Opinion: When do we get to vote?

The way the decision process for the library district has been presented is that either (1) the City and the County decide to form the district, or (2) the advocates gather signatures to put it on the ballot. Then, in either case, there will be a districtwide vote on the increase in property taxes to fund the district, currently “up to 3.8 mills.” I recently found out that these signers do not need to include a single City resident; they all could live in the part of the district outside the City limits.

Also, the tax increase could pass even if a majority of City voters reject it. For example, if Boulder voters reject it by a 500 vote margin but out-of-city voters support it by a 600 vote margin, then our whole library system could be turned over to the library district even though a majority of City of Boulder voters disagree! From my review, state law does try to address this issue. But so far there has been no significant public attention to this concern. So how about simply giving Boulder citizens their own vote?

Similar concerns showed up for me with the East Boulder Subcommunity Planning process. I reviewed the latest version of this plan, the one that went to the council for review earlier this week. I was looking for the build-out numbers of jobs and housing, and the numbers of expected new employees and residents. As I pointed out in my March 4 Camera op-ed, “Boulder’s growth – by the numbers,” the three Concepts in the plan’s earlier version each massively increased the jobs-housing disparity, and so put a lot of increased pressure on the housing market, the last thing we need. But when I looked in this latest version, I couldn’t find these numbers.

I finally asked the City staff and was told that the potential job increase was less than 3,000, way below the over 16,000 in all three Concepts. What happened? Apparently, the previous numbers were accurate, and this very low new job growth number is what the plan’s changes would add over and above what’s already allowed. But this begs the question – who is deciding what is already allowed, and conversely, how far could current job growth numbers be reduced?

As far as I know, the only legal constraints on making such reductions are state rules “vesting” property owners with certain rights, and not “taking” the property, defined as depriving the landowner of any reasonable use. But I could find no evaluation at this level of detail. And there is no discussion (that I could find) about raising the jobs-housing linkage fee to the level needed to get enough affordable housing for these many thousands of new jobs that end up being allowed.

In the last council election, housing affordability was a big deal. So presumably there should be a very careful and transparent evaluations of exactly how far job development can be limited and about significantly raising the linkage fees. The council should set up a series of workshops where people can ask hard questions and get real answers on both the amount of job growth and the need for increased linkage fees. Then maybe the decisions about the scale of new development will be based on real facts.

Once this happens, we Boulder citizens should get to vote on the whole plan, including the amount of development and fees for East Boulder. That would be far preferable to being stuck with whatever the majority of our nine-member council decides, possibly based on inadequate inspection of the underlying facts, law, and options.

Finally, and most importantly, we need to seriously look at our water supply and its effect on our growth decisions. I just reviewed the City’s most recent study, done a few years ago. It had a very detailed analysis of our East Slope watersheds. The consultants made it clear that there is a real risk that those supplies will be significantly depleted in the next few decades, due to a warmer and drier climate.

But what was completely missing was any analysis of the (IMO much more severe) risks associated with the one-third of our supply that comes from the Colorado River, which the staff acknowledges we use more of in dry years. I note that Lake Mead and now Lake Powell are both at critical levels, and emergency actions are anticipated. This work should inform a big-picture vote on how much more growth we really want.

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