Opinion: Fixing ballot measures, past and present

 In 2019, Boulder citizens passed the ballot measure entitled “Tax on Tobacco Vaping Products.” Now the City Council is considering extending this to marijuana vaping devices. The 2019 measure imposed a 40% tax on the retail sales price of electronic smoking devices and components thereof, with “devices” being defined in the Boulder Revised Code, Chapter 4.5. That chapter is titled “Sale of Tobacco Products.” And it defines “Electronic smoking device” as “any product containing or delivering nicotine intended for human consumption …”

During the discussions around that 2019 ballot measure, to the best of my memory and also based on feedback from others, there was no serious discussion about applying it to devices used for marijuana. And the people in the business seem to be in agreement that marijuana devices are not suitable for tobacco.

So why is the Council considering extending this tax to marijuana devices? If they think this is a problem and that teenagers — or whoever — are using these marijuana devices for tobacco, why not just put an amendment on the ballot so that the citizens can decide if this is what they really want to do?

I also note that vaping devices can be homemade. So is this tax going to extend to all items that could possibly be used for this purpose? And how will the tax distinguish items that could be used for vaping from those that actually are used for vaping, and which are used for tobacco versus marijuana, etc.?

So it’s clear, I have no skin in this game; I don’t vape or smoke. But I do have a problem with manipulating a ballot measure to be something that wasn’t really intended. This reminds me of Charter Section 54, which protects citizen-initiated measures from such manipulation. It states that such a measure shall only be repealed by another citizen vote, and may only “be amended by two-thirds of the councilmembers present provided that the amendments do not alter or modify the basic intent of such ordinance …”

When I was on the Elections Working Group a few years ago, I proposed this “basic intent” language to protect citizen initiatives. I see now that it should have included all ballot measures. Then, assuming that anyone reads the Charter (which, based on recent history, is a stretch), such language would prevent this kind of abuse of discretion.

This brings me to the “Bedrooms Are For People” initiative, or, as I like to call it, “Bedrooms Are For Profit.” So it’s clear, I don’t fault the petitioners for bad intentions. But I do think that this initiative was very poorly thought through, assuming that the petitioners’ intent was to provide more affordable housing and more flexibility in the use of existing housing, both of which I support.

I discussed some issues with BAFP in my last op-ed, and I heard back from a number of people about its problems. Fundamentally, Boulder has an “inelastic” housing market. Prices and rents are escalating very fast, because Boulder is very attractive, and because rapid job growth and CU’s ever-increasing student numbers keep demand growing faster than supply. So adding more renters in existing single-family houses, or adding more bedrooms for even more renters, or then scraping off single-family houses and rebuilding the lots with apartments for yet even more renters, will not lower rental rates significantly. Demand is just growing too fast.

What BAFP will do is significantly increase profits from renting, simply because there will be more renters per housing unit. This will incent local (and national) investors to buy up the single-family housing and turn it into high occupancy rentals. Then housing prices will escalate even more rapidly, as will traffic, parking problems, noise, etc. And at a certain point, what made the neighborhood affordable and desirable for families will be gone.

I think the Council would do well to sit down with the petitioners (as it did with the “Direct Election of the Mayor” initiative petitioners) and some of BAFP’s critics, and work through needed changes to make BAFP something actually beneficial. For example, the initiative could be amended to require owners to live on-site, limit rental rates for occupancy over current limits, prevent properties from increasing the number of bedrooms beyond their 2021 levels, and require a yearly check-in with neighbors. Enforcement for serious code infractions should include loss of occupancy privileges. Then BAFP might provide something other than just more profit and impacts, and could even be a net benefit.

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