Opinion: Boulder city planning inconsistent
I was struck recently by the marked contrast between the
process around municipalization of our electric utility, and those for the
“Comprehensive Housing Strategy” (CHS) and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(BVCP) five-year update.
The process for deciding whether to create a clean
energy-based municipal utility has provided citizens multiple opportunities to
vote on pursuing it, as well as ensuring citizens that there are real
constraints on its implementation. The 2010 ballot substituted an occupation
tax for the franchise fee, removing the commitment to Xcel. In 2011, one ballot
issue provided funding to pursue municipalization studies, and the other
allowed creation of the muni, but with strong charter constraints. The 2013
city ballot item set limits on the most significant portions of the utility’s
debt; the 2013 Xcel-sponsored ballot item would have effectively killed the
process.
The 2011 constraints provided significant protections for
citizens and businesses from a council making decisions that are not in our
interest. In particular, reliability cannot be compromised, rates must meet or
beat Xcel’s at startup, and the debt coverage ratio cannot go below
1.25.(Charter Section 178 has the exact wording.)
The city staff has provided a huge amount of information
on the city’s web site, and has met with nearly everyone who asked. Expert
citizen working groups have analyzed and critiqued almost every step. Goals
were clearly laid out; in brief: maximum CO2 reduction with competitive rates;
avoidance of impacts of fossil fuel price increases; increased opportunity for
local generation and business innovation; and providing a model for other
communities.
I contrast this with the CHS process. The CHS has goals
of meeting the city’s arbitrary 10 percent permanently affordable housing
target, keeping middle income people in Boulder, creating “diverse housing
choices” in every neighborhood, creating “15-minute neighborhoods,”
strengthening “partnerships”with CU, developers, etc., and “enabling aging in
place.” But there are no constraints on how these goals might be reached, so
the results could dramatically grow Boulder in ways that many citizens would
not like. And all this could occur without the community having a vote on any
of it!
Also, these goals have not been critically examined as
to what they might mean on the ground. For example, the “15-minute
neighborhood” fantasy lacks any evaluation of existing neighborhoods’ access to
local shopping and services, much less which of these can reasonably be
expected to be so disbursed. With respect to seniors, I could find no market
analysis of what Boulder seniors might want, or what buildings might be
converted to senior housing if that is, in fact, what they want.
The “diverse housing choices” goal may include,
according to city staff, up-zoning single-family neighborhoods to allow
townhomes, multi-unit buildings,and high occupancy co-ops (that’s a
cooperative, not a home for chickens.) This may not go over well with many
people who have invested all their savings into their homes.
None of this should have gone out to the public without
careful vetting by the council. The whole project comes across as “throw it up
against the wall and see if it sticks.” So it has been left up to the citizens
to try to keep a damper on the staff. This is simply irresponsible. And given
the makeup of some of the “working groups” for this project, their role and
value is uncertain at best, and hardly representative. I guarantee you that if
the outcomes were required to go on the ballot, the whole process would look a
LOT different.
Unsurprisingly, this project does not address the
excessive commercial/office development that drives housing price inflation as
well as peak hour traffic congestion. So I would hardly call this strategy
“comprehensive.”
The BVCP update is already becoming irrelevant. The
staff, with the council’s support, is pursuing massive growth as part of their
“Envision East Arapahoe” project. Such a project should only occur as an
outcome of the BVCP process since it involves significant land-use changes, but
apparently that is now unimportant. Also, there is no demonstrated need for
anything more than some possible zoning changes to allow medical offices and
supporting services near the hospital.
The consultant that evaluated the BVCP pointed out that
while it contained laudable values, it provided no clear direction for
Boulder’s future. Some council members seemed to like this; one even noted that
he could pick and choose particular parts to support whatever he wanted. So if
you’re waiting for either process to resolve your concerns about growth in
Boulder, don’t hold your breath!