G.P.S.: Gettin' Pretty Slick

Nathan Rodriguez, nrodriguez@vailtrail.com
July 9, 2008

Global Positioning Systems (GPS) have been around in one form or another since the Soviet Union launched Sputnik more than 50 years ago.

For decades the military used the technology, and it has proven to be a successful tool in disaster response. But for most people, GPS hasn’t seeped into daily life. Sure, some high-end vehicles have them, and more backcountry hikers are using them. But they’re not as prevalent as, say, the iPod.

That could change in the next couple years.

Corporate heavyweights Apple and Google have recently jumped into the GPS game. The new iPhone hits store shelves this weekend at half the cost of the original, and features GPS capability. Meanwhile, Google signed an agreement last week with Tele Atlas for navigation content. Although Google already had a primitive system in place, it can now offer turn-by-turn navigation.

The Center for Transportation Studies in Minnesota predicts there will be more than 50 million GPS users by 2010, and research from ABI Research, a technology research firm, shows global shipments of GPS devices are expected to double in less than five years.

Locally, sales are up. Wristwatches with GPS and hand-held devices “have been gaining in popularity and are definitely still on the rise,” said Dan Bogarduf, manager of Bag & Pack Shop in Avon. “We’ve seen a big increase in sales over the last couple years, but this year especially. It’s gaining momentum.”

It’s not just that current technology will become more popular, it’s that GPS is being integrated into more devices. GPS will likely remain a constant feature in vehicles, but now it’s being used in everything from tractors to cameras to dog collars. It’s worth taking a glance at the innovations now entering the market.

In-car information
Many GPS devices provide traffic and weather information, but more are beginning to carry things like movie theater showtimes and local gas prices.

“Most of the big advances right now are related to Internet connectivity,” said Tim Flight, editor and owner of the Web site GPSreview.net. He went on to say that a permanent connection to the Internet will become more common in vehicles, allowing people to “find a number of things like gas prices, homes for sale nearby, weather and traffic information.”

Earlier this year, Dash Express software was released, offering live traffic information using embedded road sensors. The feature is sexier than it sounds, as users can view average speed on roads in real-time to determine the quickest route based on traffic flow.

Live crowd movements
CitySense maps where GPS users are concentrated in cities allow anyone in business or marketing to identify “hot spots” in cities. Soon, people will be able to analyze their travel history and see where friends travel. Another slick feature is if CitySense determines there are larger crowds (worse traffic) than usual, it can adjust your alarm clock by a few minutes. The application is available on BlackBerrys as well as the new iPhone.

Avoiding high-crime areas
In Japan, Honda has a GPS system that gives directions to avoid “bad neighborhoods,” or areas with high rates of vandalism and auto theft.

Will we see this in the U.S. anytime soon?

“It’s definitely something that consumers are interested in because people use GPS in areas they’re unfamiliar with,” Flight said. “There’s some hesitation right now due to political correctness, so I think we’ll see the user community establish it first with their own files.”

Trucking
Motorola just completed a study showing GPS could save the trucking industry $53 billion annually by providing data on things such as low bridges.
“There’s an untapped market right now,” Flight said.

Agriculture
Farmers have used GPS for years, but the practice has only recently gained traction on midsized and smaller farms. Having GPS in a tractor ensures straight rows that don’t overlap, which reduces fuel, time, chemicals and product. Though this may seem like overkill under clear conditions, the technology can come in handy as the sun goes down or blustery winds blur visibility.

Most systems have manual guidance, which tells the operator how much to correct the steering, but the assisted steering systems are even more impressive because after the first initial pass is made by the farmer, the tractor takes over, steering itself through the remaining rows.

Real estate
A few Internet sites offer downloadable “Points of Interest” of homes for sale. Homebuyers upload the information to a GPS device, and as they drive past a place, an audio recording kicks on with information about the location.

Personal safety
Remember those “I’ve fallen and I can’t get up!” commercials? Well, now “personal beacons” are being marketed as a lifesaver for hikers in distress. The technology is slightly different than GPS, as one receives information and the other transmits.

Flight said most personal beacons are able to transmit signals where GPS devices would not function, adding they can pinpoint a position within 10 meters, even if the view is obstructed.

“They keep a track log of where you’ve been and how long you’ve been there, so you will still have a last-known location,” Flight said.

“I think everyone remembers the story of Aaron Ralston,” said Steven Lundholm, sales associate at Bag & Pack in Avon, referring to the hiker forced to cut off part of his arm after being pinned under a boulder in Utah. “Now he’s the biggest spokesman for personal beacons.”

Children and pets
In addition to protecting yourself, GPS-type devices are now advertised as the solution to prevent losing a child or pet. Instead of milk cartons or homemade posters, people will be able to set up a tracking device that activates when your child or pet leaves a specific zone. With these systems, kids generally wear a wristwatch while dogs sport a collar.

Cameras
In what may be the most interesting new wrinkle, some cameras now have GPS. Snap a photo, and the navigational coordinates are automatically stored.

It’s easy to envision software that allows users to organize photos either chronologically or geographically. Hiking trails could become well documented.

Once GPS becomes common in cameras, expect to see virtual libraries containing massive photographic databases of locations around the world. Social networking sites like Facebook will likely provide applications for users to search their friends’ photos by location. Online travel sites may take advantage as well, enhancing their ability to preview destinations and accommodations.

Back to the future
Finally, there are a couple advances for in-car GPS technology worth mentioning.
First, they’ll have a new look. “Suction cups with cords hanging down isn’t a long-term solution,” Flight said, laughing. “One of the disadvantages of a typical GPS system, especially those installed at the factory, is that you have to look down to see it.”

And while this may remain the case for the next few years, help is on the way. A New Jersey company has developed Virtual Cable, which projects a 3-D image on the windshield that appears to be suspended over the road ahead. Now instead of being told to turn in 500 feet, the software shows the exact path to make the turn. Flight said the technology is “still several years down the road.”

In the meantime, people can set their sights on something a little more geek-chic: “Knight Rider.” Next month, Mio will release an in-car navigation system featuring the voice of William Daniels, “Knight Rider’s” Kitt. There are 300 names stored in the device, to add a personal touch. At $270, the device also has a Trans Am icon to mark progress on the journey, as well as red LED lights that flash as Kitt voices instructions.

Pretty soon, will it be possible to say no one will get lost again?


Nathan Rodriguez can be reached for comment at nrodriguez@vailtrail.com.

Tangled Up in TABOR

Nathan Rodriguez, nrodriguez@vailtrail.com
July 9, 2008

For 16 years, local and municipal governments in Colorado have been trying to figure out how to work with the Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). Now, with the state considering new changes to the law, it’s worth taking a look at how things shape up locally.

It’s pretty easy to get bogged down in the buzzwords associated with TABOR: “Referendum C,” “Amendment 23,” and “de-Brucing” are each worthy of separate articles. It’s also easy to get trapped in the talking points over TABOR’s effectiveness. Both sides are convinced of their cause and tend to flatly deny assertions floated by the opposition.

On its face, TABOR looks like an exercise in fiscal responsibility. In the spirit of “no taxation without representation,” TABOR acts as Colorado’s taxation and spending limitation amendment, requiring tax increases to be approved by voters.

Sounds simple enough.

“When TABOR gets sold, it’s sold on a bumper sticker, and it’s very easy and very seductive to say you want to limit spending,” said Robb Gray, state project coordinator for the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. “The problem is it takes 15 minutes to explain what a bumper sticker says in 15 seconds.”

A bad rap
After a brief honeymoon period with Colorado voters during the economic boom of the mid-90s, TABOR has since been blamed for a general deterioration of services statewide.

Opponents claim it creates budget shortfalls and short-changes vital programs, pointing to data showing that Colorado ranks 47th in the nation in school funding, and 44th in spending on public roads.

Proponents maintain those figures are intentionally misleading. And they say school funding figures measure spending as a percentage of personal income. But because Coloradans have higher earning power than residents of other states, it only appears that spending is low. TABOR advocates claim that a poorer state like New Mexico, which spends fewer dollars per pupil, ranks 7th overall.

Similarly, Colorado ranks either 19th or 49th in higher education spending, depending on whether tuition fees are included.

For most Eagle County residents, such speculation about TABOR’s effectiveness is
interesting but irrelevant, as they have essentially opted out of the amendment in a move known as “de-Brucing.”

Intent and effect
TABOR was originally intended to act as a check on government spending, but opponents claim the act is a Trojan Horse for slicing budgets.

“The real problem is that it restricts revenues coming into the state with a “population plus inflation formula,” said Gray. “It doesn’t just cap it at a reasonable level, it shrinks the budget over time.”

Gray argued that the services and functions provided by local government face different levels of inflation than those faced by consumers, so applying the consumer rate of inflation to government spending means the government falls short on funding. He said that sheer population numbers are not accurate, as they don’t take into account children with disabilities, senior services, or “needy populations,” which demand more funding than the general population.

This continual shortage of funds for government spending has been termed the “ratchet effect.”

De-Brucing
The solution to the “ratchet effect” for many Colorado communities has been to “de-Bruce,” or opt-out of many of TABOR’s provisions through a public vote.

“The town of Vail has de-Bruced from TABOR, so we’re not held to all the restrictions,” said Judy Camp, finance director for the city of Vail. “By our charter, we’re allowed to spend and collect existing taxes without limitation, but we’re still governed by parts of TABOR where voters need to approve new tax increases.”
So has de-Brucing solved budget shortfalls?

Calls to local agencies including Vail Fire & Emergency Services, Eagle County Health and Human Services, and the Eagle County Ambulance District all revealed that the agencies generally have adequate funding for operations in the area. Naturally, some people may question whether the agencies now have a surplus of funds generated from property taxes.

Still paying the price
Despite de-Brucing, Eagle County residents have still felt the economic impact of TABOR.

Over the last several years, county property values have risen sharply. So even though the mill levy has remained a constant, the dollar amount paid by property owners has increased substantially.

The chorus of calls to lower mill levies is beginning to grow, as are questions about where the extra revenue is going.

The trade-off
“Without the additional revenue [from property taxes], we would have had to cut services that people wouldn’t have been too happy about,” said John Lewis, finance director for Eagle County. “We’re moving ahead with rebuilding a one-lane bridge along the Colorado River. We have three bridges that need to be rebuilt soon, and we wouldn’t have been able to move ahead without revenue from property taxes.”

Lewis added that if the bridges aren’t rebuilt in the next five to 10 years, “we run the risk of having to close the bridges, and people will have to find another route to take.” With the local population continuing to grow, the stress on roads and bridges will only be exacerbated.

Lewis said that many costs for the county have gone up, from the price of gravel to the cost of new trucks and snowplows. Even retaining employees has become more costly.

“We’re having to deal with shortages of labor because of all the mine drilling done in Garfield,” Lewis said. “We’re losing employees and have to pay them more to stay ahead of inflation.”

In this view, a reduction in revenue from property taxes would force tough decisions.
“Without that revenue, we have to say which roads don’t get plowed, which roads don’t get dust abatement, and which bridges don’t get repaired this year,” Lewis said.

Decisions, decisions, decisions
From small towns to the state legislature, officials have wrestled with how to run government agencies under TABOR.

In 2005, Colorado voters passed Referendum C, which essentially suspends the majority of TABOR for five years, allowing the Legislature to spend rather than rebate extra revenue. With the addition of Amendment 23, surplus revenue is earmarked for education.

Now, speaker of the Colorado house, Andrew Romanoff, is circulating a petition that would leave intact the central provision of TABOR, requiring taxpayer approval before raising taxes, while allowing the state to keep tax surplus refunds to invest in the State Education Fund. His plan would also eliminate the mandatory education spending increases under Amendment 23 while creating a “rainy day fund” used primarily for education.

Despite its flaws, many fiscal conservatives see TABOR as a lesser evil, compared to what they see as runaway government spending.

“If (Romanoff’s ballot issue) is such a wonderful idea, why couldn’t the speaker of the House get it through the Democrat-controlled Legislature?” asks Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, a conservative think tank in Golden.

Caldara argues that Referendum C is more than just a “timeout,” claiming it never ends, and says it actually has a similar “ratchet effect.”

“It has an interesting little bit to it that the other side doesn’t like to talk about. It permanently ratchets up the baseline for the state budget because in the fine print it says that the highest budget in those five years becomes the new baseline.”

Right now, Romanoff’s ballot initiative is circulating throughout the state. At least 76,000 signatures are required to qualify for the November ballot.

“We’re actively working to gather those signatures,” said Colorado State Treasurer Cary Kennedy. “We’ve turned in a large amount, somewhere around 30,000 signatures in the past week, and we have people gathering signatures all over the state.”

Making TABOR work
It is difficult, if not impossible, to simply remove TABOR now that it is in the state constitution.

“It’s due to the single subject rule. You can’t remove something, you just have to pass a slew of budget measures to counteract it,” Gray said. “TABOR has its tendrils in the state of Colorado.”

Many local officials have found a way to work around TABOR, and are now hesitant to shake things up.

“It seems to be working now, so I wouldn’t change it,” Lewis said. “There’s some talk about reinstituting [TABOR] so there’s only a certain amount of increase per year, and as a taxpayer that sounds rational.”

Lewis said the problem is that once property values level off, the county could experience revenue shortfalls yet again if it chooses to lower the mill levy.

In the meantime, voters have given government agencies some breathing room by de-Brucing.

“Just look at the counties that have not (de-Bruced),” Lewis said. “Pueblo is having huge financial difficulties. It’s hard to predict exactly what life would be like if we were not De-Bruced, but looking at it from the perspective of providing services, it would be a scary proposition.”


Nathan Rodriguez can be reached for comment at nrodriguez@vailtrail.com.

No Town, No Problem

Edwards has found a different way of getting things done

Nathan Rodriguez, nrodriguez@vailtrail.com
July 2, 2008

The letters to the editor continue to trickle in, arguing the neighborhood of Edwards should incorporate.

The reasoning generally boils down to straight economics. County sales taxes that are collected in other incorporated areas are used to support necessary roads, sidewalks and law enforcement needs of Edwards, the largest community in Eagle County with 8,000 residents.

Aside from the occasional flickers of interest though, it doesn’t appear that Edwards is inching any closer to incorporating.

“A library would be nice, but I like it the way it is,” said Michelle Harmon, Edwards resident since 1997.

That simple sentiment seems to capture the dominant view, which is that there is no pressing need to turn Edwards into a town.

“It should have been a town, but now it’s probably too late,” said Don Cohen, president of the Berry Creek Metro District. “The core of Edwards is pretty much set, and at this point it doesn’t make economic sense to unring the bell.”

Doing Just Fine
As president of the Berry Creek district, Cohen meets once a month with representatives from surrounding areas like Homestead and Singletree to discuss issues that affect the entire community, such as traffic.

“The main reason neighborhoods incorporate is to provide basic public services like public safety, fire, snow, or trash removal,” Cohen said. “But if you live in Edwards, you already get all of that with different organizations covering everything.”

Between the monthly meetings with other districts in the area and the services the county provides — like law enforcement through the Sheriff’s Office — Edwards has its immediate needs met.

But Bruce Moore, senior member of the wait staff at the Main Street Grill in Edwards, sees things differently. He said Edwards needs to incorporate.

“Traffic from here to Singletree is getting pretty bad, especially in the mornings, but we’re struggling with more specific issues like parking,” said Moore. “Not having parking spaces is bad for business, and we shouldn’t have to depend on the county to make decisions for us.”

Truth be told, it seems that many people in Edwards are indifferent about incorporation. Part of this stems from the fact that some Edwards residents only call the neighborhood “home” for a few months out of the year. Meanwhile, many other full-time residents simply don’t know or don’t care much about incorporation.

“There just aren’t any crying needs going unmet right now,” said Jan Strauch, president of Carlson Wagonlit Travel in Edwards, and former member of the Vail Town Council. “All incorporation would do is add another layer of bureaucracy and cost. The infrastructure is already paid for, and we have plenty of police coverage, so there’s really no screaming need to change anything.”

Strauch admitted there may be benefits to incorporating, such as a local police department, but added that the associated costs outweigh any gains for the neighborhood. As a former member of the Vail Town Council, Strauch saw the downside of bureaucracy. “Money gets used up on the smallest things, like pet waste disposal. But the county has been great so far, and the developers have done a decent job with the roads.”

Too Late to Incorporate?
Aside from random message-board chatter and sporadic letters to the editor, there has not been any consistent, concerted effort to incorporate Edwards.

County Attorney Bryan Treu said incorporation talk is a perpetual issue, but he hasn’t had any reason to move on the matter.

Don Cohen agrees. “We’ve lived here for 14 years, and we’re no further ahead or behind where we were 14 years ago,” he said. “In some ways we’re farther away from incorporating, because there used to be no real development in Edwards. Now it’s sort of done. If you wanted to incorporate, 15 years ago was the time to do it.”

Both Cohen and Strauch point to Avon as an example of what happens when a neighborhood incorporates, noting that the town has gained little from incorporating in 1978.

As Eagle County continues to grow — and state officials say the county’s population should double by 2025 — the calls to incorporate may gain traction. “Way down the road, it may make more sense to incorporate,” said Cohen. “By 2035 or 2040, I could see us all being one town. But we’re not there yet."

Running for Office, Running From the Borde

Nathan Rodriguez, nrodriguez@vailtrail.com
July 2, 2008

Last week, presidential frontrunners John McCain and Barack Obama made headlines with their attempts to court Hispanic voters. But unlike other issues on which the two make sharp policy distinctions, when it comes to immigration, it appears they share more in common than not.

Political analysts agree the Hispanic vote may be the key to carrying swing states like Colorado in November. The question then, is whether the differences between McCain and Obama’s immigration policies will be enough to sway the bulk of this crucial voting bloc.

Plenty of Similarities

In 2006, McCain introduced a bipartisan bill with Sen. Edward Kennedy to reform immigration policy. Obama favored the legislation while conservatives derided the proposal for “granting amnesty.” Two years later, in the heat of the campaign, McCain has shifted his stance, recently saying he would not support the measure.

McCain now frames the issue as border security first, immigration policy reform second. He faces a challenging tightrope walk of appeasing the substantial Hispanic vote without betraying his conservative base. Obama frames the immigration issue as one that has been exploited by politicians, and one that demands comprehensive reform.

The main talking points begin to blend together: both candidates agree on the need for reform, both agree on the importance of border security, and both prefer a moderate approach to deal with illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S.

Differences and the DREAM Act

There are a few differences worth noting. The most detailed analysis of the two candidates on immigration comes from Maribel Hastings of La Opinion newspaper. He finds two distinctions: Obama supports the DREAM Act, while McCain does not; Obama supports giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants and McCain does not.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act), is designed to benefit high school students who are long-term illegal immigrants, allowing them to serve in the armed forces, attend college, or gain legal status provided they meet basic requirements. According to the Immigrant Policy Project, an estimated 65,000 students would be eligible for the DREAM Act annually.

The other point of contention concerns driver’s licenses. Here, Obama takes the road less traveled, supporting measures to provide illegal immigrants with driver’s licenses. This bold move may delight many Hispanic voters, but is so far to the left that it risks alienating “mainstream” voters if he makes it a priority in the campaign. Notably, Obama’s stance on issuing driver’s licenses is omitted from the immigration policy overview on his official Web site.

The local view

Nationally, both Hispanic groups and coalitions opposed to illegal immigration seem uninspired by Obama and McCain’s positions on the issue.

“Both McCain and Obama have been good on immigration, so it kind of neutralizes that issue,” said Brent Wilkes, executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). “I think Obama has an edge with the Hispanic vote primarily for the same reasons he has an edge with the rest of the electorate. Latinos are concerned about the economy and the war in Iraq.”

Ardent opponents of illegal immigration are less than pleased that McCain won the G.O.P. nomination. A nationwide Bloomberg poll conducted during the primaries showed McCain won just 1 percent of voters for whom illegal immigration was the “top concern.” It appears this sentiment remains valid locally.

Colorado representative and former Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo wrote an open letter to McCain in late June, questioning the consistency of his immigration policy. Tancredo mentioned McCain’s recent closed-door meeting with Hispanic leaders in Chicago in which he reportedly promised to pursue comprehensive immigration reform. Tancredo pressed: “Given your past sponsorship of amnesty legislation, such statements raise troubling questions. Are you planning to break a promise you made … to postpone other immigration reform legislation until we have first secured our borders?”

Debbie Marquez, an Edwards resident on the Democratic National Committee, doesn’t anticipate McCain ratcheting up the rhetoric on immigration anytime soon. “Republicans have used [immigration] as a wedge issue in the past and they’d like to do it again,” said Marquez, “But it ain’t gonna happen.” She cited anemic fundraising as one cause. “Right now the Republican 527s and ‘Swiftboat-type’ groups aren’t able to raise the money, and I think the country is just tired of it.”

Two Colorado coalitions opposed to illegal immigration also are dissatisfied with their options in November. Fred Elbel of Defend Colorado Now, wrote via e-mail, “McCain has [a] track record that is demonstrably open borders, and Obama had a D- grade on immigration.” Stanley Weekes, state director of The Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIR), noted that his group focuses on local immigration concerns, but responded via e-mail, “It appears the primary candidates for the presidency are clueless to the desires of the majority of citizens and are pandering to a very narrow slice of enablers.”

Battleground issue or not?

This begs the question: If special interest groups aren’t gearing up for an election battle, will immigration policy be a deciding factor for mainstream voters?

It appears not.

A 2007 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows that a solid 60 percent of voters nationwide are ambivalent when it comes to immigration reform. The Dallas Morning News suggests the remaining 40 percent of voters are split on either side of the debate, with an “unvarying 20 to 25 percent” of voters being “bitterly anti-immigrant” and “dominat[ing] the debate,” while an estimated 15 to 20 percent of voters are “sympathetic to immigrants,” but are “neither vocal nor intense.”

As it stands, the G.O.P. faces an uphill battle to woo Hispanic voters. In 2006, the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center estimated that 49 percent of Hispanic voters went Democrat while only 28 percent voted Republican. In 2007, the same study showed the margin increasing as 57 percent of registered Hispanic voters went Democrat, while 23 percent leaned Republican. Finally, when asked to choose between McCain and Obama, a Wall Street Journal poll from June 2008 shows Obama enjoying a 62- to 28-percent lead over McCain among Hispanics.

In short, Hispanic voters have moved en masse to the Democratic Party over the last few years. It has reached a point where it makes little political sense for either candidate to force the issue.

It appears immigration will remain on the back burner for the November election. While the subject will generate some talk on the campaign trail, a return to the polarizing rhetoric of the past is highly unlikely. McCain would rather not bring it up, as members of his own party have accused him of “flip-flopping” and “zig-zagging” on the issue. At the same time, Obama’s risky strategy of favoring driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants risks splintering his broader coalition.

Without special interest groups nipping at their heels, neither McCain nor Obama seem anxious to roll the dice on immigration reform. It is more likely each candidate will advance an appeasement strategy, and continue speaking in general terms about the need for immigration reform without straying too far from the middle.

WAKARUSA 2008
for the review & more photos, see the Jambase article