Opinion: Giving thanks to those who kept Boulder livable

Since it’s Thanksgiving week, I thought some thanks are appropriate for past efforts to keep Boulder a great place to live. Over half a century ago, some citizen-promoted actions made a huge difference: the Blue Line, which restricted the City from providing water service above a certain altitude and preserved our mountain backdrop; the 55-foot height limit, which prevented the proliferation of tall buildings and preserved our views, and the Open Space program, which kept Boulder from sprawling out into the plains and provided access for all of us to nature without having to drive for miles.

More recently, for example, the 1982 Solar Access ordinance preserved homeowners’ access to the sun and promoted the use of solar energy. The 1987 Raw Water Master Plan was the first attempt in the country to evaluate the impacts of fossil fuel-induced climate change on a city’s water resources; it led to the purchase of Barker Reservoir plus its water rights, which increased Boulder’s water supply by around half. And in 1999, citizens wrote and got passed Boulder’s campaign finance law; this limited donations to City Council campaigns and provided needed transparency.

The 2006 Climate Action Tax on fossil fuel consumption helps fund energy conservation and the shift to renewables to address global warming. And some years ago, Boulder adopted the Inclusionary Housing requirement of 25% affordable units in all new developments, as well as the expanded Jobs-Housing Linkage fee, which requires all new job development to contribute to providing affordable housing for new workers that will need it. And there are plenty more.

Unfortunately, recently there has been little real substantive progress. The jobs/housing balance has been getting worse and worse. Past councils had been unwilling to limit job growth, so we have over 60,000 in-commuters. Providing housing for that many workers plus their families would almost double our population, an outcome unacceptable to most Boulderites. And nothing significant on renewable energy, like a net zero requirement for new development, has happened.

The obvious moves to at least ameliorate the affordable housing problem — increasing the inclusionary housing requirement from 25% to 50%, and increasing the jobs-housing linkage fee from $30 per square foot for office space to around $120 or more (both the minimums necessary to provide affordable housing to those who would need it) — are apparently too scary for recent councils to touch. Instead, the council’s push is for accessory dwelling units and multiplexes, not requiring enough off-street parking so streets will be jammed up, and generally pushing for more and more people. (If you don’t like waiting for weeks to get a pass to Rocky Mountain National Park, how would you like a similar system being imposed on Boulder’s Open Space?)

Increasing traffic congestion is another serious problem, with the side “benefit” of more accidents. (Congestion hit a new high last Friday afternoon for me, having to wait six light cycles to get through an intersection on 28th Street.) Instead of focusing on reducing the number of cars on the streets, e.g. by charging for parking and paying people to car-pool, the council’s focus has been on expensive intersection improvements and densification (a.k.a “transit-friendly development”), which may reduce per capita driving a bit by those living there, but increases overall traffic levels, so both traffic and accidents will keep growing.

The homeless issue is another one that is very frustrating. The most recent City point-in-time survey numbers apparently indicate that Boulder has more than enough housing for Boulderites who have lost theirs. But facing the obvious problem of “the more we do, the more they come” (as some call it) seems to be beyond our leaders.

A strange idea I’ve heard recently is the council’s “Vulnerable Road Users Fees” that they want the state to adopt. This is a fee tied to the weight of the vehicle, with the funds being used to “reduce vehicular collisions.” I’m sure you’ll feel better if you get hit by a 3,000-pound economy sedan versus a 4,000-pound SUV when crossing a street or riding your bike.

The council is also pushing the state to do more to “harden infrastructure against climate change.” All good, but I’d first like to see our own flood improvements get funded and built before the next floods, rather than after when the expensive damage has already occurred. Additionally, the fee structure needs revision, since it is based on impervious surfaces within the city, but most of the flood water comes from outside the developed area.

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