Opinion: Considering the state of our planet, we should be working to slow growth

It should be obvious, but apparently isn’t, that the doubling of the number of humans on the planet, from 4 billion in 1974 to 8 billion now, has overstressed our planet’s ability to support our presence in all sorts of ways, from the rapid increase in greenhouse gases leading to likely runaway climate change, to wiping out other species on a massive scale, to droughts threatening our ability to thrive. For example, arctic temperatures are rising almost four times as fast as the global average, potentially releasing hundreds of billions of tons of methane and carbon dioxide, according to some estimates, as permafrost melts. But our governments keep promoting more growth, as if that is magically going to solve our problems. 

Locally, the latest is the push by both our governor and our city council for more and denser housing to allegedly help with the affordability issue. But at the same time, our state government’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) subsidizes business growth in already developed urban areas. Our city council approved, for example, the East Boulder Sub Community Plan, which added far more jobs than housing. But they haven’t increased Boulder’s jobs-housing linkage fees, now down to around 20% of the cost of supplying housing for the new workers who could not otherwise afford housing. And there’s CU South, which doesn’t come close to providing enough housing for the students and staff on site. Some members of the council are even pushing for the state to promote densifying single-family neighborhoods, under the fantasy that this will make a significant dent in the self-created housing deficit. 

No one seems to be looking at the impacts of growth on our water supply. A week ago, the states in the Colorado River’s Upper Basin plus Arizona and Nevada finally proposed a plan to address the dramatic reduction in runoff due to climate change. But California, the biggest water consumer, proposed a different one. As Robin Craig, a law professor at the University of Southern California, succinctly stated in a news release from the university:

“The Upper Basin, which is Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, and parts of Nevada, get 7.5 million acre-feet per year and has the legal duty to deliver roughly the same amount to the Lower Basin states, which comprise California, Arizona, and most of Nevada. When push comes to shove, the Lower Basin’s argument is basically that the Upper Basin, where the water originates, bears most of the burden of a drought.

“Add to that complication that California gets highest priority rights due to the ‘first in time, first in right’ doctrine and its considerable might in Congress. California gets 4.4 million acre-feet per year before anybody else gets anything.”

So, it’s no surprise that California was not part of the plan. The three Lower Basin states get the water first because of the “legal duty” of the Upper Basin to deliver, and California has priority rights over the other two states.

Colorado’s Front Range will be heavily impacted if the courts resolve this in the Lower Basin’s favor (as I suspect they will) because much of the Front Range’s supply, including about a third of Boulder’s water, is junior to the compact, and so could be mostly gone! But our state and council majority continue to push for more and more growth as if we are magically immune.

Here in Boulder, a couple of neighbors just filed a suit complaining that the proposed factory on the recently annexed BVSD land next to Sombrero March violates the “public” zoning approved as part of the annexation. I looked at the city code zoning chart, and these neighbors appear to be correct. That this use is inappropriate so near Sombrero Marsh should have been obvious anyway, because it’s too close to this important, sensitive natural area, in spite of all the efforts being made to cut down its traffic, noise, lights, etc.

Promoting more development has helped further escalate property values, straining many existing residents with the resulting ever-increasing property taxes. But the recent discussions about reforms have not faced the fact that all this growth imposes costs that are not covered by existing taxes, forcing a real dilemma: suffer reduced levels of service or pay even higher taxes. Instead, the state should require all cities, counties, school districts and private and public utilities to impose impact fees on new development adequate to cover the cost of the new facilities and services needed to maintain levels of service. That would slow growth, and save us all real money … and water!

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