Opinion: Trying to ‘solve the housing crisis’ is a fool’s errand

In the almost 60 years I’ve lived here, Boulder’s housing has always been more expensive than surrounding areas. So various city councils have tried to provide more affordable housing, including imposing “inclusionary housing” requirements (a percentage of new units be affordable, 10% in the mid-1980s, 25% now), having new business development pay “jobs-housing linkage fees” (now $30 per square foot for office space), pushing dense housing developments (the tree-barren Boulder Junction on 30th Street, Liquor Mart site, etc.), allowing some ADUs with rent control, instituting a buy-down program (providing down payment cash in exchange for limiting appreciation), etc.

Most councils were realistic and implicitly aware that housing issues were not ultimately “solvable” — that is, Boulder was never going to come close to fully meeting the demand, and so prices and rents were never going to stabilize and be as affordable as in other places. This is doubly so because of CU’s ever-increasing student population, on which Boulder does not have much leverage, and for which CU (irresponsibly) does not provide the necessary housing.

Now the discussions have turned ideological: To be virtuous, you must be “inclusive,” support “up-zoning” and allow as many people as can be fit into a house. As to the people who bought in single-family neighborhoods and have a reasonable expectation of neighborhood stability, too bad for them.

One problem with this ideological approach is that it is disconnected from reality: There has been almost no public discussion about the size of the overall housing market, and, given that, what Boulder can ultimately accomplish. For example, there are millions of people in the U.S. who can afford to buy into Boulder’s housing market. A Kiplinger study has 5% of the U.S. with a net worth of over $1 million. Other data indicates over 12 million households with incomes well over $200,000. 

The COVID pandemic accelerated the already existing shift to working from home. A New York Times article from this month showed that people are moving out of the most expensive metro areas to places, like the Denver metro area, which have business opportunities and are both cheaper and more attractive than New York City, the Bay Area or Los Angeles. It also showed that remote workers became more likely to move than others and that more of them have higher incomes. A recent Sierra Club publication documented shifts into more rural areas, like towns in Montana that have great natural beauty and outstanding recreation opportunities. 

Boulder’s “problem” is that it has it all. It is a tech hub and has natural beauty as well as great recreational and cultural opportunities. So, with these population and income shifts, we can expect continuing, ever-increasing pressure on our housing stock. Boulder will become even more expensive than surrounding areas, way more than in the ‘60s. And given the numbers, there is no realistic way that just building more will make a significant dent in this demand! 

OK, so what are the moves that Boulder should make? First, let’s stop talking in sound bites about “the housing crisis,” “welcoming,” etc. Then let’s do the real data work to fully evaluate how big the market is and is likely to become, including focusing on the market for single-family housing vs. rentals, triplexes, etc. 

Then lay out the various growth scenarios, what effect they will or won’t have on housing prices and the types of housing that would be gained and lost. (Remember, there will be losses; it wouldn’t take a lot of triplex development and the attendant noise and crowding to destroy the attractiveness of single-family neighborhoods.) 

For each scenario, identify externalities, like increased parking, traffic, flooding from expanded impervious surfaces, water supply and air quality issues, infrastructure costs, and damage to Open Space (including a massive increase of e-bikes in high-growth scenarios). Also study the additional actions Boulder might take, like increasing the inclusionary zoning percentage to 50% and the linkage fee to $150 per square foot, the minimums necessary to maintain the current population’s economic distribution. This analysis should be done with input from a diverse and knowledgeable citizen task force. 

Then set up discussion groups among Boulderites, so we can hash out the scenarios and people can hear others’ viewpoints. Finally, put the scenarios that survive to a public vote, with those impacted having a real say regarding their neighborhoods. I realize that such a fact-based, citizen-friendly approach is not consistent with the recent “progressive” catch-phrase decision-making. But doing the work right will yield huge bonuses in the future toward maintaining a livable and participatory Boulder.

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