Opinion: City Council goals – the good, the bad, and the ugly


The Boulder City Council will hold their goal-setting session next weekend. But any progress they might make could be derailed by some ideas that are circulating.
Reports are that as many as five council members would like to remove the earmarking from the Open Space tax, meaning that instead of the funds being dedicated to Open Space, they could be used for anything. This would effectively gut the Open Space program. Fortunately, it also would require a charter amendment and thus a vote in November. I expect a bitter campaign battle. I rate this “ugly” — it should never be brought up.
Apparently, some council members would like the voters to re-consider direct election of the mayor and district elections of council members, even though this scheme was defeated 2 to 1 in the 2003 election. A directly elected mayor doesn`t work very well with an appointed city manager; either there is a power struggle, or they ignore the rest of the council. Mayoral elections will devolve into who can spend the most money; perhaps this is what the supporting council members want. Districting generally leads to two-person races at best, and many times, only the incumbent has any real chance, so stagnation occurs. Also, districts exclude good people from serving at the same time if they live in the same district. I rate this “bad” — it should disappear permanently.
At least one council member is interested in bringing back “executive sessions” — closed door council meetings, with no minutes or public review. Per reports, these sessions become an opportunity for council members to discuss whatever they want without those pesky citizens listening in. Boulder has survived a long time without secret meetings; I see no reason to change. I rate this “bad” — it was defeated at the polls two years ago. The council should not waste their time or political capital.
Apparently at least one council member is not satisfied with Boulder`s white elephant “Transit Village” and wants to raise the height limit to 70 feet, so we can have yet more density and even more new residents to serve with our limited revenues. Fortunately, this would require a charter change and a vote of the citizenry. I rate this “ugly” — the council should immediately veto it.

The Transit Village plan makes no sense for the citizens of Boulder, although it might for those outsiders who will move into this unsustainable new development so they can commute to Denver. It will cost the city millions that, at best, will take decades to repay. It will increase in-commuting, because it adds far more jobs than the few people who will live and work there. Because it will eliminate nearly a third of Boulder`s service industrial zoned land, Boulderites will have to drive out of town for these services. When most of the Pollard site between 30th, Pearl, and the tracks is converted to housing (can you imagine a worse place in Boulder to live?), the last good regional retail site in Boulder will be gone, and with it, sales tax revenues that the city sorely needs. A “good” goal for the council would be to rethink the whole thing.
The council needs to focus on solving transportation funding, so that this city isn`t gridlocked by future growth. Council members themselves should go to Fort Collins and really learn about the Adequate Public Facilities approach, and then spend time with some transportation consultants and attorneys to figure out how to apply it to Boulder`s already stated goal of “No increase in vehicle miles traveled.” This gets a “good” at least.
Finally, Boulder has the opportunity to achieve a “really good” to “great” goal by continuing its cutting edge efforts on climate change. The Climate Action Plan is proceeding very well, but the council has not been very involved. It is crucial that they participate prior to their vote on the Residential and Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinances, since they will need to really understand these ordinances, what the supporting programs are, why the particular decisions and trade-offs were made, and what the concerns of the affected parties are. The CAP is a goal worth pursuing, and I hope the council gets deeply involved in this most important project.


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more