Opinion: Prop 123 isn’t the right way to tackle affordable housing

Proposition 123 is a state-level initiative to direct taxpayers’ money into affordable housing programs. Ignoring the myriad details, Prop 123 doesn’t institute the preconditions I would require before supporting using state taxes for affordable housing.

First, any state-level affordable housing funding should have as a prerequisite that the region is adjusting its zoning to balance jobs and housing growth. Simply put, if a city continually adds more and more job development (office, commercial, industrial, etc.), then it needs to balance that with an adequate amount of housing. And for those who think that continually adding jobs makes a place better off financially, Boulder’s seminal Jobs/Housing Study twenty years ago showed that, at best, it’s break-even regarding operating costs and a net loser when you consider growth-related capital costs. (By the way, Boulder failed to do this balancing with the East Boulder Sub-Community Plan — a missed opportunity.)

Second, all job development should be charged jobs-housing linkage fees. This fee pays for affordable housing for the new workers who would not otherwise be able to live in the area. For Boulder, this would now be over $130 per square foot for new office space. But we’re only at $30. By the way, Santa Clara County, California, was at $60 the last time I checked. Most places don’t charge at all.

Third, all new housing developments should have the percentage of permanently affordable units necessary to keep the economic mix in the community stable, rather than becoming more and more high-income. Boulder’s minimum is currently set at 25% and needs to be at least 50% to meet this standard. (By the way, CU South would only be 10%.) The above linkage fees can help pay for this.

Once all this is done, then taxes might be invested in a buy-down program, where the money is paid to a property owner in exchange for limiting the price appreciation over time. That way, the property becomes gradually more affordable at a relatively lower public cost.

Finally, the state should get rid of the economic development office’s ability to issue tax credits to get businesses to come here or develop. Awarding tax credits to get a business to move to Boulder is totally unnecessary, but it’s happened. Maybe this would be OK in an economically depressed area, if carefully defined.

Onward to 2F, the Referendum on the CU South Annexation. One of the interesting arguments has been over whether having the relatively small “100-year” detention pond makes the annexation agreement a loser. The problem is that South Boulder Creek’s drainage is huge, over 130 square miles, so a storm over a large area could completely overwhelm this small pond and inundate the supposedly protected areas. And this summer the U.S. has had five “1,000-year” rainstorms in one month’s time. Think about that!

Ignoring these issues (like the three monkeys in the cartoon), one of the arguments, which I’ve heard from multiple council members, is that CDOT wouldn’t approve a “500-year” sized pond because of the increased flow under the U.S. 36 bridge and that FEMA wouldn’t approve the increased flood heights downstream of that bridge. (The city’s own 2020 study shows that the flow increase would be a minimal 6% and that there would be no increase in flood height below South Boulder Road.)

So, last week I communicated with CDOT. As it turns out, they have never said “no,” just that they want the flow “mitigated,” without further definition. And CDOT now says it’s not even their call; it’s up to FHWA (the Federal Highway Administration), and FHWA has not yet weighed in. Such a minimal flow increase should be easily addressed, it would seem.

I also did some checking about increases in flood flows below the U.S. 36 bridge. A knowledgeable flood control person who’s not involved with the city informed me that what FEMA cares about is whether an increase in flood heights would affect any “insurable property.” That makes total sense, since FEMA’s real business is supplying flood insurance.

I looked at the map, and the only building that would be affected is an old cow shed on Open Space property, which could be easily moved or removed, in the unlikely event it’s even “insurable.” So, a “500-year” pond should still be on the table. And so should the alternative of floodproofing the buildings. It doesn’t require annexation of CU South, it’s cheaper and it protects more structures.

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