Opinion: Reducing controversy rather than fomenting it

I spend a lot of my time hiking and scrambling in the mountains. I find it immensely rewarding to focus on where I put my feet and hands, and look at the scenery, landscape and geology, which is more-or-less like it was before humans over-occupied the planet. And I think that the risks, however slight, add to the experience of being just a small piece of nature.

Coming back down to our current political reality in Boulder is always a shock. But being in the mountains gives me some perspective — at least I hope it does. My observation is that although big decisions may engender strong feelings, they do not have to be so highly polarizing as they are now. Fundamentally, having the full set of real facts and proper analysis kept in the public view has always reduced controversy, narrowed the set of realistic options and made it more difficult to take extreme positions. I offer the CU South controversy as case in point.

In my opinion, the problem started with the lack of consistent awareness of the work that was being done. In 2014, the city did an analysis of the sources of the 2013 flood damage throughout Boulder. This work revealed that much of the damage in South Boulder was not from the creeks overflowing, but from local flooding, groundwater infiltration, sewer backups, etc. South Boulder Creek was not the only source of flooding; other creeks and ditches contributed significantly. And the lack of storm sewers in many of the streets was never discussed until recently.

This study in effect disappeared. No one in the public (at least that I know of) was aware of this work until I asked a couple of years ago if anything like this existed, and a city staffer supplied the fully detailed study to me. If that had not happened, I suspect it would still be buried. It completely changed many people’s thinking about continuing to focus solely on South Boulder Creek, to the exclusion of all the rest.

The second piece of work that never had much effect was the 2015 study looking at floodproofing of buildings. This is an alternative to detention ponds, whose flaws are well known. If they fill up and overflow, flooding will occur, just for a shorter duration. And with the increasing prevalence of 1,000-year storms (five in the U.S. in one month this summer), such flooding is a virtual certainty with the proposed undersized 100-year pond.

This work was never completed. I have no idea why. With a few weeks of work doing a building-by-building survey to gain the basic data necessary (e.g. by using the Boulder County Property Search data), the cost of doing this could have been calculated to a close approximation and thereby illuminated this as an alternative that would have protected buildings from both stream flooding and groundwater impacts for almost certainly significantly less money.

A third issue is the continued assertion that a 500-year pond is “unfeasible.” But the facts put forward don’t support this. The city’s own 2020 study showed that the only issues, aside from the extra money needed to address CU’s desire to have 129 acres of developable land with 500-year protection, were possible increases in flow under the U.S. 36 bridge and flood heights just downstream. But my own communications with CDOT show they never said “no” categorically and that the bridge decision has been passed to the Federal Highway Administration. And since there are no permanent “insurable” structures between U.S. 36 and South Boulder Road, the second issue evaporates. But the “unfeasible” issue continues to have traction.

A fourth issue is CU’s demands. Little attention has been given to the source of CU’s 129-acre number, which has no essential relationship to the current site. As to the demand for 750,000 square feet of non-residential development, remember that when the negotiations first became public in the summer of 2021, CU only wanted 500,000 square feet. And the residential, set at two times the non-residential square footage, is, in my opinion, totally inadequate for the on-site student and staff numbers. But again, all these have disappeared from public view.

A similar analysis could be done regarding the failures to do the work on a Planning Reserve land swap, etc. Neglecting such obvious issues severely damages the trust between the council and the citizens, and puts city staff in a bind. It remains to be seen if the council will do the needed repairs. If the referendum passes, this all will become even more timely.

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