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 out (Areas II and III).
Almost all of these are under threat now. The majority of the council (Matt Appelbaum, Aaron Brockett, Jan Burton, Andrew Shoemaker, and Bob Yates) wants to remove any county jurisdiction over annexations for development, and Burton and Yates even want to remove any Planning Board jurisdiction over land-use changes inside the city. As Yates put it in Thursday’s Camera, “We are the elected body…But for them [the unelected Planning Board] to veto something seems a little odd to me…” Burton and Yates don’t want to accept that the purpose of the Comp Plan’s “two-body review” is to allow the Planning Board, which is almost always much better informed on detailed planning issues, to put a damper on the growth agenda of the current council majority. They apparently think that, after about 16 months in office, they are now the smartest people in the room.
Let’s get real. Most people running for council take the most innocuous and non-controversial positions they can, and some, when they get elected, actually try to represent the citizens. But others have their own agendas, and end up going off in directions that voters did not anticipate. That’s why the charter limits heights; that’s why the Comp Plan limits annexations and densification, and so on.
But the charter can be changed, and you can expect a push to do exactly that. There is a plan, supported by the Boulder Chamber, to massively densify the East Arapahoe area, including buildings of well over the 55-foot height limit. This would take a charter amendment, but with the current majority on council, I expect to see this on the ballot for the next election, and the height moratorium abandoned.
There is also a survey in progress, allegedly done by an “independent organization,” asking people about their support for cutting minimum lot sizes in half, allowing duplexes in place of single-family residences, and legalizing two homes on one lot. It also asks for favorability ratings for local organizations, including Open Boulder, Better Boulder, the Chamber of Commerce, Boulder Neighborhood Association, and PLAN-Boulder. Neither BNA nor PLAN is funding this. Who is?
The council majority also rejected any reasonable jobs-housing linkage fee to pay for the affordable housing needed because of Boulder office space development. And there is also a push to cut other development impact fees, arguing that cutting fees will magically reduce prices, making housing more affordable. But the market sets price. All cutting fees does is increase profits for the developer: less cost + same price = more profit. So existing citizens, who gain no benefit, pay for the damage.
A majority of council also is pushing for more and denser market-housing development, again using the excuse that it will make housing more affordable. But we have a built-in demand from the 60,000 in-commuters and their families, which would double the size of Boulder. The Silicon Valley types, who, having created the Bay Area housing crisis, now want to come here. Plus there are outdoor athletes, early retirees, etc. All together, the demand side of the market is insatiable. And market-rate housing here, per all the city studies, is unaffordable even to middle-income people, no matter what form it takes. So more housing won’t really improve matters.
So we’re looking at growth for growth’s sake, maximum profits for developers, and no constraints on the council. This is not the Boulder that so many citizens have put their hearts and souls into, trying to keep this unique place special, that’s for sure.

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

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