Opinion: Listening to the citizens is more critical than ever

I’d like to acknowledge Boulder City Council members Bob Yates and Tara Winer for showing up at the discussion of the proposed homeless day center at 1844 Folsom. Per the Camera’s story on Wednesday, many residents of Horizon West next door raised a lot of legitimate concerns.

What’s interesting to me is that the process for selection of the site did not involve talking to the residents of the various possible neighborhoods prior to the site selection. This put the city staff person in charge in the unenviable position of having to justify this lack of early input; that criticism should properly be directed at the council members who approve the site selection criteria as well as the process.

This process will no doubt be repeated when some neighbors wake up one morning to find out that the house next door has been purchased to become an addict recovery home, with something like eight recovering addicts and five staff members, as the city was planning to do some months ago.

I realize that in both situations, there are no locational choices that would be totally acceptable to everyone. But that raises the deeper question as to whether the risks are worth the potential gains. This is not a standard cost/benefit analysis, since those who are paying are different than those who are benefiting. And making “moral” arguments is easy when you don’t live next door.

Regarding costs and benefits, the city staff did a very credible job of evaluating the long-term costs of maintaining and/or replacing many city buildings. This work was the extension of the well-done Facilities Master Plan that was completed a few years ago. The idea of having a financial plan that would keep things working on a steady-state basis over the long term deserves support, since up to now, the process has been somewhat haphazard. Let’s hope the same steady-state thinking is applied to such areas as water supply, flood protection and traffic congestion.

For example, as our climate dries out and the one-third of our water that comes from the Colorado River is threatened, maybe we should stop using tap fee revenues to reduce rates and instead use them for replacing water rights, making efficiency investments, etc. And if the council “progressives” impose more density in single-family neighborhoods, the impervious surface area of those lots will be increased, leading to more stormwater runoff and so requiring even more money for flood control improvements. Finally, “Vision Zero” may reduce traffic accidents at intersections, but more people mean more cars, congestion, frustration, people taking risks while driving, etc. So maybe it’s time the council focused on reducing traffic, especially commuting driving, by using parking fees and paying people to not drive.0

A critical decision is being made regarding the use of motorized e-bikes on Open Space trails. The Open Space Board of Trustees quite intelligently proposed a reasonable approach; it allows e-bikes only on those segments of OS trails necessary to create contiguity within other regional trail systems, and only while still protecting the natural resources. The legalities around not violating the Charter could be handled, for example, by using easements, as was done to allow power lines to cross Open Space. This limited approach would also be consistent with the Visitor Master Plan that has been in place for almost 20 years.

I have hiked OS trails for decades and used my human-powered mountain bike where allowed. It’s clear to me that allowing e-bikes, which are, in my opinion, essentially lightweight motorcycles with pedals, will make these trails unpleasant for both hikers and ordinary bikers.

Even at current human-powered bike use levels, the number of hikers on these trails appears to have dropped dramatically. E-bikes will hugely increase this impact because there will be many more people using them. Requiring granting right of way to hikers is a joke; hikers naturally step off the trail when approached by a speeding bike. E-bikers will make this worse; they are faster than both hikers and regular bikers. “No Speeding” signs won’t do much good, at least that’s what the JeffCo/Eldorado State Park survey I read about indicates.

Making good decisions on such tough topics requires really listening to, interacting with and learning from citizens who have actual experience and knowledge, or who will be seriously impacted. Let’s hope the council acts conservatively and focuses on preservation of the Charter’s Open Space purpose of “passive recreation.”

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 the new co
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