Opinion: If I were running for council, here’s what I’d say

No, I’m not running. I’m too old, and I’m term-limited besides. But, having listened to many of the council candidates, I think much more emphasis is needed about where Boulder is heading. 

Here’s a start:

Boulder needs to focus on improving our quality of life, not increasing the quantity of bodies, so that we minimize our impact on climate, natural and agricultural lands, our water supply (which needs a serious risk analysis done ASAP), housing affordability and air quality (and lean hard on the state to finally do its job). Let’s keep Boulder livable.

Reducing emissions means net-zero energy use requirements for all new buildings, bringing existing buildings up to current standards, adding PV panels, two-way metering, and micro-grids. Reduce traffic by charging for commuter parking, paying people to car- and vanpool, increasing delivery services, adding protected bike lanes, encouraging e-bikes where they reduce traffic (but not adding to over-use of Open Space), and electrifying transit. I would not support densification except in limited circumstances, since it generally increases total impacts, though it may slightly reduce per capita demand.

Adding housing without making it permanently affordable just adds more impacts. Demand is so great that we’ll never come close to satisfying it; adding market-rate housing just increases the population without reducing price significantly. Raise the inclusionary housing requirement from the current 25% to 50% of new developments. Increase the jobs-housing linkage fee by multiples so that it’s adequate to provide housing for workers who need the help.

The down-payment assistance program, which exchanges financial assistance for deed restrictions on future price increases, is a good idea but needs way more money. To provide an incentive for the citizens to vote for increased funding, institute full cost development impact fees for transportation, parks and recreation, schools, etc., to reduce our taxes that otherwise fund those items. And push on CU to stop its endless growth and to provide more housing for its students.

Boulder should focus on helping people who become homeless while already living here; Boulder can’t be the “homeless haven” for everyone. The city needs to coordinate with the non-profits, so everyone works in parallel. I would not support city-run encampments. Reports are that they encourage all the bad behaviors we don’t need more of. I do support more stringent enforcement of our regulations, especially in areas where kids are likely to be.

Repeal the “up to five unrelated” occupancy provision as recently enacted. Without affordability requirements, it’s just a landlord’s windfall. And it completely fails to address the impacts of adding more people to our neighborhoods. It needs strict limits on on-street parking. Even better, give neighborhoods a vote on whether they want increased occupancy. And to ensure that noise, etc., from a particular unit does not become a problem, allow the immediate neighbors a chance to vote to shut it down if things become intolerable.

I would work to reverse the shift to even year voting so that council races are not buried by campaigning for national and state offices; let’s put it on the ballot again in 2025. And, speaking of elections, I would fix the current void in the Charter and city Code so ballot titles must meet serious standards and could be challenged in court. That would avoid another disaster like the title of the CU South annexation, which likely led some people to vote against what they wanted.

On “public participation,” I would first ensure that the City’s outreach provides useful and unbiased information, not like the recent push poll on occupancy. That was simply unacceptable.

I’d have the council agenda committee start inviting knowledgeable citizens to come to council meetings and share their expertise, and I would question them to make sure that the council understands what they have to say. I’d have the mayor acknowledge every speaker in a way that ensures that they know that they were heard, and not speaking to a wall (as I personally experienced in my last two visits.)

When something comes up that really should have a public vote, I would get the council to put it on the ballot. If the Swiss can vote up to four times a year, I’m sure Boulder citizens can handle a few more substantive issues. Formulating those ballot measures will require work, so I’d set up a standing committee to help. That includes getting the minimum wage work done ASAP.

To reiterate where I started, let’s focus on quality, not quantity. Sometimes, less is better.

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