Opinion: What might still be
Last Sunday`s Daily Camera lead story discussed many of
the cutting edge initiatives that Boulder citizens have taken over more than
half a century to protect the quality of life in Boulder from “What might have
been.” These include the Blue Line that restricts water delivery and thus
development to below 5,750 feet, the Open Space program that protects sensitive
habitat, the 55 foot height limit that protects our views, the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan that limits most development to within the city limits, and
so on.
Because of these efforts, Boulder is a very desirable
place to live. And the inevitable effect of this is that the price of land,
housing, and commercial property is higher than in less desirable places.
The pressure on housing prices is further amplified by
the presence of the University of Colorado, whose growth is, to some extent,
driven by the internal economic benefits of an expanding research agenda with
the attendant desire to house even more students, teachers and researchers here
in Boulder. This is on top of decisions made in the past to zone much of
Boulder`s land for commercial/industrial development, which already puts
enormous pressure on the housing market.
Adding
to all this is the human service agenda to make living in Boulder available to
people of all income levels, and the additional quasi-environmental agenda to
have all those who work in Boulder live in Boulder to reduce the 60,000-plus
in-commuting numbers.
Unfortunately, there is an essential conflict between
all these forces and the quality of life that makes Boulder so wonderful. Sorry
to be the bearer of bad news, but let`s be clear from the start: (1) adding
housing will not make Boulder more affordable in the long run unless it also
makes Boulder a lot less desirable; and (2) trying to jam 60,000 more employees
and their families into Boulder will totally overload every facility from roads
to recreation centers. And obviously, continuing to add jobs will increase the
pressure on housing prices even further, and make the in-commuting traffic even
worse.
We need to recognize that Boulder can`t be everything
for everyone. We also need to acknowledge that our future is not going to be
like our past, when we could absorb the impacts of more and more development
without significantly expanding the capacities of our existing systems. For
example, although the experts tell us that our water resources are capable of
handling expected growth even under most global warming scenarios, do we really
want to go right to that edge? Wouldn`t it be better to keep a significant
amount in reserve, for example, to keep our streams flowing or for local
agriculture?
Our transportation system is already running close to
capacity, and projected growth will gridlock our streets. But our current plans
provide no really effective ways to reduce or even limit in-commuting vehicle
trips. The Transportation Department`s request to impose a fee on all
properties might raise some money, but does nothing to discourage people from
driving their individual cars. Simply putting meters on all city streets where
commuters park, and requiring (or encouraging) meters or ticket machines in
private lots would do a huge amount to reduce single occupant car in-commuting.
Of course, some will complain, but doesn`t it make more sense to charge those
who are creating the impact rather than everyone indiscriminately?
The City Council took a tentative first step toward
greening up our energy supply by requiring all pot-growers to go “net-zero” in
their electricity use. Fine, but what about making that a requirement for all
new development? It can be done technically and economically, so why not make
it the rule? And while we`re at it, make new development be “net-zero” for
traffic generation also. Requiring new development to pay to offset the trips
that even the best-planned projects generate would keep Boulder nice for the
rest of us that aren`t profiting from the development game.
There are lots of other areas to focus on — getting
every school to the level that Boulder`s highly educated population deserves,
making all buildings as energy efficient as possible, imposing impact fees for
parks, recreation and libraries that actually maintain current levels of
service, going mostly renewable for our power supply, and so on. Then we might
be able to look back in another 50 years and still be pleased about “what might
have happened but didn`t.”