Opinion: Re-starting the growth discussion
The good news is that the Boulder City Council will
begin discussing growth issues at the council meeting this Tuesday, Sept. 2,
and there is talk about having a study session on development in October.
Unfortunately, study sessions work only if city staff has sufficient direction
beforehand to provide the needed information and analysis. But what direction
should they go?
Vic Fruehauf, a well-known Boulderite who started
Fruehauf’s Nursery and was on the Boulder Planning Board, used to say, “If you
don’t know your destination, any path will do.” He would frequently repeat
variations on this theme during attempts to revise the land use regulations
during the 1990’s. His point is even more applicable today: How can the city
sort out all the growth-related issues when the big-picture goal is neither
well-defined nor agreed upon?
We don’t lack for advocates on all sides. For example,
some are pushing for more and denser housing, arguing that it will be
affordable even though the market effects of the huge increases in the number of
jobs allowable under current zoning will force prices even higher. Others want
yet more job growth, ostensibly to make Boulder’s economic position more
secure, in spite of the rapidly increasing traffic congestion from 50-60,000
in-commuters. Many ordinary citizens are appalled at the rate and size and
ugliness of recent development, and want it all to stop, as recent letters to
the Camera show. Yet others see our path as leading to an unsustainable,
brittle, big-city future, where all systems are stressed passed the breaking
point.
The huge projects recently built and in the pipeline
will significantly affect the future of Boulder. But they were decided on
without knowing whether the end result will be consistent with the citizens’
desires, and without any way to deal with the impacts on everything from our
roads to our water supply. Underlying this is our zoning, which if built out
would more than double the number of jobs in Boulder. This is the major factor
driving up housing prices and traffic congestion. So adding housing is trying
to address the symptom, not the disease. It will never solve the price problem
— the job growth numbers are just too big — and it also adds its own long list
of impacts.
Ordinary citizens have had no real say in the big
picture. Most of the significant input has come from various interest groups
and players with financial agendas. Next year’s Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan update won’t resolve anything, because its hodgepodge of policies
justifies everything but limit nothing. And the zoning code is now so poorly
designed that developers use the threat of building to the code as leverage to
get the height and density exemptions they want.
I see four areas where Boulder’s 100,000 citizens need
to provide direction to the nine citizens on the council:
Overall growth: Should we set maximums
at, say, 115,000 residents and 110,000 jobs, or something closer to the current
100,000 of each? Should we limit the growth rate to, say, 0.5 percent per year,
while we’re getting there? Should we link residential and commercial growth so
that new employment space matches new residential space at the Metro jobs-to-population
ratio of 2:3?
Provision of services: Should new
development pay sufficient impact fees and taxes so that existing facilities
and services do not become more overcrowded, congested, and overused? Should
all new development be “net zero” regarding increasing energy use and
transportation demands? Should we shift the financial responsibility for
funding affordable housing toward commercial/industrial development, because
that is what creates the ever-increasing demand?
Development rules: Should the 35-foot
height limit be exceeded only under exceptional and carefully defined
circumstances? Should all new development provide real useable open/green
space? Should we ensure that continued growth does not create water shortages,
given that climate change could seriously impact our water supply?
Expansions: Should any annexation
into the Area III Planning Reserve require a citizen vote? Should CU provide
student housing consistent with its growth plans? Should new commercial and
residential development be allowed to displace existing needed services?
I believe that most Boulderites would welcome an
inclusive, well-thought-out participatory process where they could consider the
pros and cons of different build-out scenarios — with numbers and maps, not
just pretty pictures. The question is whether on Tuesday a majority of the
council will hit the pause button and invite the citizens into such a process.