Opinion: Unsustainable development and its effects


In Wednesday`s Daily Camera, we were all put on notice that the time it takes Boulder`s fire and emergency vehicles to respond is falling further and further behind both our own and national standards. Only the day before, many of us received e-mails from the city`s planning department inviting us to a workshop to discuss “sustainable growth and development” as part of the five-year update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP).
It doesn`t take a rocket scientist to see that past growth and resulting traffic increases have led to these slower emergency response times. And that given the amount of expected future growth (13,000 more residents and 60,000 more jobs to “reasonable buildout”) and the failure of the city to require that growth pay its own way, the notion of “sustainable growth and development” is an oxymoron. If this growth is pursued, our future is rather grim, with emergency response time being just one of many sacrifices.
The response time problem is simple to understand: Since Boulder`s first attempt to do long-range planning for transportation improvements with the Transportation Master Plan about two decades ago, there has been continued resistance by the majority of city council members to implement the level of impact fees and development excise taxes required to prevent significant increases in traffic congestion. Boulder has provided sufficient bike paths and buses (through RTD) to allow current residents to not increase their driving. But traffic from new development has increased congestion, not just on major arterials but also on neighborhood streets as people try to avoid the congested arterials. This is the cause of the emergency response time problem.
The BVCP has a policy that should have ensured that this situation did not occur. Policy 3.05 states, “Growth will be expected to pay its own way, with the requirement that new development pay the cost of providing needed facilities and an equitable share of services including affordable housing, and to mitigate negative impacts such as those to the transportation system.” And the more recent Policy 1.03(d) provides what should be the standard for sustainability, ” The city and county will seek to ensure that current needs are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” But BVCP policies are selectively applied in city processes and not even brought up unless they support a particular agenda.
It`s worth understanding why these policies are not strictly enforced. The BVCP is an agreement between the City Council and the County Commissioners, not an agreement between the council and the citizens. So, unless the city violates some state law, it can ignore the BVCP`s provisions, except when the city`s actions tweak the commissioners to the point where they react. As an example, in 2005, that council blatantly violated the BVCP`s procedures by trying to “keep open” the 5-year update to allow the council to consider annexing a site for a big-box store at some future date. The BVCP clearly states that this is not an option. But the county commissioners, who could have enforced the BVCP, were notoriously silent.
Back to the oxymoronic “sustainable growth and development” notion: Let`s be clear — more density with more people creates more demands for services. Unfortunately, for many government services, there are dis-economies of scale — per capita costs increase as the community grows, with emergency response time being a case in point. This generally holds true for transportation, parking, water, social services, and so on. Worse, the capital facilities required cannot be funded by general taxes, which get used up just paying for ongoing services. (Although not a proof, we all have noticed that cities do not lower taxes as they grow, they generally raise them.) This is not to say that sprawl is better — it isn`t — but it is foolish to think that adding people is somehow going to improve the situation.
The City Council would do well to require that city staff re-focus the BVCP update discussion on whether more growth and development is sustainable under any reasonable definition of that term. This is the conversation that the community wants and needs, not one about where the development “deck chairs” will be added or how they will be arranged.

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 the new co
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