Opinion: Progress on some important fronts!


I want to catch up on a number of Boulder topics where significant progress has been made, and to acknowledge the majority of the City Council for making this happen.
I’m serving on the elections working group. In just two meetings we’ve resolved the basic issues around the municipal initiative process that was upset by ballot issue 2Q. It appears that we will have a process ready to be put on the ballot as a charter amendment this November. It will be similar to the one that existed prior to 2Q but with some significant improvements. We haven’t started on the effort to shine light onto “dark money.” But given the council’s clear direction to push the envelope on this one, I am confident that we can come up some good strategies that will reveal the big money donors behind the ads that push certain candidates but avoid saying the magic words “vote for” or “vote against” that would trigger their being regulated.
The council majority has kept its promise to increase the jobs-housing linkage fees to pay for more affordable housing. (These are charges on new non-residential development to pay for affordable housing for the employees that could not otherwise afford to live here.) These council members recognize that developing office space can be very profitable in Boulder, so developers can afford these fees. And, although a very few nonprofits might then need city financial help to build, this limited need should not stop the much more important fee increase for the vast majority of new development. Setting these fees is not a simple process because of federal case law and TABOR constraints, but the city has an excellent study to work from. And the inclusionary housing requirement was recently increased to make 25 percent of total new units permanently affordable, so there is the opportunity to set the linkage fees to fill in the gap. This would ensure that a sufficient number of new affordable units are actually available for all new workers. The linkage fees would likely still be below the city’s “commute adjusted” fee schedule, which itself is only 45 percent of the maximum legally allowable, and so close to the range currently under consideration.
This would link the fee structure to the council’s push for sub-community planning by integrating job and housing planning (shades of the 1993 Integrated Planning Process.) As to the argument that raising linkage fees would cut job growth, well, we already have 60,000 in-commuters, so there is really no need for more here. And everyone in the area would be better off if the jobs went to cities that need them.
Hogan-Pancost is a property in southeast Boulder that has been proposed for annexation and development many times over the last decades, and turned down every time because of groundwater and flood issues. Finally, just weeks ago, the council directed the city manager to purchase the property. Thank you! The next step is for the city to turn this property into a community amenity that is suitable on such land. My personal favorite is to excavate a hole that the groundwater will fill, creating a large lake so people can boat, skate, and maybe even swim. Then surround it with community gardens and playgrounds. These could be used by the residents in the area, and so create a strong disincentive for any future council that might want to reverse course and develop it.
There is still a lot of work to be done. My number one priority is to have a transportation master plan that includes adequate funding mechanisms and development exactions, that actually reduces congestion and improves travel times, and that requires growth to pay its fair share. When I looked at the numbers for the 30th Street project currently in the planning stages, I was shocked to see that travel times between Baseline and Pearl would increase between 22 percent and 29 percent, just from the impacts of development in the 30th Street area that is already in the pipeline. One promising angle for this new TMP is the notion of extending the recently implemented Chautauqua parking/transit system city-wide. This would involve charging for all parking (other than residents in neighborhoods and some short-term shopping) and using the revenues to fund car pools, van pools, transit, and road maintenance. This approach has been proven to work really well elsewhere. Developing such a TMP is a big project, but not too big for the new council majority. Time to get started on this one!


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

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