceptable use. My prior perception was that government managers had a duty to find and implement the most efficient way of providing services and privatizing was one option. This article simple states that a cadre of folks with both public and private sector knowledge is needed to most effectively implement privatization. I saw this view as recognition that both have value to add to the pie. The reaction to my article did not conform to my perception. One government engineer said, “You cannot say that.” I did not understand. I wrote noting confrontational. It complemented the contributions of all players. But some see privatization as an affront, a challenge, a confrontation. There is an op-ed trapped inside my skull that I hope to write one day about acceptable and unacceptable lexicon of government. The reaction over this article reminded me of a Board meeting the year I was President of APWA. I had written out goals for each of our 40 active committees. Some committees, such as awards, are overhead and have no way of generating revenues to cover their costs. Therefore, other committees, such as a seminar, need a surplus revenue target and if everything works out, the budget balances. Well, I made the mistake of referring to this surplus revenue as “profit.” The reaction was similar. An elder statesman cautioned my use of such terms. Evidently profit and privatization (and others) are words not to be used among polite company. If the described op-ed is ever to get written, it might include some confrontation of the “fraternity” aspect of government which requires that no government reveal anything negative about another government. This fraternity-thing makes all governments conspirators against the welfare of the people. That is, a truth that merits saying should be said. And if it has to be said by another government, better it be said by them than not said at all. And there are some things in this category that only other governments know. Therefore, they must be the ones to say it. Otherwise they become complicity and equally guilty of the mistruth or crime as the perpetrator. A good example of this is LRT. LRT has no defensible benefits (no benefits for the general public), and many governments know this, but refuse to make citizens aware of the truth.

Comment on Evaluating a Pavement Management System by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:20 +0000

This article attempts to bring some clarity to the process of selecting a pavement management system. Because so much money is at stake, major compromises in the system can do significant financial injury to a city.

Comment on Pavement Management System Data: Relevance and Cost by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:17:12 +0000

The introduction of PAVER to pavement management brought confusion to and inhibited the evolution of the technology. This article tries to bring some clarity to some of the confusion.

Comment on Making Engineering a Profession by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:16:13 +0000

This article appeared in the Professional Engineers of Colorado magazine and contains a bunch of rambling thoughts about how to improve the engineering profession.

Comment on Socializing Property Threatens America by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:15:29 +0000

This article was written to bring some light to the problem of tax-subsidized government-owned businesses competing with tax-paying businesses at the time bills to address the problem were being considered in the Colorado legislature.

Comment on The making of a profession by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:13:12 +0000

Every 5 years University Chairmen of Civil Engineering meet to consider changes to the engineering curriculum. They supposedly welcome input from outsiders and invited APWA national to participate. APWA asked me to come up with something. This paper was what I presented to their group in Las Vegas in April 1990. I had written most of this but could not finish it before the submittal deadline due to my October 1989 USSR trip. So, as I boarded my flight in NYC, I mailed my draft to Jim Pequette, to finalize, polish the prose, and submit before the due date. The CE professors were not excited my ideas. Generally, I suggested liberalizing the undergraduate engineering curriculum in order to attract more students and enlarging the post graduate work to make it the professionalizing step of the education process, similar to the model used by doctors and lawyers.

Comment on Manager or engineer? by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:12:22 +0000

Public Works Managers serve in a dual role of part time manager and part time engineer. This article discusses the dilemma.

Comment on Here’s a Way to Shape Up our Congress by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:50 +0000

This was my first letter to the editor. As either a government employee or consultant to governments it is unwise to express an opinion; so very few do. This is unfortunate in that many know a lot and have a perspective that would often contribute to truth and understanding. This letter was motivated by Congress’ midnight pay raise. Congress wanted to raise its pay, but voters disagreed. So Congress voted the pay raise at midnight before adjourning. At the same time Congress was running a budget/spending deficit of nearly a billion dollars per day. The more important concern as opposed to the money for salary was their job performance … which tended to get lost in emotion. If we gave each member of Congress a million dollar bonus for doing their job (balancing the budget) and nothing if they didn’t that expense to taxpayers would be only half a billion dollars per year. Trivial in comparison with $300 billion. The story does not end with my letter. The midnight pay raise added fuel to the term limits movement and Ross Perot’s decision to run for president in 1992. Further, the Madison Amendment was ratified to the U.S. Constitution, which states that pay raises for members of Congress cannot take effect until after an intervening election. The story of the Madison Amendment is material worthy of a book. When Madison drafted the Bill of Rights, it contained 12 articles, only 10 of which were ratified. So the Madison Amendment (one of the remainder two articles) sat around for over 200 years, nearly forgotten. But it was not totally forgotten and a law school student in Michigan was aware of its status. It needed one additional state to achieve ratification and Michigan had not yet ratified. He made state legislators aware of this, Michigan ratified and the 27th Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution. The contempt with which elected officials view Constitutions is shown by what has happened since. The midnight pay raise included an automatic pay escalator. So Congressional salaries automatically go up every year without Congress having to act. This should be a violation of the Madison Amendment, but Congress prefers the cash to abiding by the law.

Comment on Is Your PMS Sophisticated Enough? by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:51 +0000

Bureaucracies will do anything to grow. Pavement Management was a new field of engineering incorporating knowledge from several specialized fields: highway engineering, pavement engineering, materials science, operations research, systems analysis, computer programming and operation, maintenance management, and more. Refusing to set a value on these specialties, governments adopted a Pavement Management System from the military called PAVER. PAVER was labor intensive and minimally scientific, not accessing the specialty knowledge of true pavement management. Thus, it was very expensive and ineffective. This article discusses the problem

Comment on Editorial Viewpoint by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:09:01 +0000

Ruth Stidger, Editor of Better Roads Magazine, and I hung out together at several of the conferences and conventions we attended. We were much in agreement on a philosophical level. I provided her many ideas for her columns. This is one and it provides some insight to my interest in the innovation of Pavement Management and my skepticism about government generally.

Comment on MAC: What’s the Bottom Line? by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:07:45 +0000

This article signified my “coming out” with respect to LRT. Shortly after coming to Colorado in 1979, RTD showed up in my office with a dog and pony show about LRT. They left me with the cheerleader perspective, ‘isn’t this just the most wonderful thing ever.’ But after having some time to think, I realized that they had failed to present a rational benefit for the massive outlay of dollars to build LRT. I assumed this to be a fault of mine in that they said it or it was obvious and I had just missed the point. I searched and searched for over a decade but could not ascribe a benefit that could withstand rational scrutiny. LRT proponents claim benefits, but under scrutiny they turned out to be false. RTD had been to the ballot for LRT tax increases that failed. Finally, RTD calculated how to build LRT without a tax increase. They won a court ruling for use tax (sales tax paid to other governments would go to RTD) which amounted to a windfall of about $10 million / year, which was committed to paying construction bonds in the amount of $100 million, enough to build the MAC line, the first 5 mile LRT segment. At this point I felt it would be unprofessional to remain silent longer. I had an obligation as a Professional Engineer and former President of APWA and former government employee who had studied the issue to expose the truth. I figure, ‘I may be slow and dense, but I am not so dense that I could not discover the secret benefit of building LRT after a decade of thought.’ Besides, if I was wrong and there was a benefit, I could confess my error and change my mind and become a supporter of LRT. It has now been a decade and a half, since my outing, and no one has yet been able to present a defensible benefit. Shortly prior to this writing at a Chamber of Commerce function, an RTD representative was presenting and I asked the question, “What is the benefit of building LRT?” He dodged the question and was confronted by others in the audience, “Are you going to answer that question.” About this same time I attended a large multi-state ITE (Institute for Transportation Engineers) function in Denver. A similar thing happened. A presentation on LRT was met with hostile confrontation by many of the transportation engineers in the audience and could not supply adequate replies to quiet their skepticism. Contrived and half-answers were met with increasing hostility. Transportation engineers seem less publicly skeptical now, but this is not because an adequate answer has been supplied, because it has not. Evidently this is because there are contracts and jobs to be had for engineers to build LRT. If this is correct, then it is fair to label them as part of the Transportation Industrial Complex, who cares more for the money than for honestly dealing with a problem they are charged to solve.

Comment on Carrying public works into the future by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:07:03 +0000

This article seeks to bring focus to the need for governments to gain better information on costs in order that services can be supplied more efficiently. Honest government managers have a public service duty to implement the most cost effective means of providing services. Failure to do so betrays their obligation to public service.

Comment on Benefits of Network Level Pavement Management by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:05:19 +0000

Many governments became familiar by putting their toe in the water. That is, they did a tiny project to get a feel for it and to see if they agreed that the benefits were there. This means they did a small project level project. At the project level, one street is evaluated by itself to determine the optimal treatment for that street. But, there are system-wide restraints on funding and system-wide needs. In other words, if analysis is done of the entire system, then funding system-wide can be optimized. With fixed funds, X is the maximum service level that can be provided and conversely, if a service level of Y is desired, what funding would be needed. Further, funding optimization can be done over time to avoid a funding need peak say six years from now.

Comment on A Soviet Journey by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:04:05 +0000

There was great interest in my observations during my tour of the Soviet Union in 1989. At that time Americans knew very little about the Soviets/Russians and wanted to know more. My trip was thru APWA. The Soviets contacted APWA requesting a contingent of American engineers to come for a technical exchange (recall Gorbachev’s programs of glasnost and perestroika). APWA responded by assembling a group of 45 public works engineers from all over the U.S. and Canada, who were as diverse technically as we were geographically. I was invited to be part of that group. I was asked to speak before several groups and write several articles. This publication, Colorado Engineering, is the magazine of the Professional Engineers of Colorado who published (with only a few edits) my trip summary. My summary does not include some events that revealed technical and ideological realities. The story I tell most frequently is of our tour of Moscow’s RTD. It was happy times with Soviet and American engineers sharing frustrations over computers, inventory, workers, etc. until an American asked what does a bus cost. The manager first had on odd expression, then made a joke, and finally changed the subject without answering. He operates in a communist /socialist environment. So, buses just show up, or not. He has no control, not even a line item budget with money he can move around to capture economic efficiencies. Thus, it is obvious that Denver’s RTD (arguably Colorado’s lease effective government) is more efficient than Moscow’s RTD. If bus tires go on half price sale, the Denver manager will move money all around in the budget to fill up the ware house with bus tires. This is an efficiency the Soviets cannot comprehend. Extending the realization: if American governments are more efficient because they are more in touch with their costs than are Soviet governments, then wouldn’t American governments be even more efficient if they were more in touch with their true costs? Obviously, yes. Another example, one day our bus drove by a highway interchange under construction, middle of the day, middle of the week. Only 2 guys were there leaning on shovels. This thing is half done and will yield no economic benefits until the ribbon is cut. In the U.S. even in government, heads would roll. Next example is high rise apartment trash removal. Several of us wanted to see the building that dealt with this via a vacuum system. As soon as we saw it, we knew why the idea had not caught on in the U.S. If was smelly and vermin-infested. Considering how much cost it would add to the rent of a unit led to the obvious conclusion. In the U.S. not worth it. In USSR, under socialism where capital is without value, it gets built. Next, because of socialism the government owns all of the housing and one of their engineers asked how Americans know how many buildings we are responsible for. Well, we did not know how to answer because housing is private property in the U.S. That aside, we suggested counting them, but the same problem is recognizable in large government agencies in the U.S. I was on a Chamber of Commerce committee who heard a presentation by the Jefferson County School District arguing for support for a tax increase. When I asked similar questions such as, “How many buildings does Jeffco Schools own?” they could not answer. Next they wanted to know about U.S. roads and I was able to step forward and make a spontaneous presentation. Our group members were surprised at what I knew, but others were able to do similarly in their areas of expertise. Another one was a presentation by an American on water systems. A Soviet in the audience asked, “What do you do when someone does not pay their bill?” The American, “We turn off their water.” The Soviets looked at each other nodding yes and smiling. Obviously, they knew the right thing to do, but were prohibited from doing it. Another one on water: The Soviets had invented a device to augment water well draw down, increasing output. I think it was a sonic device. They were thinking they would show this to us and we would order millions of copies to be installed in city water wells in the U.S. We tried to explain that the U.S. was a Federalist system of government wherein various levels of government has defined responsibilities and unilateral authority to deal with those responsibilities and the top level of government lacked authority to impose on them. They did not get it. Soviet government is highly centralized. Needless to say, the Soviet visit was a trip of a lifetime. We were there in October 1989, and because the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, I have added that to my resume. It had to have been because of our visit.

Comment on Pavement Management (Road and Street Maintenance Conference) by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:41:01 +0000

In 1982 Pavement Management was new. Oklahoma State University sponsored with USDOT and TTI an annual conference on road and street maintenance. I was invited to present on Pavement Management.

Comment on What is Pavement Management? by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:39:59 +0000

1) This article published in Public Works Magazine was my first on Pavement Management. The notion of Pavement Management was new. Most PW managers thought they were doing PM already. But the old view overlooked the reality that major outlays of money were being decided arbitrarily and subjectively (or even worse, politically) and the old process needed to be transformed into a new process whereby decisions are made with the benefit of information to save money. Over my years in Pavement Management consulting I visited with literally hundreds of city and county engineers. A typical early-on question was, “How many miles of roads to you manage?” Some new better than others, but averaged over the large sample, they answered not very well. I would guess plus or minus 10% of what was correct. Well, 10% does not sound too bad, but it is actually quite a lot. If a city of 30,000 people has 150 miles of streets, then 10% represents plus 15 miles or minus 15 miles, an error range of 30 miles. Bottom line: if one does not know what he is managing, one cannot do a very good job of managing it. The typical city engineer is proud that he knows (generally) how many miles he manages, but his ignorance is quickly exposed with only a little more depth. How many square yards, widths, construction and maintenance history, asphalt or concrete or gravel, structure, drainage, curb and gutter, etc. The simple definition of PMS is to get your data organized so more intelligent decisions can be made. Once data exists, it raises even deeper questions. Thus Pavement Management. I went into pavement management because governments were inefficient and needed new tools. I left pavement management for pretty much the same reason … but with the added realization that governments were generally less than passive about implementing efficiencies. It seemed wrong that 20% of all the dollars I took in were spent convincing governments to be more efficient … when they should have been lining up at my door. Then, you realize they are not implementing systems, but simply using the reports to gain more money and then using the funds either arbitrarily or politically … no progress.

Comment on What is Pavement Management? (Paving and Transportation Conference) by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:38:45 +0000

Ray Barnhart, the US DOT Secretary of Transportation and I were the two keynote speakers at this New Mexico conference. I had developed a slide presentation to go with this article and used it at many events. This article was first published in Public Works Magazine and was my first on Pavement Management. The notion of Pavement Management was new. Most PW managers thought they were doing PM already. But the old view overlooked the reality that major outlays of money were being decided arbitrarily and subjectively (or even worse, politically) and the old process needed to be transformed into a new process whereby decisions are made with the benefit of information to save money. Over my years in Pavement Management consulting I visited with literally hundreds of city and county engineers. A typical early-on question was, “How many miles of roads to you manage?” Some new better than others, but averaged over the large sample, they answered not very well. I would guess plus or minus 10% of what was correct. Well, 10% does not sound too bad, but it is actually quite a lot. If a city of 30,000 people has 150 miles of streets, then 10% represents plus 15 miles or minus 15 miles, an error range of 30 miles. Bottom line: if one does not know what he is managing, one cannot do a very good job of managing it. The typical city engineer is proud that he knows (generally) how many miles he manages, but his ignorance is quickly exposed with only a little more depth. How many square yards, widths, construction and maintenance history, asphalt or concrete or gravel, structure, drainage, curb and gutter, etc. The simple definition of PMS is to get your data organized so more intelligent decisions can be made. Once data exists, it raises even deeper questions. Thus Pavement Management. I went into pavement management because governments were inefficient and needed new tools. I left pavement management for pretty much the same reason … but with the added realization that governments were generally less than passive about implementing efficiencies. It seemed wrong that 20% of all the dollars I took in were spent convincing governments to be more efficient … when they should have been lining up at my door. Then, you realize they are not implementing systems, but simply using the reports to gain more money and then using the funds either arbitrarily or politically … no progress.

Comment on How Do We Tackle the Infrastructure Problem? by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:38:03 +0000

During my term as APWA President, one committee had the job to strengthen ties between APWA and CML. Ted Rousses was able to persuade CML to dedicate a full issue of their magazine to public works issues. One of the many public works articles that filled the magazines is this one. It turned out to be popular because there was a lot of talk at this time about the “infrastructure crisis” and strategies on how to approach the problem were lacking. It was reprinted from Colorado Municipalities to Texas Town and City and again reprinted in Municipal Management, a national publication.

Comment on How Do We Tackle the Infrastructure Problem? (Municipal Management) by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:37:15 +0000

Comment on Pavement Management: Major Elements, User Requirements, Costs, Benefits and the Potential Role of Consultants by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:36:27 +0000

It was an honor to co-author this paper with Ralph Haas, the Father of Pavement Management. Its focus was to educate folks on pavement management.

Comment on Pavement Management (Colorado Engineering) by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:58 +0000

This article for Colorado Engineering magazine is republished from Public Works Magazine. It was my first on Pavement Management. The notion of Pavement Management was new. Most PW managers thought they were doing PM already. But the old view overlooked the reality that major outlays of money were being decided arbitrarily and subjectively (or even worse, politically) and the old process needed to be transformed into a new process whereby decisions are made with the benefit of information to save money. Over my years in Pavement Management consulting I visited with literally hundreds of city and county engineers. A typical early-on question was, “How many miles of roads to you manage?” Some new better than others, but averaged over the large sample, they answered not very well. I would guess plus or minus 10% of what was correct. Well, 10% does not sound too bad, but it is actually quite a lot. If a city of 30,000 people has 150 miles of streets, then 10% represents plus 15 miles or minus 15 miles, an error range of 30 miles. Bottom line: if one does not know what he is managing, one cannot do a very good job of managing it. The typical city engineer is proud that he knows (generally) how many miles he manages, but his ignorance is quickly exposed with only a little more depth. How many square yards, widths, construction and maintenance history, asphalt or concrete or gravel, structure, drainage, curb and gutter, etc. The simple definition of PMS is to get your data organized so more intelligent decisions can be made. Once data exists, it raises even deeper questions. Thus Pavement Management. I went into pavement management because governments were inefficient and needed new tools. I left pavement management for pretty much the same reason … but with the added realization that governments were generally less than passive about implementing efficiencies. It seemed wrong that 20% of all the dollars I took in were spent convincing governments to be more efficient … when they should have been lining up at my door. Then, you realize they are not implementing systems, but simply using the reports to gain more money and then using the funds either arbitrarily or politically … no progress.

Comment on Deferring Public Works Maintenance Increases Costs by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:01 +0000

Comment on Deflection Analysis and Case Illustration of Thin Asphalt Pavements for Overlay Design by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:00 +0000

The concept of fatigue failure of pavements was long understood … and the theoretical relationship to deflection testing. That is, more bending means earlier failure. But how to translate this into real world quantifiable specifics was the missing science that Pavement Management brought to the table in 1980s. This article discusses how PMS, Inc. built a bridge between theory and reality.

Comment on How Broomfield Uses Performance Specifications for Street Acceptance by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:31:23 +0000

In Broomfield we worked pavement management in reverse. Typically deflection testing is used to determine how long it would be before a pavement will fail and require maintenance. Why not do the same thing with new roads that developers are turning over ownership to the city. That is, the city sets a minimum and if the testing show that a new road will not serve for a reasonable period without city outlays then the developer has to bring the street up to specifications one way or another before the city will accept it. That way, the city does not get a lemon. It also encourages developers to be more reasonable in how they treat new streets. One new house at the end of a cul-de-sac in the number of heavy loads (concrete trucks, lumber, etc.) causes as much wear and tear on a street as 20 years of typical residential street traffic.

Comment on Hartland Manages Roads by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:35 +0000

My experience with Hartland contributed a lot to my changing attitude about pavement management and governments. Hartland was an affluent community. After building prediction models for the performance of all of the city streets and optimizing the timing and treatments of maintenance we were able to do something rare. We recommended a decrease in road maintenance outlays. Hartland was heartbroken. Any time someone tells me I can have better service and spend less money, I get pretty excited about it. This experience reveals that governments are more interested in spending than in spending efficiently.

Comment on Colorado’s Anti-Transportation Policy by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:40:54 +0000

Because so much of Colorado’s transportation funding goes to highly expensive, low use alternatives at the same time dollars are insufficient for other more effective alternatives, the question must be asked “Is Colorado’s goal to make mobility worse?” This op-ed was criticized as too comprehensive and a subsequent backgrounder by the same title was produced which focused on 3 points shown in graphical form.

Comment on Stopping Petitions by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:34:05 +0000

This was my first op-ed. The Independence Institute had committed to producing weekly op-ed and none had been written. I was ticked off at the legislature’s attach on our right to petition when they passed SCR-2. So, I was able to quickly crank out this piece. The legislature made a tactical error in passing this in 1995 for the 11/96 ballot. That provided time for citizens to learn what was being done. During the 1996 legislative session there was an effort to remove SCR-2 from the ballot. Not having ever been done before, no one knew the procedure for removing something from the ballot that had been referred. SCR-2 was defeated by voters at the 11/96 election.

Comment on The Third Wave is Not a Sports Fan Phenomenon by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:33:34 +0000

I had become a student of Alvin Toffler who wrote Future Shock, Third Wave and Powershift. He is a profound and insightful visionary, unveiling images of the future with insight, practicality and validity … except his works do not tell us much about the evolution of our political systems. The Denver Election Commission had conducted hearing which included inviting representatives of the Reform Party to testify. That became my task and this op-ed summarizes some of the suggestions given to the Commission.

Comment on RTD is on the Prowl by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:33:02 +0000

Newsflash! RTD want more tax money. This piece was a warning that RTD was focused on getting more money and folks should be alert to this threat. The bad news: they got the money. The good news: we held them off for 10 years. Very much similar to the stand of the Spartans in the pass at Thermopolis. A few informed and concerned citizens against Colorado’s most corrupt and ineffective government allied with some of the most powerful and well funded special interest groups.

Comment on Denver’s Road to Ruin by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:32:34 +0000

This op-ed sought to point out some of RTD’s lies and make people aware of the millions RTD was spending illegally to influence public opinion in support of future tax increases.

Comment on Representatives or Retributionists by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:32:04 +0000

This op-ed invites legislators to lead and to represent the interests of the state of Colorado. Rather than attack the petition process because of TABOR and term limits, they should read the interests of the people and act. One informational nugget not found in other research if the fact that tax limits had been on the statewide ballot 9 times over a 26 year period … plenty of time for the legislature to be alerted to the concern and to lead. After failing to lead and after passage of TABOR, they attack the petition process. How is that line in the Declaration: “A prince by his every act defines a tyrant is unfit to rule a free people.”

Comment on Accountability in a Closed Election System by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:31:32 +0000

SCR-6 was the 1995 attack on the petition process. It was supported by Vern Bickel, a petition supporter. The concept he supported was to create a signature differential between statutory and constitutional measures. But hostile legislators are not content with small changes. They hijacked the bill changing the scope completely to requiring a 60% supermajority for amendments to pass. It passed both houses without debate in the waning days of the session. This time the subversive behavior was so blatant and obvious a movement transpired during the 1996 session to remove SCR-6 from the 1996 ballot. Nothing had ever been referred to the ballot and subsequently removed, so no one knew quite what the process would be to do that. SCR-6 went to voters in November 1996 without support (Bickel funded a small opposition campaign) and failed miserably. No legislators lost their seat over their behavior. Gerrymandering and other incumbent-protections make sure there is no such accountability.

Comment on Who Should Pay Tax? by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:30:58 +0000

In 1996 I was busy with 2 ballot issue election campaigns: term limits and the petition rights amendment. Thus, I offered no comments on other issues until the election was over. One of these issues wished to remove the tax exemption from churches. It was labeled “the church tax” and was dealt a humiliating defeat. As usual in an election sound bites count more than substance and deep overarching considerations. For example, before there can be an intelligent discussion of who should be exempt from tax, there should be a clear understanding of the purpose of taxes and who taxes should apply to and why. At the root there are two opposing philosophies of taxation. One view is taxes are paid to cover the cost of services rendered. The opposing philosophy is Marxist: the purpose of taxes is to redistribute wealth to those most deserving. Under the Marxist view some people have too much wealth and must coercively be forced to share it thru taxation with others who have too little, the government (read: those with political power) will be the benevolent decision maker. Under the pay-for-services-rendered view, taxes should be as close to those benefiting from the services as practical. The farther a tax is from those benefiting, the more difficult it is for the tax to achieve its purpose. And everyone should pay their fair share. So, if the purpose of a tax is to pay for roads or sewers and a church uses them, they should pay their fair share. The same reasoning would apply to all governments. That is, a Parks District that uses the roads and sewers should also pay its fair share. Not paying their fair share deprives another government of the revenues it needs to cover the costs of that service, forcing them to overcharge others to cover expenses. The counter-argument is taxation of governments merely moves dollars from one pocket to the other. But this is not true, because some governments use disproportionate amounts of some services. For example, by running overweight buses on the streets, RTD does gargantuan damage to roads injuring other governments and taxpayers by not having to pay for the costs they impose on others. Connection of RTD to the costs they impose, might motivate them to make different, less cost-imposing, management decisions, yielding value to all players (injured governments, service users, and taxpayers). One researcher discovered that half of RTD’s buses exceeded legal load limits with no passengers. Truckers are fined heavily for this behavior. Because pavement damage is an exponential function, it is unlikely that any other agency does pavement damage anywhere close to what RTD does. An exemption amounts to a subsidy. Subsidies are bad policy in just about all cases. Further, they distort the economic signals being sent and injure the ability of the free market to garner correct responses. In short, governments would become more efficient and taxpayers would be enriched with fewer tax exemptions.

Comment on Legislative Effectiveness by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:29:30 +0000

Perplexed by the failure of the Colorado legislature to address critical issues, this article was written as a suggestion for improving effectiveness. For years Congress dawdled with politicization of the military base closing issue. The military wanted to save money by closing non-essential bases; Congress did not. Massive funds were wasted as special interests repeatedly succeeded at stopping closings. Everyone agreed to the need to close bases, but no one wanted their base closed. The base closing problem was finally resolved procedurally. The list of proposed closures would be drafted into a bill and Congress could not amend the bill. The vote had to be ‘yes or no’ and finally passed after years of delay. By using a similar process in Colorado the legislature might succeed at dealing with difficult issues of great importance. The legislature did not try this idea. For that matter no legislator has given thought to considering whether it might be a useful tool. Evidently things are fine the way they are.

Comment on The Mass Transit Delusion by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:28:57 +0000

The word “planner” infers some overarching knowledge or capacity for vision or understanding. Yet, these individuals tend to not be much smarter than the rest of us. For that matter they tend to lack understanding of the real world, lack common sense, fail to capture relevant facts and seek truth, are incapable of following a rational thought process and harbor a distorted fantasy-view of the world. Politicians are misled by planners to believe that various forms of mass transit produce benefits. Of course planners can succeed at misleading only those who are even less informed than they are and/or those who exercise an agenda of self-interest or extreme egotism. Because the deceptions and manipulation of mass transit diminish wealth and overall mobility, they make large numbers of people less well off. When outlays do not create wealth or value of some form, people are unnecessarily and inappropriately impoverished. Transit extremists do not care who, how many or how much injury they impose. They are on the greed path. Unfortunately, like cancer their greed cannot be satisfied. The more they get, the more they demand.

Comment on Term Limits by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:28:25 +0000

When the Colorado Supreme Court struck down Amendment 1996-12 as “coercive” they in effect took from citizens their power to state a preferred policy direction to their elected representative. One part of Amendment 12 stated specifically that the people wished for ALL of their elected officials to do all in their power to implement term limits for members of the U.S. Congress. Striking 12, strikes that directive. The directive is not coercive, but knowing that politicians lie, 12 included a provision to inform voters of the actions of their legislators. Even this part was only “coercive” when the politician deviated from the directive. Politicians who follow the citizen’s directive would be rewarded with re-election (no coercion here). The term limits movement responded with Amendment 1998-18 (Voluntary Term Limits) which was approved by voters at the November 1998 election.

Comment on Thwarting Petitions by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:27:47 +0000

Legislative attacks on the petition process seem perennial. In 1998 it was HCR-1004. This op-ed questions the claims that there are “too many petitions and too many amendments to the Colorado Constitution.” The facts do not support the claims. Legislators who attack petitions, attack the voice of the citizen and citizen participation. They have lost sight of their role as servant and no longer deserve the support of voters. They are not likely to broadcast their contempt for the constitution and citizen participation during their next campaign.

Comment on Is Privatization a Bad Word? by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:27:08 +0000

This is a great piece. A bunch of industries were deregulated during the late 1970s and 1980s. Competition resulted in lower cost of services to consumers. The Brookings Institution compiled exhaustive information for the effected industries before and after deregulation. I aggregated all of the data into simpler numbers. Competition generally reduces costs to consumers by 13% after 2 years, 22% after 5 years and 40% after 10 years. Prior to deregulation these industries were considered natural monopolies (utilities such as airlines, trucking, telephone, etc.) that would be more efficient without competition. The fact that consumers benefit financially (and are injured by lack of competition) from competition should raise the question about the legitimacy of other monopolies, such as government supplied services. Privatization should not be seen as an attack, but as a tool to be used by honest managers … means of finding the most efficient, most effective way of providing services important to consumers. The fact that government accounting hides true costs is not a legitimate defense. Services that are provided to consumers in a monopoly environment and at more expense than can be achieved in a competitive environment are an illegitimate imposition on people and should cease.

Comment on A HOT solution to Denver’s Traffic by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:26:29 +0000

Chris Baker wrote the first draft of this op-ed from a Backgrounder authored by me. At this time we were heavily in the midst of trying to convince CDOT that the I-25 HOV/HOT conversion was a good idea. John Andrews passed a bill mandating that CDOT do one HOT lane conversion demonstration project. Colorado has only 3 HOV lanes and 2 have configurations not conducive to the conversion. CDOT spent 2 years and 2 consultant contracts of $500,000 each to decide on I-25. The I-25 HOT lanes finally opened after 7 years. Its quiet success has been beyond imagination. Revenues are double projections and users are ecstatic. Eventually a substantial number of people will come to realize that traffic congestion is unnecessary and eliminating it will boost the economy immediately while reducing the environmental impacts of driving. In San Diego the public came to clamor for more toll roads 10 years after opening their first HOT lane demonstration project. In the short term we must be patient with those who choose to not grasp the scale of the benefits that will accrue.

Comment on Whose Government Is It? (Initiative Process) by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:25:53 +0000

Written to commemorate July 4th this article opens with a tribute to young Thomas Jefferson who authored the Declaration of Independence 223 years earlier. A key point of the op-ed is to expose an important discovery by Professor John Matsusaka: that petitions help governments to be more in tune with their citizenry. In current times petitions are criticized for restricting revenues to governments. Matsusaka found in the 1930s initiative states were the first to increase government spending. Thus, initiative states seem to be the forbearer of the future by being the first to take government where citizens wish. As is often the case, the people are ahead of their elected leaders.

Comment on RTD’s Tradition of Deception by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:25:24 +0000

It seems like there is a new RTD lie every day. Faced with similar deceptions by their local mass transit agency in Orange County, California, a Grand Jury was assembled to look for truth. Released in 1999, the Jury report found the claimed benefits of LRT to be grossly overstated. Dick Sargent was the lone RTD BOD member who could be considered a truth-seeker. After he was elected in 1998 and dove deeper into learning about RTD and LRT, Dick is on my phone saying, “Polhill, you are a piker,” meaning all of the horrible things I have said about RTD and LRT were understated and things are far worse. At one meeting Dick confronted the RTD BOD with, “I don’t know how you can do these things to the people. In my business people go to jail for less.” Dick resigned from RTD after a year protesting its gross corruption and refusing to be even the dissenting part of the dishonest and unethical conduct. Before resigning he was able to persuade the BOD into budgeting for a debate of nationally recognized experts on LRT. This was to be covered by local and national TV (including CSPAN). Once Dick resigned, however, the RTD BOD decided the funds would be better spent elsewhere and the event was cancelled. This was also shortly before the ribbon cutting for the SW LRT corridor. Dick requested that exhaustive before and after traffic counts be taken on Santa Fe in order to have real data on the effect of LRT on traffic. It cannot be claimed that these counts don’t exist because they forgot or didn’t think of it. There is another reason. Several RTD deceptions relative to the 1973 election which provided lavish funding to RTD are also documented in this op-ed.

Comment on Space: The Ultimate Prize by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:24:41 +0000

After the mid-20th century the concept of performance prizes was largely forgotten. Prior they were common. The X-Prize unveiled in 1996 renewed interest in rewarding specified achievements. Amazingly the X-Prize was won in 2004, achieving in 8 years for a mere $10 million what NASA could not achieve in 30 years with a budget of $13 billion per year … reduce the cost of access to space. This article was written before the X-Prize-win and seeks to remind the reader of some incentive prizes. I was able to get an intern (Alex Schroeder) in 2004, who expanded this research substantially, concluding that the $10 million X-Prize had stimulated close to $400 million in direct research and development outlays. Alex and I wrote an op-ed on this topic summarizing his research. A yet-to-be-written op-ed will point out some of the indirect benefits of X-Prize: the Bigelow Prize, Virgin Galactic, Centennial Challenge Prizes by NASA, continuing efforts by the non-winning contestants, and the surge of prizes in many other fields of technology. Obviously, accounting for the indirect benefits will boost the leverage of benefits to costs above 40:1. Another achievement of the Alex-internship was to kick start the Colorado Energy Research Institute, at the Colorado School of Mines, aided by State of Colorado funding and the Independence Institute. In return for state funds one of CERI’s prime missions was to initiate an E-Prize in the energy field.

Comment on When Elections are Not Elections by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:24:10 +0000

The word “election” infers a level of competition, a risk that a challenger might actually win. Yet incumbent-losses happen so rarely, a truth-seeker is compelled to ask “why?” This article was written while Dave Ottke and I worked to redraft for a statewide petition drive the five sections of the Colorado Constitution that address redistricting (gerrymandering). We had a funding commitment that withdrew support due to the high cost of a petition drive. We had submitted the petition and secured approval through title setting. From a term limits perspective it is widely known how little turn over there is in the U.S. Congress. This article demonstrates similar incumbent-security at the state level.

Comment on Insubordinate Legislators by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:22:30 +0000

The oath of office legislators swear includes a provision to uphold the Constitution. The idea of constitution is rooted in the concept that rights are fundamental, people are sovereign, governments (including elected officials) are subordinate and the Constitution is the contract that sets the rules and limitations. When legislators violate the constitution are they ignorant of arrogant? Because of constitutional structure, statues, rules, and practices that subvert the constitution are simply unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Insubordinant legislators are authoritarians who should not be retained in office. Yet elections have been rigged for the benefit of incumbent legislators … so removing them is nearly impossible. The behavior of some elected officials threatens to destroy the idea of fundamental rights and constitutional government.

Comment on The Transportation Industrial Complex by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:21:51 +0000

When Eisenhower warned Americans about the Military Industrial Complex, he understated, failing to mention the many other special interests that influence politics for their self-interest, injuring the under-represented taxpayer-citizen. One such interest group is the Transportation Industrial Complex (TIC). Like cancer, the TIC seeks to grow no matter what. The expense and injury caused is not a factor. TIC just wants more money. The more they get, the more they want. Efficient use is not a factor. As a matter of fact, money spent wrongly worsening the problem, helps the TIC to grow. When some new political fad surfaces (such as LRT), the TIC is instantly on the demagogue-bandwagon beating the drum of false benefits. Even so-called professional organizations, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers, willingly jettison any claim to being “professional” when they advocate for wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. The search for truth is battered as the few who state truth are vilified and punished.

Comment on Predatory Government by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:21:00 +0000

The title of this article comes from anti-trust (anti-monopoly) law. When anti-trust law was created, no one envisioned that the most malevolent player would be government itself. Predatory practices are prohibited. In 1991 I was appointed as a delegate to the Statehouse Conference on Small business. The stated premise was to unshackle business to foster economic and job growth in Colorado. Unfair government competition (tax subsidized competition) was ranked the issue of second greatest concern. A significant movement emerged with the creation of the Colorado Coalition for Fair Competition, a group of some 20ish trade groups representing some injured industries. In 1993 I wrote on this topic for my first Independence Institute issue paper. Over the years this paper has been very popular prompting many calls and requests for information by imperiled business all over the U.S. Evidently little has been written on the topic. The athletic club industry was on of the most devastated. The predatory government article quantifies specifically the damages to one athletic club. The Sunset Beach owner was surprisingly good natured about the injury imposed on him. He also owned an athletic club in Evergreen, Colorado which suffered a similar fate when the Evergreen Park and Recreation District built a competing facility nearby. He could not be reached for comment.

Comment on Empty Oaths by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:42:23 +0000

Since 1932 the safety clause has become so abused by Colorado legislators that they violate their oath of office just hours after swearing to uphold the Constitution. Whether they are duped into this violation by ignorance … or they are not ignorant but simply arrogant, egotistical, self-center, belligerent, contemptuous bullies is a question for debate. Old habits die hard. Embarrassed when this abuse was made public during the 1996 election cycle, legislative leaders declared an end to the practice of automatically attaching the safety clause to every bill starting in January 1997. Yet, since then safety clauses appear on the great majority of bills, including all controversial bills. The fact that not a single referendum petition has ever been threatened against a single bill serves as proof.

Comment on The Facts of Growth by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:41:53 +0000

One ongoing debate associated with growth is “who should pay for it?” One side of the political spectrum firmly plants its brain in the sand pretending there are no unidentified external costs, while the other extreme seeks to exploit the problem by exaggerating the amounts to fund unrelated programs. So the real issue is in the reasonable center: It is not whether there will be development impact fees; but whether those fees will be based on reason, facts and truth. Development impacts are often difficult to isolate and are therefore ignored. An easy-to-grasp example is school buildings. The addition of 2000 homes adds enough population to full a new elementary school. Clearly if those 2000 homes appeared where nothing already exists, those 2000 homes will have to pay for the additional school building. By contrast if those 2000 homes are appended to an existing city, then they can impose some of the costs they create on others by advocating for a tax increase on the entire population of that city to pay for the new school building. The situation is disguised when the new homes come a few at a time.

Comment on Murder the Messenger (Legislators Squash Ballot Initiatives) by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:41:13 +0000

In Colorado the assault on citizen participation in government manifests in the perennial attack on the right to petition. In 2001 Melissa was an intern who collected ballot information on the November 2000 election from every Colorado county. Melissa’s research exposed the truth about “long ballots.” The complaint goes, “ballots are too long because of too many petitions and therefore petition rights should be throttled.” The facts show something different. In 2000 nearly 300 governments placed 537 measured before voters. Only 7 (1.3%) of the 537 were petitions; 530 (98.7%) were measures referred to the ballot by legislative bodies. Doing a petition is a giant commitment. No one does a petition just for fun. If legislators addressed the concerns of petition proponents, there would be no petitions. Thus, the number of petitions can be viewed as a measure of legislative effectiveness. A large number of petitions should be cause for introspection among politicians, not attacks on the petition process.

Comment on Transportation Terrorism by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:39:28 +0000

Colorado built 8 miles of reversible HOV lane on I-25 north of CBD in 1991 for $222 million. Peak use of the facility in 1998 was no greater than 30%, meaning unused capacity always exceeds 70%. In other words traffic remains congested in the regular lanes, while over 70% of what $222 million was spent to get sat unused, providing only a fraction of its potential benefit to taxpayers. Converting the HOV to HOT would yield benefits while injuring no one. The FTA which contributed $71 million of the $222 million construction cost objected, demanding full refund of their contribution to approve the change. The election of George W. Bush to President did not bring visionary leadership to transportation policy, but with time the self-destructive and universally damaging policy of the FTA was reversed and I-25 HOT lane conversion was completed. Although it took CDOT 7 years to do a project that should have taken only 1 or 2 years, Colorado gets the credit for forcing a review and reversal of a backwards Federal policy, allowing others such as Minnesota to advance similar innovations more expeditiously.

Comment on RTD Is Afraid of Private Sector Competition by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:38:14 +0000

If actions reveal more than words, then the accidental jitney experience of 1989 in Miami, Florida, reveals much about the mobility potential of decontrolled transit and the true agenda, priorities and purpose of traditional mass transit as we know it. Evidently the FTA was more truth-seeking and less politically motivated then and captured important performance data. I had kept a copy of the FTA report close at hand for several years intending to summarize it in a world-changing op-ed. After mentioning the idea to Matt-the-intern, who is also an insomniac, he delivered the first draft of this op-ed the next morning. The compelling facts of the Florida experiment merit repeating. Within a few months after the accidental de-regulatory control of jitneys over 20 new businesses emerged in Miami. During the first year, jitneys served as many as 10,000 commutes in a day, rivaling the number that used buses. The $1.00 fare covered all costs (no taxpayer subsidy). Most jitney users were new transit riders suggesting the reduction of some number of SOVs from the highways with resultant traffic flow and air quality benefits. Although jitney service was faster, cheaper and better, it was shut down.

Comment on Close the 470 Loop by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:49:36 +0000

Originally, there was a plan for there to be an I-70 loop around Denver. Such loops are common in just about every other major city in the U.S. These allow long-haul traffic to bypass the traffic congestion that exists in all central business districts. The I-70 loop was to have been I-470. Unfortunately, Colorado politicians diverted the federal funds designated for the I-470 loop to the City of Denver which used it to construct the 16th Street Mall. Years later when it was commonly agreed that lack of a loop was unworkable, CDOT struggled to construct the loop with Colorado revenues. It took many years to complete the first ¼ of the loop, C-470 in the southwest quadrant. Knowing that funds were not forthcoming for the eastern two quadrants, east-metro governments combined forces to create the E-470 Authority that imposed both a new tax and tolls to construct the two E-470 quadrants. The remaining quadrant is W-470 which is also known as the Northwest Parkway. This article encourages completion of the 470 loop. Since publication of this article roughly half, the northern half, of W-470 has been opened to trafficjmkn12./;. Controversy continues (mostly centered in Golden … even though Golden pushed for and achieved expeditious construction of a 1 mile segment of 470 connecting C-470 with U.S. 6 improving access to Golden) regarding the route and ultimate completion of the remainder.

Comment on Monorail to Vail: An Orgy of Collectivist Abuse by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:48:26 +0000

As with light rail and so many of the other boondoggles, it was interesting to observe the outrageously ridiculous claims of the monorail advocated during the November 2000 election cycle. This article seeks not to expose their misrepresentations so much as to suggest they should be empowered to pursue their passion personally. That is, rather than confiscate tax dollars from unwilling participants, why not allow the advocates to pursue their project as their very own. They can raise the private capital, build and own it, charge a fair market price for those who choose to use it and they can pocket the profits. Thusfar, they have not pursued my suggestion. Evidently monorail is a good idea to be done coercively, but less of a good idea on a free will basis.

Comment on ‘Honest’ Bob Schaffer Teaches Congress About Honor & Principles by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:47:54 +0000

Bob Schaffer was elected to the U.S. Congress and had pledged to serve 3 two-year terms and held to his promise. I had hoped the term “Honest Bob” would have attached to him as the term “Honest John” held to John Shafroth. Shafroth was many things. First of all he was a maverick and a reformer and a party switcher. Secondly, he was a member of the U.S. Congress who resigned his seat to gain the “honest” label when accusations were leveled against his campaign. Even if the claims were true, he had not been party to them. Third, he was the Governor of Colorado who exposed the hypocrisy of the politicians in both parties to bring Colorado the petition process (initiative and referendum). And forth, he was a U.S. Senator who worked to achieve the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Congress, Woman Suffrage.

Comment on Don’t Be Confused by the Ambiguous Semantics of Privatization by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:47:21 +0000

This article was first published by the Reason Foundation and subsequently republished by the Independence Institute. One purpose of this paper is to confront the use of the word “privatization” as offensive to those best positioned to capture its benefit … government managers. Some, but not all, government managers are self-centered, insecure, and turf-protective. These traits are counter to the provision of efficient government services and even more counter to the idea of privatization. Privatization should be viewed as a tool to help find the most efficient way of providing services. When services can be provided more efficiently they should be outsourced. The failure to outsource when efficiencies are there to be had is the same as price-gouging and because all government services are monopoly services, this form of price gouging is equal to abuse of and theft from taxpayers.

Comment on Is RTD Passing Gas? by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:46:38 +0000

I think it was first said by Thomas Paine, “When the people fear the government there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is freedom.” The number of people who have stories to tell but fear telling it publicly is substantial. The research for this paper was done over two years by an environmental engineer, who feared putting his name to it. Ozone is a known byproduct of electric motor use and a suspected carcinogen, as well as a known respiratory irritant (The final draft was modified incorrectly in editing stating “known carcinogen.” It is possible that ozone is a carcinogen, but that was unknown at the time of publication). Light Rail produces more pollution than cars because it uses more BTUs/passenger mile than do cars. But there is benefit in having the pollution away from large populations. Because LRT uses electric motors, ozone is different. LRT will deposit more ozone where there are large populations. This article merely raises that question. Is there an ozone pollution problem? There is a red flag in that EIS’s are happening for LRT regularly to the tune of close to $10 million each and evidently none has addressed the question. This article may be the most controversial article I have ever authored. It was released by the Independence Institute on Friday and by Monday it had circled the globe, garnering every form of criticism and comment. Some environmental group issued an award labeling me the most anti-environment person ever. Evidently certain questions cannot be asked. Leadership begets leadership. After seeing the article and engineer from Texas pointed out that the LRT contacts with the overhead wires are made of cadmium (a known carcinogen) and have to be replaced regularly due to wear. Obviously, this merits similar investigation, but some evidently prefer to cover up such issues. In conclusion not only is LRT surrounded by a plethora of lies and deceit, but in the bigger picture the EIS process should be suspect as a propaganda device rather than its perceived mission as a search for truth.

Comment on Transit Failure Exposed by Census by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:45:44 +0000

The 2000 census exposed the truth about transit claims. Although disproportionate outlays subsidize transit, its contribution to mobility is minimal. The outrageous amount expended for transit has had miniscule effect on transit’s tiny market share.

Comment on Deceiving Voters Into Deleting Congressional Term Limits by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:45:03 +0000

In 2002 the legislature deleted Amendment #12-1996 (term limits) from the Colorado Constitution, claiming it was obsolete because a court had stricken the “inform” part of the law as “coercive.” The “instruct” part of the law had not been stricken by the court and often courts are overturned because courts do not always agree with each other. The “instruct” part expressed the will of the people as being in favor of Congressional term limits and it asked all state and Federal legislators to do all in their power to achieve it. Deleting this instruction under the pretense of obsolescence was dishonest.

Comment on Consent of the Governed by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:44:27 +0000

This article refutes the claim that interest in term limits has waned and suggests that the Constitution should be amended to include term limits as a means of showing respect for the Founders.

Comment on Transportation Choice: Politics Versus Mobility by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:43:40 +0000

Quite simply this article states that special interests are holding mobility hostage at a very high price. People are being taxed too much and the economy severely hampered.

Comment on RTD Striking Out; Batting Zero by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:47:33 +0000

The RTD union threatened a strike in 1993. Intimidated, the RTD BOD acquiesced. But a strike might have been a good thing. It might have helped citizens understand the true importance of RTD in the scheme of things. Both RTD and their union have wisely avoided strikes since the most recent strike in 1982. During the 1982 strike commuters were encouraged to increase carpooling. They did to the point that traffic counts conducted by the City of Denver Traffic Department showed that there were fewer vehicles. Fewer vehicles means, higher travel speeds and better mobility. Perhaps this is not something RTD wishes to remind people about. RTD’s contribution to mobility is, at best, meager.

Comment on It’s Not Too Late To Make T-REX a Success by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:46:46 +0000

The longest issue paper ever produced by the Independence Institute is “Let those who benefit, pay the costs.” It evaluated virtually every potential combination of uses of the right of way available for the TREX project (something an honest EIS might do, but they don’t). This op-ed simplifies the Issue Paper by accepting the alternative selected by CDOT and calculating the likely amount of money that would be generated if the new lane on I-25 was made a never-congested-lane. It would be close to $600 million which is close to the highway portion of the cost of TREX. In declining the financial gift, CDOT also doomed TREX users to limited travel choices and inevitable future traffic congestion. One of the costs of traffic congestion is response times for emergency vehicles. So, even though no one will like talking about it, CDOT’s decision to decline free money will also result in some number of lost lives and property.

Comment on What Coloradans Can Learn from Communists by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:46:06 +0000

After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, its independent republics became independent republics going different directions. Therefore, how the respective pieces perform economically after a period of time may disclose something about economic policies that are beneficial … and conversely. By 2004 Estonia was the best performing piece of the FSU (former Soviet Union) and Moldova was the least. The scale of this difference was 7.3 times, meaning the GDP/capita was 7.3 times as much in Estonia as in Moldova. This paper was co-authored with Orly, my friend from Mongolia. He was in the U.S. to finish his law and banking degrees, had finished early and planned to return to Mongolia in June when the school year was finished for his daughters. Mongolia had no living memory of property ownership in that it was the second country in the world to go Communist after Russia in 1917. Orly was a college student, when Tiananmen Square happened in China. Similar student protests occurred in Mongolia at the same time. Those events caused Orly to think about the plight of his people and how it could be fairly addressed. After years of thinking he concluded, like John Locke and DeSoto, the key is property rights. The individual should be the owner of his production. Any thing less is slavery. When I met Orly in 11/03, this was theoretical (a conclusion in his mind that had yet to be corroborated empirically). I had recently written the book review for “The Force of Finance” by Reuven Brennar. Brennar had grown up under Communism in Romania and escaped to become an economics professor in Canada. So Orly and Brenner had something in common. Orly read the book and could not stop saying “I love this book.” The book had corroborated what he had calculated by his thinking: the path to freedom and prosperity is to free the people and allow them to own the product of their labor.

Comment on End Authoritarian Socialist Public Policy by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:45:07 +0000

Annoyed at the persistent efforts of looters and plunders to live at the expense of others (called socialism), this article summarized the path of Socialism since its inception. Lacking a Colorado focus, the Institute refused to publish it. I corrected the deficiency with opening and closing paragraphs about the evils of RTD and similar redistributionist, bureaucracy-centric programs. Marxists don’t like this piece, but it was not written to garner their favor. A Russian immigrant intern corroborated the summary as legitimate as did his father. That works for me. In short Socialism has no redeeming qualities. No trade offs to consider. One thing is not made better while another is made worse under its authoritarianism. Rather, all things are made worse: human rights, economic wellbeing, individual rights, environment, cultural values, poverty, injustice, social justice, you name it. All are better under capitalism. Check the record. Yet, America persists down this path. The words of Hernando DeSoto were profound and prophetic in acceptance of an award for his work in economics, “On behalf of the third world, I wish to thank you, America, for showing us the way. But frankly, America, we are confused as to why you have forgotten the way.”

Comment on Taxes Versus Tolls: the Future of Transportation Finance by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:44:22 +0000

The article first appeared as a column in the Denver Post at their request. It was written to provoke controversy and dialogue over transportation finance, but did not overtly to do much of that (there were no letters to the editor calling me an idiot). It makes many of the key points as to why the gas tax cannot and should not be fixed as the primary method for financing transportation.

Comment on Inventing the Lever by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:43:50 +0000

Alex Schroeder was an intern at the Independence Institute who researched the X-Prize, publishing an Issue Paper on “incentive prizes.” Alex concluded that the X-Prize stimulated at least 40 times as much in direct outlays for research and development in aerospace as the amount of the prize. This op-ed serves as an executive summary of Alex’s paper. In the future we hope to write about some of the indirect benefits which probably increase the leverage of the X-prize by another 10 times. These would include: formation of the Virgin Galactica venture, NASA’s Centennial Challenge prizes, the annual X-prize cup, the Bigeloe Prize, ongoing efforts of the non-winners of the X-prize, and the realization of the power of prizes as proven by the number surfacing in many fields of technology.

Comment on Congress Should Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:43:10 +0000

This article was first drafted to appear in a Heartland Institute publication and subsequently was released by the Independence Institute. It documents some of the corrupt practices of Congress regarding Federal involvement in transportation and suggests that the Federal gas tax be devolved to the states and regulatory controls over the states be liberalized.

Comment on Budget Crisis: Asking the Right Questions by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:42:29 +0000

In graduate school public administration students (including me) often take courses in Public Finance. These courses include discussion of many methods of budgeting, including zero based budgeting, outcome based budgeting, performance budgeting, and so on. In the real world these budgeting strategies shake down to empty rhetoric and with minor variations budgets amount to last year’s budget plus some percentage. In 2002 Washington State was faced with a $2.7 billion budget gap between revenues and expenses. Tax increases of this magnitude were out of the question. By focusing on results, core functions, priorities, and shedding redundancies, Washington was able to close the gap and may be the first government to exercise one of these alternative budget strategies. This op-ed brings seeks to make people aware of the possibilities. When taxpayer dollars are not administered with the most diligence a travesty, a tyranny, a crime equal to theft is committed against taxpayers.

Comment on The People’s Voice: Colorado’s Initiative and Referendum Process by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:41:45 +0000

In 2006 we ran the Petition Rights Amendment again (similar to 1996) that was designed to restore petition rights in the Colorado Constitution throttled by politicians. This op-ed serves as the executive summary for the in depth research paper by the same title that was written to provide the intellection basis for the PRA.

Comment on Revenue Sharing by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:23:57 +0000

Not my most profound or insightful work, this was a term paper for a graduate school class in Public Finance in 1976. Carter was president and the economy was bad. Carter had created a revenue sharing program which was “nice” from the limited perspective of a local government guy (that was me … because local is from where the bulk of government services are supplied). Yet, I was still too immature in my understanding of money, tax, and wealth creations (shall we call this naively Marxist?) to see past the notion the “the master” (the big government) had all of the money and sharing it with the locals was a good thing. I learned later that governments have no money and have to take it coercively from someone before they can do anything or “share” it. “Share” is misleading rhetoric for theft … it lulls the uninformed and the non-thinking individuals into believing good is actually happening.

Comment on Outlook for Practical Alternative Energy Sources for Free-Wheeling Vehicles by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:23:01 +0000

This was a paper that I wrote for a class in graduate school. It was also used as a position paper for the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the 1970s and early 1980s. I graduated from college in 1970 and worked until 1975 when I returned to college for graduate school. In 1973 we had the OPEC oil embargo and there were serious questions about whether there was enough remaining oil in the world to power cars. We were tasked in a Transportation Engineering class to write a term paper. It seemed to me the premise for having the course and teaching what was in the course was false if there was no way to power the auto. So that was the theme of my term paper … were we nearly out of oil, if we ran out of oil were there other fuel possibilities and/or other power-plant possibilities for the auto. The answers to the second and third questions are yes, very many. The oil supply or peak oil question was more difficult in 1975. Books were written by world-famous geologists discussing the peak-oil concept … filled with normal probability distribution graphs and showing unequivocally that world oil supply had peaked and the situation was dire. This set a good foundation for my thinking on this question for the next several decades. The experts/the books said we were effectively out of oil in the 1970s, but that was clearly not the case. What changed? Well, for one thing the price of oil went up in the 1970s causing the market to work: consumers started buying smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles, oil companies had the incentive to find more oil reserves and they did, and innovators and inventers found new ways to find and reach previously impossible-to-reach oil deposits. Ultimately gas prices normalized a lower than 1970 prices in inflation adjusted dollars. AMAZING. The predicted demise of the auto was an unsubstantiated fantasy in the minds of a small minority of auto-hating individuals … not substantially different from now. There is a small population of auto-hating individuals who exaggerate any perceived problem with the auto in order to use it to support their political agenda of attacking personal mobility. The more realistic perspective is to objectively identify and define the problem and address it either technologically or economically.

Comment on My Trip to the Soviet Union by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:22:21 +0000

Upon return from my October 1989 USSR visit I wrote this summary of the trip. Prior to Gorbachev the USSR was closed and Americans knew little of that country. So, I was in demand for a while, being invited to speak to many groups about the trip. The most significant learning for me was to observe the misallocation of resources there … because the relative value of resources is unknown (not measured by dollars) under Socialism.

Comment on Infrastructure Maintenance Investment: Beyond the Benefit-Cost Analysis by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:21:30 +0000

Will Price is my co-author. Will was a professor at the University of the Pacific when we wrote this and he travelled to Hawaii to present it the American Society of Public Administration. It summarizes the foundation principles of Pavement Management.

Comment on Reinventing Democracy by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:20:43 +0000

The Denver Election Commission invited the Reform Party (Ross Perot group) to present testimony. I was their issues chairman and got the job. I tried to share with them a vision which I had derived from reading the books by Alvin Toffler. This paper summarizes that testimony.

Comment on The Secret Election by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:19:45 +0000

Colorado has more governments per unit-population than most other states currently at over 3000, an increase of 50% in less than a decade. The growth has been primarily in special district governments. This proliferation has resulted in a shortage of citizen-oversight which has resulted in other problems of creep with respect to accountability, transparency, etc. In 1995 citizens on Lookout Mountain learned of nefarious activities in their fire district. 2 reformers were elected in 1996 and the remainder of the BOD (3 additional reformers) were elected in 1998. This paper documents some of the discoveries of citizens as they investigated their friendly local government fire district.

Comment on Confederate Constitution – Analysis by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:19:05 +0000

There may not be many things more politically incorrect than to study the Confederate Constitution. Yet, if we are willing to acknowledge two truths, we may be able to discover other truths by studying it. The two acknowledgements required: that the U.S. Constitution has flaws and that the Confederates believed they were creating a new nation and had every incentive to do the best job possible at improving the original constitution. My first shock in reading the Confederate Constitution was that it was not preoccupied with slavery and racism. More importantly, the 3 most significant variations from the U.S. Constitution should be immediately added to the U.S. Constitution: (1) Prohibit omnibus bills, (2) 2/3 supermajority to approve appropriations, and (3) removal of the power from Congress to propose Constitutional Amendments and replacement with a proposal mechanism that proposes amendments by the concurrence of 1/3 of the states, such proposed amendment then being ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Comment on Some Facts about the Colorado Constitution by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:18:09 +0000

Legislators feel infringed upon by the people’s right to petition. Every year there is a bipartisan attack on the Initiative and Referendum process. In 2008 the cover for this attack was to protect the Colorado Constitution. Both the DU Committee and the CCP legislative panel that developed SCR-3 which appeared on the 2008 ballot as Referendum “O” took testimony but almost no testimony from petition supporters, experienced activists, or knowledgeable experts. This is a one page summary of the testimony of Dennis Polhill, which rendered false the assumptions upon which the 2008 attack was based.

Comment on The Constitutional Controversy Over Federal Government Involvement in Transportation by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:17:22 +0000

During my research to write “Trends in National Transportation Policy” in 1975, I became aware of the Monroe veto of a transportation bill as unconstitutional. About 1999 I pointed this out to an email group of transportation scholars and was confronted by one of the more astute members of the group suggesting that I had erred and that veto had been issued by Madison. I check and was shocked to discover we were both right (both Madison and Monroe had issued similar vetoes … obviously, Madison was first and Monroe wrote an expansive veto message the size of a book chastising Congress essentially saying “What in Madison’s veto statement did you not understand?”), which raised the question, ‘How many other presidents had the impression that Federal involvement in transportation violates the constitution?’ I found a book that listed every presidential veto and veto message and set out to isolate those relevant to transportation and study those. It turns out at least 9 presidents (virtually all prior to the Civil War … meaning at least a majority of our presidents prior to the Civil War had a common perception on the intent of the Constitution on this matter) issued at least 19 vetoes of federal government transportation legislation claiming federal involvement was unconstitutional because it was outside the enumerated powers of Congress in Article 1, Secion 8. Anyone is free to read the Constitution and draw their own conclusion, but the fact the 9 presidents were willing to jeopardize their good will with congress suggests they were firm in their view. This paper is a work in progress. A draft version was presented at an ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council … a trade group of state legislators) meeting in Seattle in 2004.

Comment on Congressional Term Limits by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:06:40 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This is an advertisement asking for volunteers in 1996, which effectively built up the ranks of CTLC.

Comment on Term Limits: Yes on Amendment #12 by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:05:58 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This article was a column explaining amendment # 12-1996 to voters.

Comment on Term Limits Still Needed by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:05:22 +0000

This was a letter to the editor that was published in USA Today. Because congressional turn over went up from 1% to 9% and it was labeled a “revolution” does not make it so. Throughout the 19th century Congress averaged close to 50% freshmen after each election. It is amazing how the culture has changed and we have come to accept the idea of an “elected” aristocracy. The Founders would be as offended by this as they were by monarchy. America does not need a ruling class.

Comment on Court Sides with Professional Politicians by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:04:27 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. Amendment #12-1996 directed state and federal legislators to amend the U.S. Constitution to include a term limits provision. Neither the politicians nor the courts thought it was a good idea for the people to tell them what to do. Amendment 12 was stricken as “coercive” by the court. This column responds by announcing the upcoming Amendment #18-1998.

Comment on Term Limits Debate by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:03:24 +0000

After the U.S. Supreme Court told the term limits movement it needed to amend the U.S. Constitution, the term limits movement said “OK” and proceeded to do so. In the 1996 election we placed virtually the identical measure on the ballot in 16 states. In Colorado this was Amendment #12-1996. This column is a debate between Jack Fried and me over #12. Fried is one who believes that the U.S. Constitution should never be amended under any circumstances because politicians will hijack the process to emasculate the inalienable rights of the people. Fried also believed the term limits movement had been infiltrated by “New World Order” types for that very purpose. Other than that Fried was a good guy whose opposition helped term limits to prevail with a 56% majority.

Comment on Voluntary Term Limits? by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:01:51 +0000

Comment on Trying Again At Limiting A Politician’s Term by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:01:03 +0000

Comment on You Can’t Object to Voluntary Term Limits by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:00:13 +0000

Comment on State Supreme Court Ruling Shields Legislators from Electorate by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:59:32 +0000

Comment on ‘Yes’ on Amendment 18 is ‘Yes’ on Term Limits by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:57:42 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This article was a column explaining amendment # 18-1998 to voters.

Comment on Court Errs in Derailing Limits by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:57:11 +0000

Comment on Limits for Congress by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:56:34 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This article was a letter to the editor seeking to correct some of the mistakes in the Denver Post editorial about local government term limits. So much of what they think is true, just ain’t so.

Comment on Congress Won’t Impose Term Limits on itself, so Voters Should by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:54:58 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This article was a column explaining amendment # 18-1998 to voters.

Comment on Vote ‘Yes’ on Voluntary Term Limits by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:54:17 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This article was a column explaining amendment # 18-1998 to voters.

Comment on No Uncertain Terms by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:53:43 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This article was a column explaining amendment # 18-1998 to voters. The Denver Post allowed an opposition column by a political science professor which probably helped the term limits measure to pass.

Comment on Term Limit Liars by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:52:15 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This article was a column explaining amendment # 18-1998 to voters.

Comment on Term Limits Amendment by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:51:38 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This article was a column explaining amendment # 18-1998 to voters.

Comment on Term limits – a Voluntary Approach? by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:50:03 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This article was a column explaining amendment # 18-1998 to voters. The Gazette allowed an opposition column by a political science professor which probably helped the term limits measure to pass.

Comment on Amendment 18: Pro: Con by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:49:17 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This article was a column explaining amendment # 18-1998 to voters. The Rocky Mountain News allowed an opposition column by a journalist which probably helped the term limits measure to pass.

Comment on Politicians Ignore Voters’ Call For Term Limits by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:48:18 +0000

Comment on ‘Yes’ On Term Limits Amendment No. 18 by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:47:20 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This article was a letter to the editor supporting amendment # 18-1998.

Comment on Readers support Amendment 18 by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:45:33 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This article was a letter to the editor supporting amendment # 18-1998.

Comment on Some Back Term Limits for a Lifetime by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:44:09 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This article was a column explaining amendment # 18-1998 to voters.

Comment on Colorado Needs Term Limits by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:43:31 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This article was a column explaining amendment # 18-1998 to voters.

Comment on Support Voluntary Term Limits by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:41:52 +0000

Colorado passed constitutional amendments in favor of term limits in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1998. This article was a letter to the editor supporting amendment # 18-1998.

Comment on Term Limits Working by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:40:59 +0000

In 2001 a bill to extend legislator term limits from 8 to 12 years was introduced. The Denver Post quickly editorialized supporting the bill and calling term limits supporters a “special interest.” The Post refused my request for an equal number of words to rebut their distortions. This letter to the editor seeks to correct many of the false claims in a very few words.

Comment on Decision 2002: Referendum D Yes: Get rid of Outdated Laws; No: Term Limits are Not Obsolete by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:38:54 +0000

Before 1995 22 states had imposed term limits on their member of Congress. In May 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court incorrectly ruled that the qualifications to be a member in the Constitution were “exclusive” and states do not have the right to impose additional qualifications. States do impose additional qualifications all the time. For example, when Madison was elected to the first Congress the state of Virginia required that he be a property owner. Even today some states bar residents of prisons from running for Congress. In effect the Supreme Court said to Term Limits, “You must amend the U.S. Constitution in order to term limit members of Congress. Term Limits responded, “OK, we don’t object to amending the constitution” and advanced directives to both state and federal legislators in 16 states in 1996. Recognizing the obvious conflict of interest in motivating legislators to act, the scope of these initiative petitions was an “instruct and inform” directive to legislators. That is, by voting “yes” voters directed their legislators to do everything in their power to implement the prescribed amendment to the constitution. Knowing this would be insufficient to overcome the conflict of interest, Term Limits determined to hold legislators accountable by “informing” voters of their actions by placing language on the ballot next to their name. This idea was not original but was copied from the efforts to achieve direct election of senators in the early 1900s. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that it was unfair and “coercive” to inform voters of the behavior of legislators, striking the Amendment. In 2002 the Colorado General Assembly determined to delete the 1996 term limits amendment from the Colorado Constitution as “obsolete.” Term limits supporters disagree. First, they put this on the ballot without consulting any term limits supporters. We were unaware of their actions until we were contacted by state staff for the blue book drafting. I immediately contacted the bill sponsors who claimed they were unaware that term limits had been included among the obsolete provisions to be deleted in 2002. This is likely a lie, but that is what they said. Not only was this entire process deceptive and misleading, state staff refused to include any language in the blue book that might raise a question as to whether all of this was truly obsolete. Thus, the blue book was being used by the legislature as a propaganda device. Second, it was premature to delete any of the 1996 amendment because it was not ripe. Courts are often reversed. Third, even if the court was correct, not all of the 1996 amendment was obsolete. That is, the voice of the people in expressing their desire for their elected officials to make the prescribed amendment to the U.S. Constitution can never be obsolete until the task is achieved. But because we were not allowed to make these points before the state legislature, they erred … and we can conclude that they are either ignorant (not very sharp) or not ignorant … dishonest (sharp enough but attending to their own agenda over that of the people).

Comment on CTLC Wants Term Limits For All States by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:37:16 +0000

During the height of the term limits movement, state term limits leaders met annually to strategize. These meetings were well organized and they always had a big shot as the main attraction. So, over the years we got to meet folks like Steve Forbes, Frank Luntz, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz, and others. The most interesting of these was Horowitz, because he told the story of being raised as a Communist he believed as such until the Black Panthers murdered a friend. This forced him to take a new view of things and concluded the left (or at least the extreme left) did not consider itself bound by the rule of law. In 1999 we met in Los Angeles, but there was no dinner speaker. As the evening progressed, first I thought someone might appear from behind the curtain alternatively with the evening is going to be a bust. Finally, the speaker time arrived and the MC announced, “we are going to do this part of the evening a little different.” The microphone was passed around the room giving each state leader up to 2 minutes to comment to their heart’s content. As the mic was passed to the first person, my attitude was confirmed, “this is going to be a bust.” Yet, when the person spoke, it was profound, insightful, visionary, and statesman-like. The mic went thru the audience with each speaker superseding the others. It was amazing. It was a mistake that this was not captured on video taper. The moral of the story is: The U.S. has an abundance of highly qualified and capable statespersons, they can be found among the ranks of the citizenry, not in the halls of Congress or under the capitol domes.

Comment on Monitoring Your Actions by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:35:50 +0000

This was a letter to Congresswoman Pat Schroeder. After the Republican Revolution where Republicans gained the majority in Congress via their Contract with America, Congressional Republicans answered their contract by deceiving voters with a procedural maneuver. Term limits was the anchor issue in their contract (listed last). As “promised” they brought term limits to a vote. But they used the “king of the hill” method of sorting out several competing term limits measures. So, guess what, the weakest term limit measure beat the others and was subsequently voted down in a separate vote. This allowed every congressperson to claim that the “voted for” term limits and term limits did not pass because of those other evil, corrupt and unresponsive congresspersons. Many of the state term limits leaders (including myself) were in DC to visit their congressional delegation. Let’s just say the ones I got in to see were not enthused by my presence. Rep. Schroeder ticked me off more than the others which motivated this letter. She did not seek re-election in 11/1996.

Comment on The Bigger Issue Within The Term Limits Issue by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:34:18 +0000

This piece was written for Colorado-UWSA, the Ross Perot organization. The Republican Revolution happened in 11/94 and early in 1995 Congress was in the throws of their pretense of addressing their “Contract with America.” Congress did a king of the hill vote on term limits, wherein several varying proposals compete and the winner is then voted up or down. Predictably the weakest term limits proposal gained the most votes and then died. More significantly this tactic allowed every member of Congress to vote “yes” on some term limits proposal with the confidence that none would pass. Call this “political cover.” There was not yet a national consensus on the length of Congressional term limits. Most term limits groups supported 3, 2 year terms in the U.S. House, but the Reform Party did not have internal agreement. At their Dallas convention later in 1996, one of their issue break out sessions focused on gaining consensus. Many of the national and state term limits leaders attended to help inform bring the Reform Party into the fold. Once the Reform Party agreed with 3, 2-year terms, every term limits advocacy group of significance agreed. Congress, of course, refused to acknowledge this consensus. This paper seeks to bring focus to the fact that an accountability system for Congress is lacking.

Comment on Professional Polls will Not Yield Quietly by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:33:09 +0000

Charles Roos, Rocky Mountain News columnist, editorialized against term limits lamenting the loss of qualified and talented representatives. Denied my request for an equal number of words to counter his claims, this letter to the editor punches a couple of holes in his reasoning.

Comment on Term Limits Don’t Be Fooled by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:27 +0000

This piece was written for Colorado-UWSA, the Ross Perot organization. The Republican Revolution happened in 11/94 and early in 1995 Congress was in the throws of their pretense of addressing their “Contract with America.” Congress did a king of the hill vote on term limits, wherein several varying proposals compete and the winner is then voted up or down. Predictably the weakest term limits proposal gained the most votes and then died. More significantly this tactic allowed every member of Congress to vote “yes” on some term limits proposal with the confidence that none would pass. Call this “political cover.” There was not yet a national consensus on the length of Congressional term limits. Most term limits groups supported 3, 2 year terms in the U.S. House, but the Reform Party did not have internal agreement. At their Dallas convention later in 1996, one of their issue break out sessions focused on gaining consensus. Many of the national and state term limits leaders attended to help inform bring the Reform Party into the fold. Once the Reform Party agreed with 3, 2-year terms, every term limits advocacy group of significance agreed. Congress, of course, refused to acknowledge this consensus. This paper sought to alert Reform Party members of the deceptive tactics being used in Congress to mislead citizens.

Comment on Somaliland National Referendum: Final Report by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:00:41 +0000

On behalf of IRI Dennis Polhill led a group of 10 international (8 U.S., 1 Brit, 1 Swiss) election observers to Somaliland (the north half of Somalia, formerly British Somalia before it merged with Italian Somalia in 1964). This trip helped me to realize how quickly the world divested itself from possessing colonies after WW II (This is a good example of not seeing the forest because of the trees. I lived thru this divestiture but failed to recognize the historical significance of what was occurring at the time). Because Britain and Italy were adversaries during WW II, a mini-war (if there is such a thing) was waged locally. The 2 colonies (north and south) gained independence within a week of each other and quickly there was a clamor for “one Somalia.” Although the north and south did not agree on the terms of a merger, they were merged. Somalia was a pawn of the Cold War and became the most armed nation in Africa. After the collapse of the USSR, financial aid ceased and government quickly evolved into anarchy at the hands of local war lords. National boundaries drawn by European politicians ignored local culture and geography aggravating tribal conflicts. Persecution and genocide resulted. In 1991 the North declared its independence and established a government and a provisional constitution. Ratification of the constitution was extended until 2001 and that is the election we were there to observe. The international community was reluctant to acknowledge this election. A second group of election observers was present from South Africa. We had apprehensions about the Constitution that was being adopted because it was an Islamic Constitution. And true-to-form for an Islamic Constitution, it created a theocracy whereby the Islamic priests were the final arbiters, above the courts, above the parliament, above the president, and above the people. The counterbalancing perspective was that the drafters had done an enlightened job and had pushed the envelope as far as was practical for their culture. The document itemized an exhaustive list of individual and human rights, including those allowing women to be educated and to vote. The decision criteria: would the human condition be improved or unimproved by this document? In preparation for the trip there were several global conference calls. Westerners were paranoid about the health conditions there to the point that frustration finally motivated the Ambassador to comment, “Doesn’t it make you wonder how any of us survived growing up there?” He was right; we were excessive-compulsive. My prior trips to the USSR, China, Czechoslovakia, and Moldova helped me to have the courage to undertake this challenge. Moldova is an educated country and is the most destitute nation in Europe. Somaliland is not educated and is even more destitute. Yet, there is hope, honesty, hard work and productive potential among the Somalilanders that the Moldovans lack. I attribute the difference to the Socialism-disease. That is, the Moldovans are waiting for someone to come along and rescue them, solve their problems for them and tell them what to do. With no resources or external assistance, the Somalilanders are making a life and a nation for themselves from nothing. The British are criticized by the locals for leaving Somaliland without building schools, etc. Yet, it is possible that the British left them some fragments of the John Locke ideology and value system and this will help them more than any other assistance can … the notions of self reliance and property rights … that someone should own the product of their personal labor. When outsiders hear of Somalia, we think of it as a single place. Yet, the north and south are largely made up of opposing clans and because recognition and foreign attention is focused at Mogadishu in the south, the north is left to its own devices. The resultant obscurity and necessary self-reliance will one day prove beneficial to Somaliland. For the rest of us Somaliland provides much for us to learn.

Comment on Unfair Government Competition Against Small Business by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:57:07 +0000

This is an awesome paper. In 1991 I was appointed as a delegate to the Statehouse Conference on Small Business. The charge was of the conference was to identify issues important to businesses so the legislature could address the issues and expand job growth and facilitate economic growth in Colorado. I had no agenda other than to fill a slot that a legislator friend needed filled. At the conference they did the thing with large sheets of paper on the wall with every idea conceivable from the audience listed. As the discussion progressed, it was discovered that many different businesses were being injured by government competition. Unfair Competition became the #2 issue on the list and 20 trade groups came together to create a lobbying group on behalf of legislation, CCFC (Colorado Coalition on Fair Competition). The name was copied from a similar national group. CCFC ran 2 bills each year for 3 years. Powerful special interest groups were not going to allow any limitation on government powers to pass. I had worked virtually full time for 6 months compiling and writing about the problem and was burnt out. I did not want this information to be lost and put it all into my first Independence Institute issue paper. Little has been written about unfair government competition. So folks who are being damaged by it will find the paper via google search and contact me for help. I get several such calls each year from all over the U.S. in just about every line of work imaginable. The problem is pervasive and has not and will not be addressed by legislators.

Comment on Stop That Train: RTD’s Light Rail Boondoggle is on a Fast Track for Disaster by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:56:22 +0000

RTD build the first LRT line without voter approval and because it was 100% local money (no Federal money) there was no EIS done. RTD had won a court ruling stating that they were entitled to use tax (sales tax paid to other entities was redirected to RTD), which amounted to about $10 million/year. RTD immediately sold bonds on this revenue stream to gain the funds to construct the MAC Demonstration line, the first 5 miles of LRT in Colorado. One day my phone range with Steve Muller on the other end saying, “They are going to extend MAC. We have to act now.” He had gotten a report written by USDOT-FTA economist, Don Pickerell that exposed many of the falsehoods about rail projects. Pickerell’s research became the prime reference for “Stop that Train.” It was published in March 1994.

Comment on Stop That Train Part II- A Reply to RTD by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:55:17 +0000

Part I of “Stop that Train” was published in March 1994. Copies were mailed to legislators and media. On March 22 a reported called asking our reaction to RTD’s rebuttal. Unaware of a rebuttal the reporter kindly faxed a copy. Steve Mueller and I were amazed at some of the outrageous claims made by RTD in an attempt to discredit Part I. So we wrote a rebuttal to the rebuttal. The draft we submitted to the Institute included 88 rebuttal points, which the Institute edited down to 28 for simplicity and to avoid diverting the focus of readers from what was relevant. Part II was sent to all of the same folks and then we went on the talk radio circuit. At first RTD send representatives. But as they had written their rebuttal they approached it with an arrogance of deception and it was no great effort for Steve and I to defeat their lies in debate. Evidently, they were accustomed to overwhelming uninformed little old ladies and not facing off against a couple of moderately informed government engineers. Finally the refused to appear with us and some of the radio hosts were visibly annoyed at their refusal to go on the air with us. Parts I and II were presented as part of the EIS for the SW Corridor but amazingly did not appear in the final document and of course none of the points raised by the paper were addressed either. This caused me to wonder “who are those guys?” So I got the RTD election records (at least the one’s that were available to the public). If one believes what RTD tells people, some election records were lost. Bottom line: a large percentage of RTD BOD members were elected without opposition (75% of those that I had data for). So, we found a bunch of citizens to run for RTD during the 11/94 election and amazingly several of them won upsetting the state of affairs at RTD.

Comment on Utilities: Market Competition is Coming by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:54:22 +0000

Many utilities had been deregulated throughout the 1980s resulting in increased competition and significant cost reductions to consumers. In 1992 Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which set the stage for competition in electricity.

Comment on Are Coloradans Fit to Make Their Own Laws by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:53:25 +0000

I became interested in the Initiative and Referendum process after the 1994 election when I learned that statements in the Colorado state voters guide were incorrect. Prior to this I had held the belief that the Blue Book was flawless. The error was made in their statement about the number of states with single subject limitations … a researcher had mixed up the single subject limitation as applies to legislation with single subject limitation as applies to the petition process. Thus, apples and oranges were mixed, providing wrong information and misleading voters. Single subject limitation on petitions passed in 1994 and has since been severely distorted by Colorado courts from what voters approved in 1994. This started me looking at various things that are commonly stated about the petition process and every time I got my hands on factual information it turned out to be the opposite of what was being asserted and commonly believed. As the 1996 election approached I had written over 50,000 words. It was a mess and too voluminous to be useful in expanding the understanding of the uninformed. So, to assist the Petition Rights Amendment on the 1996 ballot, I was forced to shrink all of this to just a few pages and those few relevant points. This paper addressed the 14 most commonly heard complaints about the petition process and examined those assertions for truth (one example was “issues on the ballot do not influence voter turn out positively.” Well, they do and it is indisputable. The facts are stark. Once this paper was released and went against the norm, some political science professors had the courage to look more objectively at the question and published more extensive studies proving this point beyond dispute. Now that this is a known and indisputable fact, deeper questions can be probed. Is this also true of referred measures on the ballot? Do more measures increase voter turn out more? Do referred measures and initiated measures influence voter turn out equally? Etc.). This paper also published for the first time a complete list of all ballot issues to appear on the Colorado ballot since 1912. I expected to be vilified for this writing but it was extensively footnoted, so those with preconceived notions addressed it by ignoring it. There is no need to search for truth when one has already made up their mind.

Comment on Light Rail in Denver – Taking the Taxpayers for a Ride by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:52:35 +0000

This issue paper was mostly targeted at Colorado’s Congressional delegation with the hope that they would be swayed by facts to not vote more dollars for LRT.

Comment on Let Those Who Receive the Benefits Pay the Costs by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:51:41 +0000

This issue paper exposed more lies than most. Prior to 1998, the EIS stated that the ROW for the T-REX project was such that there was room only for LRT and no highway lanes. Jon Caldara, then an RTD BOD member took a set of the plans to a Federal government engineer and asked if that was true, because it looked otherwise to him. He replied, “I just want to do open and honest government.” I believe most government workers to be of that level of integrity. Yet, the deceptions perpetrated by our governments upon their people are unbelievable. During the 1998 Governor election, candidate-Owens stated that he would add lanes to the T-REX project. He won and the EIS was amended to reflect the new discovery, no problem. This event more or less gives some evidence as to the legitimacy of a typical EIS as a document designed to search for and expose truths. This paper does much of what an honest EIS might. Starting with the ROW limitation, the question was raised what are all of the possible combinations of lanes and rail … and subsequently evaluated costs, throughput and revenue generation potential (for those options that included a HOT lane) of each alternative. There were 22 such combinations. The entire 68 page paper was submitted for inclusion in the T-REX EIS and was summarily dismissed without substantial understanding on the parts of the EIS authors. A later Backgrounder paper title, “It’s not too late” isolated the relevant data from the single alternative (one of the 22 that had been selected … the one announced by Owens during his election) that was being constructed in order to shrink the data to be understood and to show the scale of the dollars and other negative impacts CDOT was imposing on Colorado citizens by not making the extra lane a HOT lane. As it was the HOT lane, in addition to never being congested, would likely have generated enough revenue to pay for the majority of the highway construction … close to $600 million. I received communications from 2 individuals who commented that my paper was more of a true EIS than was the official EIS. One sent a scathing letter to the powers that be demanding that the points of the paper not be ignored. I guess they ignored him. The Reason Foundation was so impressed by the paper that they proposed that Polhill and Muller write the first HOT lane network paper, but we declined.

Comment on Protecting the People’s Voice: Initiative and Referendum in Colorado (Issue Paper) by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:50:43 +0000

“Protecting the People’s Voice” is an update of “Are Coloradans Fit.” In particular the large appendix that lists all Colorado ballot issues since 1912 is brought current thru the 2005 election. It also serves as the intellectual foundation for Amendment #38-2006, our second attempt at the Petition Rights Amendment. Rather than discuss the same points covered in “Are Coloradans Fit,” PPV provides a perspective on the Safety Clause, the size and amenability of the Colorado Constitution, and inconsistencies with regard to the Single Subject Rule and Colorado’s abusively long ballot titles.

Comment on Why Colorado Needs HOT Lanes by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:47:42 +0000

This was an important paper. It was drafted to support a Senate bill that mandated that CDOT convert one HOV lane to HOT lane. The bill passed thanks to the Herculean efforts of bill sponsor Senate President, John Andrews. John and I met in the basement of the Capitol with legislative staff who had attached the kiss of death to the bill (a fiscal impact). Not seeing that as a problem, I naively asked, “Would you like that to go away.” They both looked at me like I was an idiot for asking. I pointed out that there was no cost to converting; the conversion cost was merely a capitalization problem. So if the bid requires the contractor to bring financing as part of the bid, then tolls generated by the HOT lanes will pay back the capitalization costs to the contractor. The FI disappeared. Still, anything innovative is by definition controversial. So the bill died a couple of times and Andrews brought it back to life and it finally passed. One would think this would be an easy thing to achieve. Colorado has only 3 HOV lanes and only one was configured so that the HOT conversion could be done. Its utility with HOV-only was close to 10% … meaning 90% of the carrying capacity of that highway was just wasted, thrown away. CDOT started by spending $500,000 on a consulting study to select which HOV lane to convert. A second $500,000 was spent on an EIS. Though this appears foolish, these delays and outlays helped to ameliorate institutional resistance from FTA, RTD, DRCOG, City of Denver and others. As a matter of fact, when this process started, the USDOT policy prohibited such conversions and Colorado was instrumental in reversing the federal policy … something that does not happen easily or quickly irrespective of how rational it might be. 7 years after passage of this Senate Bill, the I-25 HOT lane conversion ribbon was cut … and by all measures the project is an overwhelming success.

Sidebar: Andrews was persuaded as to the value of HOT lanes after I captured him at the Institute to show him a 5 minute video produced by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. OTA was the first toll authority to implement ETC (electronic toll collection) in 1989. Instantly toll collection costs went down by 91% and toll booth accidents went down by 100%. In short OTA made toll booth obsolete. The next substantial innovation was SR-91 in southern California that used the same technology but applied variable tolls recognizing for the first time that the highway is more valuable at different time and to different individuals. 20 minutes after leaving the Institute, Andrews is on the phone complaining about being stuck in a traffic jam. He connected the dots instantly. Traffic congestion costs are a cost imposed on citizens for no good reason. Congestion can be eliminated at no cost to taxpayers, because users will pay those cost and those costs to users are less than the costs imposed on them by the congestion. Everyone wins.

Comment on Why RTD Elections Should be Partisan by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:45:44 +0000

This was a hard paper to write. The compelling fact in support of the idea of competitive elections. RTD’s budget is a billion dollars per year with nearly 3000 employees governed by 15 BOD members elected from 15 districts that divide population equally (larger than a state senate district). Many elections have had just a single candidate. A few have had no candidate. Of the races with multiple candidates the qualifications of individuals running to manage an entity of this size. The competition problem is compounded by the problem of small dollars spent in these campaigns … which means voters have very little opportunity to know much about the candidates when voting. In recent years special interests aware of this make up have gone out of their way to insure that taxpayer watchdogs are not elected. The result is RTD is a government out of control, lacking transparency or accountability. Partisan elections would insure at least 2 candidates for each seat as well as better information to voters for voting purposes and competition between the parties would bring greatly needed oversight to RTD. Election history data was difficult to collect. Election of RTD BOD members began after 1980. Initially RTD managed its own elections. Later election management was assigned to the SOS. Election data from the SOS on prior elections was easily accessible. But RTD could not supply election data for some of the years they managed elections. The table in this paper was finally completed with data from newspapers. This paper was generated to support a legislative bill to make RTD elections partisan. The special interests also had significant clout in the legislature so that bill died. Nevertheless, transparency, competition and accountability cry out for this change at a minimum. RTD is so corrupt that reforming it will require far more than mere partisan elections.

Comment on Don’t Miss the HOV to HOT Lanes Conversion Opportunity by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:44:33 +0000

This paper adds to the base of scholarly information about the benefits of HOT lanes. It also points out that CDOT is violating the Colorado Constitution by charging gas tax to users of toll roads. The purpose of the gas tax is to pay for free highways. Thus, if someone pays to use a highway and that individual is not refunded his gas tax, he is in effect paying twice, being double taxed. The Colorado Department of Revenue is aware of this constitutional provision and has systems in place to refund gas tax to those who use gas for other purposes: agriculture, manufacturing, boating, etc. I have pointed this out to CDOT, but evidently they care more for the dollars than about being fair and honest with taxpayers or abiding by the law.

Comment on Colorado’s Anti-Transportation Policy (Issue Backgrounder) by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:43:02 +0000

The first generation of this paper was a short paper, an opinion editorial by the same title. It contained too much information and too many numbers. So the challenge was to choose the three most significant facts from the op-ed and illustrate them in graphical form. I think this paper does the job nicely. Half of the Denver metro area transportation outlays pay for 2 to 4% of mobility … depending upon whether mobility is measured by “trips” or “passenger-miles.”

Comment on It’s Not Too Late: To Avoid Congestion After T-REX (Issue Backgrounder) by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:41:13 +0000

This paper was written to condense the larger message from an extensive research paper into something smaller and easier to digest and to offer relevant specific to a real world application. The larger paper is IP-13-1999, “Let those who benefit, pay the costs.” This backgrounder isolated the relevant info from the longer paper to illustrate how much money CDOT would leave on the table (as well as other traffic congestion benefits lost) if the new TREX lane was not made into a HOT lane. CDOT was not moved by the idea that most of the highway construction cost (several hundred million dollars) would be covered and one lane would never be congested.

Comment on Colorado Highway Maintenance (Colorado in the Balance) by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado in the Balance

Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado in the Balance — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:24:42 +0000

[...] Colorado Highway Maintenance [...]

Comment on Financing Transportation (Colorado in the Balance) by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado in the Balance

Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado in the Balance — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:24:15 +0000

[...] Financing Transportation [...]

Comment on Trends in the National Transportation Policy by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:53:22 +0000

This paper was written for a graduate level class in traffic engineering at the University of Pittsburgh in 1976. My professor objected to my topic because it was not technical. However, gaining an understanding of how the Federal government roll in transportation evolved was enormously instructive. Over the history of the US, Congress persistently tried to insert itself increasingly into involvement in “internal improvements.” This was clearly excluded from the charge of Congress under the Constitution and several presidents issued vetoes of such Congressional actions. This paper mentions the Monroe Veto. Years later I found myself in an email debate with one of the foremost transportation visionaries in the world. He asserting that this veto was by Madison and I asserting it was by Monroe. When I looked it up, voila: we were both right which raised the question as to whether other presidents similarly understood the Constitution. As it turns out there were several such presidents who issued many such vetoes.

Further, the study of Federal transportation policy trends disclosed that Maslow’s needs heirarchy is at least as applies to societies as to individuals. This is evidenced by legislation that passed subsequent to the Interstate Highway Act of 1956. That is, in 1956 the concern was financing and expediency. As portions of the interstate highway system were opened to commerce, the US economy received a substantial boost. But by 1970 concern had become elevated with regard to relocation of affected parties, archeological and environmental damage. Thus, as predicted by Maslow, after basic physical needs are satisfied, concerns refocuses on higher order needs such as social needs.

Comment on Redistricting: The Conspiracy to Protect Politicians from Competitive Elections by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:29:40 +0000

In 2002 we had interest in correcting the process of gerrymandering as part of the post-census redistricting process. We were hopeful that a proper fix would catch on like term limits and spread across the nation. I had succeeded in persuading that Colorado should be the initial state. As a byproduct of much effort and many conference calls with leaders all over the US I redrafted the 5 sections of the Colorado Constitution to correct the abuses. We filed an initiative petition but time was getting late and the cost to petition became prohibitive and it was pulled from consideration for the November 2002 election. While all of that was going on a CATO paper was being drafted to add intellectual amunition to the debate. After the petition was pulled the CATO co-author turned the draft paper into more of a term limits paper editing out much of the interesting gerrymandering information that had been collected. This “unpublished paper” is the draft that was submitted to CATO. The CATO version is posted as “Policy Analysis.”

Comment on Uncompetitive Elections and the American Political System by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:24:24 +0000

In 2002 we had interest in correcting the process of gerrymandering as part of the post-census redistricting process. We were hopeful that a proper fix would catch on like term limits and spread across the nation. I had succeeded in persuading that Colorado should be the initial state. As a byproduct of much effort and many conference calls with leaders all over the US I redrafted the 5 sections of the Colorado Constitution to correct the abuses. We filed an initiative petition but time was getting late and the cost to petition became prohibitive and was pulled from consideration for the November 2002 election. While all of that was going on a CATO paper was being drafted to add intellectual amunition to the debate. After the petition was pulled the CATO co-author turned the draft paper into more of a term limits paper editing out much of the interesting gerrymandering information that had been collected. The draft that was submitted to CATO is presented under the Unpublished Papers section of this web site.

Comment on Force of Finance: Triumph of the Capital Markets – Book Review by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:03:31 +0000

Author, Ruben Brenner, was a Romanian Jew who escaped Communism to become a Canadian Economics Professor. He made a very strong reference to the importance of Initiative and Referendum to democracy and the Initiative and Referendum Institute invited me to author this book review. I felt that his economic and anti-socialism message was so strong and important that I did not emphasize the I%R component of his book in my review. Actually, a very important use of this book presented itself soon after I had written this review. A man from Mongolia (we shall call him Orly) arrived on my doorstep. He was in the US for 2 years to finish his degrees in Law and Economics, had finished but wanted his 2 daughters to finish the year of US schooling before returning to Mongolia. He immediately began talking with me about the importance of property rights to liberty and freedom. Mongolia was in a similar difficulty to Russia. Mongolia was the second nation after Russia to fall to Communism after the Russian Revolution in 1917. This meant there is virtually no living memory of property rights in his country. So just by thinking about it … probably the same way John Locke figured it out … he concluded that property rights was the foundation of all human rights. Rather than for me to tell him he had gotten it right, I gave him this book to read. The next Monday he came back to the office and kept repeating, “I love this book, I love this book.” Brenner did better what Polhill could have done. Brenner was better because he came from similar Communist roots as did Orly. They could speak to each other on a level beyond my ability to comprehend. It is unfortunate that all people do not grasp the evil perpetrated by socialism in the name of good.

Comment on Somaliland National Referendum: Final Report by Dennis Polhill

Dennis Polhill — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:53:05 +0000

The Initiative and Referendum Institute was founded by Dane Waters and Dennis Polhill in 1998 to defend against attacks by American politicians on the right to petition. In 2004 IRI merged with the USC-LA Law School. In 2001 IRI was invited to monitor the constitutional election of Somaliland. Somaliland is the northern part of Somalia. In the mid-1960s both Italian and British Somalia were allowed to become independent states. Because they occured within a week there was a widespread clamor for “one Somalia.” The south never agreed to the terms of the north, so the people of the north to this day consider themselves an independent state: Somaliland. With the end of the cold war East Africa was beset by chaos and anarchy. UN peacekeepers were sent in. This provided the opportunity for the north to assert itself and they declared Somaliland an independent state electing a government and adopting a provisional constitution in 1997. It required re-ratification in May 2001. To validate their efforts election observers were required. Because Somaliland was not recongnized as an independent nation, typical election observers were reluctant to participate. IRI was less averse to controversey and agreed to undertake the task. Our group was international with 8 Americans, 1 Brit and 1 Swiss. Several of us connected to fly together from Frankfurt. Others caught up with the group in Dubai. And the final group member travelled alone thru Etheopia. There was some European media coverage of this election but none that we know of in the US. Final copies of this report were delivered to US SOS, Colin Powel and other dignitaries including UN officials.

Comment on Unfair Government Competition with Small Business (Colorado in the Balance) by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado in the Balance

Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado in the Balance — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:36:44 +0000

[...] Unfair Government Competition with Small Business Bookmark with…SubscribeBlinklistBloglinesBlogmarksDiggdel.icio.usFacebookFurlMa.gnoliaNewsVineRedditStumbleUponTechnorati [...]

Comment on The Colorado Department of Transportation (Colorado in the Balance) by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado in the Balance

Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado in the Balance — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:36:26 +0000

[...] The Colorado Department of Transportation [...]

Comment on Population Growth and Development (Colorado in the Balance by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado in the Balance

Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado in the Balance — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:35:57 +0000

[...] Population Growth and Development [...]

Comment on Transportation and Infrastructure (Colorado in the Balance) by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado in the Balance

Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado in the Balance — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:35:40 +0000

[...] Transportation and Infrastructure [...]

Comment on Democracy’s Journey (Published Version) by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Democracy’s Journey (Original Version)

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:42:21 +0000

[...] This is the original version of a chapter from The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking, prior to editing. Also see the published version. [...]

Comment on Democracy’s Journey (Unedited Version) by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Democracy’s Journey

Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Democracy’s Journey — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:41:10 +0000

[...] is a chapter from The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking. You can purchase the book here. Also see the original version of Democracy’s Journey prior to [...]

Comment on Democracy’s Journey (Unedited Version) by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » The Battle over Citizen Lawmaking: A Collection of Essays

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:40:37 +0000

[...] over Citizen Lawmaking: A Collection of Essays, authoring Chapter One: Democracy’s Journey (original version of Democracy’s Journey prior to [...]

Comment on The Battle over Citizen Lawmaking: A Collection of Essays by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Democracy’s Journey (Original Version)

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:39:04 +0000

[...] is the original version of a chapter from The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking, prior to [...]

Comment on Democracy’s Journey (Published Version) by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » The Battle over Citizen Lawmaking: A Collection of Essays

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:30:27 +0000

[...] Dennis Polhill contributed to The Battle over Citizen Lawmaking: A Collection of Essays, authoring Chapter One: Democracy’s Journey. [...]

Comment on The Battle over Citizen Lawmaking: A Collection of Essays by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Democracy’s Journey

Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Democracy’s Journey — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:09:01 +0000

[...] paper is a chapter from The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking. You can purchase the book [...]

Comment on The Role of I&R in Aiding the Women’s Suffrage Movement (Almanac) by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » The Initiative and Referendum Almanac

Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » The Initiative and Referendum Almanac — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:35:40 +0000

[...] Issue of a National Initiative Process The Role of I&R in Aiding the Women’s Suffrage Movement Colorado Initiative [...]

Comment on The Initiative and Referendum Almanac by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » The Issue of a National Initiative Process

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:34:42 +0000

[...] paper is a chapter from The Initiative & Referendum Almanac. You can purchase the book [...]

Comment on Colorado Initiative Usage (Almanac) by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » The Initiative and Referendum Almanac

Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » The Initiative and Referendum Almanac — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:22:57 +0000

[...] Colorado Initiative Usage [...]

Comment on The Initiative and Referendum Almanac by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado Initiative Usage

Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado Initiative Usage — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:20:09 +0000

[...] paper is a chapter from The Initiative & Referendum Almanac. You can purchase the book [...]

Comment on The Initiative and Referendum Almanac by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » The Role of I&R in Aiding the Women’s Suffrage Movement

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:42:41 +0000

[...] paper is a chapter from The Initiative & Referendum Almanac. You can purchase the book [...]

Comment on The Issue of the National Initiative Process (Almanac) by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » The Initiative and Referendum Almanac

Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » The Initiative and Referendum Almanac — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:47:11 +0000

[...] Dennis Polhill contributed several chapters to The Initiative and Referendum Almanac. You can read one of his contributions, the final chapter of the book, here: The Issue of a National Initiative Process. [...]

Comment on Colorado’s Anti-Transportation Policy by Dennis Polhill » Blog Archive » Colorado’s Anti-Transportation Policy

Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:34:40 +0000

[...] [1] Additional detail is available in Independence Institute Opinion Editorial, ‘Colorado’s Anti-Transportation Policy’, by Dennis Polhill, September 20, 2000 [...]