Commerce City and its residents are upset because drilling and hydraulic fracturing (or "fracking") operations began this week in an area of unincorporated Adams County relatively close to a residential subdivision. The residents and city are upset because they feel that Adams County didn't keep them in the loop about the drilling operation. However, development of the mineral rights has been permitted since 1972.

It is understandable that the residents don't necessarily want oil rigs and heavy pumping equipment in their back yards (especially if they aren't the royalty owners), and the jury is still out on the extent of potential health risks produced by fracking, but I think it is a stretch to claim that this is a complete surprise. Oil & gas development is a major industry in Colorado, and virtually all oil & gas interests are of public record.  All of the residents of the subdivision, and especially Commerce City, should have known that oil development was a possibility long before they built or purchased their homes.

It is important for land owners and home buyers to understand that living in a rural or semi-rural area opens the door to conditions and concerns that you wouldn't otherwise have to deal with in a more urban environment.  This is a prime example of why it is important to conduct more due diligence and inquire into the potential uses of the surrounding areas before purchasing real property.

While I sympathize with the families of Commerce City who now have a direct view of the pumping stations our of their dining room window, I think the situation could have been avoided with a little foresight and better planning.

_ This week, Mayor Hancock announced the appointment of Chris Martinez as the Director of Small Business Opportunity for the city of Denver, which is a new position within the city’s bureaucracy. Mr. Martinez will join the city’s Office of Economic Development (OED) in an effort to re-focus and re-energize the department, emphasizing economic development for small businesses.

More specifically, Mr. Martinez will lead the Small Business and Start-up Advisory Group, which is also a new creation of the Mayor’s that was introduced during his first 100 days in office. The Mayor’s office has explained that the purpose of the group is to make Denver the “Start-Up and Small Business Capital of the country.” To do this, they say that the group will focus on high-growth, innovative start-ups that create new products and services, hopefully resulting in the creation of high-paying jobs.

Previously, Mr. Martinez was a board member of the Regional Transportation District (RTD), where he was partially responsible for budget oversight, and before that he worked for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City for over 35 years.

Admittedly, I am a skeptic when it comes to the government announcing new groups, committees, or advisory boards, because I don’t necessarily believe that the costs of the projects are usually worth the returns. However, I am quite interested in following Mr. Martinez and the emphasis on small business development that the city has put forth as a new priority.

When I first heard about the city’s new project, the only thing I could think was “oh great, the city’s adding new salaries to the budget that won’t be worth their cost.” But, as I looked further into the issue, my perception changed. As I learned more about Denver’s OED, the skepticism lessened and I am now excited to learn more about the new programs and watch them develop.

Given Mr. Martinez’s background with the Federal Reserve Bank, the natural question I had was “how will Mr. Martinez be able to provide funding and availability to start-up capital to small businesses through the city?” Funding is generally the key to small business development. Well, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Denver currently has two lending programs for new businesses: the Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) program, and the Neighborhood Business Revitalization (NBR) loan program.  

Each program offers lending services for businesses located in designated neighborhoods throughout the city, in an effort to develop local economies where business and financing are lacking. In a time where private lending has slowed (if not dried up altogether) it is fantastic to see the city stepping in and truly providing a public service – financing and capitalization. Given Mr. Martinez’s background in banking, I can only hope that much of his work will be to broaden and expand those programs.

It remains to be seen how effective the Small Business and Start-up Advisory Group will be. The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. But, for the first time in a long while I can say that I support the direction the city is going, and I hope to be able to report on future successes of Mr. Martinez and his new program.

This week, a federal court in Montana will decide the fate of the grey wolf in Idaho and Montana, yet again. For the past twenty years, wildlife advocates have been in court fighting for the wolves. The first wave of litigation was an effort to put them on the endangered species list. The second effort was to fight to keep them on the list once the population grew. And now, advocates are fighting to stop trophy hunting of the animals.

This year, federal biologists gave the go-ahead for wolf trophy hunting in both Idaho and Montana, and so far 150 wolves have been killed pursuant to valid hunting licenses. The hunting programs are coordinated under state law, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who is responsible for establishing and maintaining the protected species lists, is monitoring the hunts.

The Wildlife Service’s official position is that it will not get involved in regulation of the hunting as long as the respective wolf populations remain above the targeted goals of each area. Currently, Idaho has a goal of maintaining at least 150 wolves, but the state has an estimated population of 700. Montana is looking to maintain a target level of 425 wolves, which would allow for a population reduction of 25% of the existing population this year.

The grey wolf has been a major issue throughout the rocky mountain region because of the disparate interests involved: one side seeks to reestablish the animal to its original population, while the other seeks to protect private land and ranching interests against a known predator. Throughout the mid-twentieth century, wolf populations were nearly eradicated as a result of loose hunting regulations and aggressive ranching operations. But, over the last decade, the grey wolf population has rebounded after its deliberate reintroduction to the region, and the rift between ranchers and wildlife advocates has resurfaced anew.

This week’s case is taking place in the 9th Circuit of the federal court system, which includes Idaho and Montana, as well as the western pacific states. Colorado is in the 10th Circuit and therefore the outcome of this case will not have a direct effect upon the laws applied here. However, there will be a ripple effect that will make its way down to us from the north.

Currently, there are no grey wolves in Colorado, according to the Colorado Wildlife Division. Hence, there is no current debate on whether or not to hunt them. But, as trophy hunting is allowed in Montana and Idaho, the potential for the wolf population to spread into our state decreases.

Moreover, Wyoming recently ended its own legal bout in federal court over the wolf, where the state fought to de-list the grey wolf as a protected species and give it a dual classification. The new classification will allow trophy hunting in the northwest region of Wyoming (near Idaho and Montana), and will list the wolf as a predator throughout the rest of the state, allowing for defensive killing of wolves to protect domestic livestock.

Wyoming has attempted to allow hunting of its wolf population since 2004, but the state’s requests had previously been rejected. Following the most recent hearings, the 10th Circuit federal court held that wolf hunting may be permitted in Wyoming, as long as there is sufficient proof that the hunting will not decrease the state’s wolf population below target levels. So, as soon as state and federal biologists can agree on a number, it is likely that wolf trophy hunting will open in Wyoming as well.

Why does Colorado care about the Wyoming case in particular? Well, the Wyoming case is important because both Colorado and Wyoming are within the 10th Circuit.  Therefore, the decisions reached in that case will apply directly to any future cases brought in Colorado. Also, as the wolf issue continues to unfold, many of the legal battles taking place in Idaho and Montana today will also likely determine the outcome of cases in Colorado in the future. This is somewhat ironic because even though there are no wolves here yet, their fate in Colorado is already being influenced, if not determined by other states.

Colorado is also uniquely situated for the wolf controversy. According to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, wolves used to inhabit every county in the state. Accordingly, the state is geographically ideal for a large wolf population. But, there have not been wolves in the state since 1930. Colorado ranchers essentially wiped the population out in response to the wolves’ predation, or killing of ranch livestock. One of the key factors in the wolf’s history within the state (or lack thereof) if the fact that Colorado has the largest human population of all of the rocky mountain states. Therefore, Colorado will have a greater struggle between the private landholder interests and those of wildlife advocates.

So, while it may seem like Colorado doesn’t yet have a dog in this hunt, it may just be that Colorado’s future relationship with the wolf has already been determined without us fully realizing it.

This past Tuesday, the polls were open and ballots were counted for the most recent series of Denver elections. The three main issues up for vote included Proposition 103 (tax increases supporting educational funding), the Denver public school board elections, and Referendum Initiative 300, also known as the Paid Sick Leave Initiative. 

Without a doubt, all eyes were focused on the outcome of the Paid Sick Leave vote, both here in Colorado and throughout the country. With 64.0% of the votes going against the initiative, Denver voters voiced a resounding “no thanks” to the idea of mandatory sick leave benefits for employees. 

The initiative would have required every employer to provide paid sick days to employees at a rate of one hour per every thirty hours worked. Businesses with less than 10 employees would have been capped at 5 days of sick leave per year, while businesses with more than 10 employees would be capped at 9 days.

But, in a time when protesters have set up camp across from the state capital building and there exists a major pro-“common man” movement, why did a seemingly pro-employee initiative get so utterly defeated?

A campaign spokesman for the initiative said that the defeat was a result of its opponents' spending power. It is certainly true that there was more money available for campaigning against the initiative, with opponents including national figures such as the National Restaurant Association, and local figures such as Governor Hickenlooper and Mayor Hancock. Together, their efforts produced significant TV and radio air-time, as well as distribution of anti-initiative pamphlets handed out by small businesses throughout the city.

However, there was much more than mere campaign resources at play with the defeat of Initiative 300. Colorado is decidedly small-business oriented, and much more economically friendly to small businesses than many other states.  As a result, there are quite a few Colorado businesses owned by the “common man.”  And those owners showed up to vote.

The Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) publishes an Economic Development Databook, which discusses the status of the Colorado economy. The Databook details segments of the economy and categories of businesses that make up the economic engine of the state, and identifies major trends within each of the segments and categories.

In the current 2010-2011 edition, the Databook highlights Colorado’s US News ranking, which places the state 3rd in the U.S. for the best states to start a business. According to the Databook’s own statistics, Colorado ranks 2nd in business start-ups per capita, and American Express’ OPEN Forum networking site for small businesses also ranks Colorado as the second most small-business friendly state.

What does all of this mean for you? Well, that depends on your situation. 

Without Initiative 300 employees are still only entitled to the paid sick days provided under their employment agreements. However, the efforts made to defeat Initiative 300 show strong and distinct support for small businesses in Denver, and Colorado in general. As a major source of employment in the state, the continued success of small businesses will foster better living standards and continued economic development for businesses and individuals alike.

So, while Initiative 300 seemed like a great addition to employee rights at first glance, its long-term effect could have limited employee hiring and restrained a major segment of Colorado’s economy, resulting in a continued economic lull and reduced employment opportunities. Therefore, its defeat was a major win for both employers and employees.

I am happy to announce my new blog, First Draft.  On a weekly basis, I will write and post a brief article about a legally significant current event or issue, and I will give my opinion on the topic and the possible ripple effects it may have. 

Please keep posted for future articles.