Opinion: Please don’t bring Silicon Valley II to Colorado

On Sunday morning, I hiked up to Anemone Point, about 1,000 feet above the west end of Pearl Street. On top, I could see the Arapahoe Peaks to the west and the horizon to the east. Amazingly, it was crystal clear. This was a delightful comparison to how it looks normally, with the horrendous yellow and brown smog that’s now endemic along the Front Range.

So, I wondered: Why is Polis now pushing for Colorado to get $1 billion (per the Denver Post) in federal subsidies to support becoming the nation’s quantum tech hub? Why make things worse by encouraging yet more job growth, adding pressure on the housing market, while increasing traffic, CO2 emissions and air pollution, and further stressing our limited water supply along with the state’s budget with expected tax breaks from Colorado’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade? (They can’t seem to resist giving away our money.)

This would be on top of the new Polis 2026 Roadmap that pushes again for massive market-priced housing densification as a (non)solution to Colorado’s “housing crisis” and more RTD-type transit as a (non)solution for the additional traffic. I say (non)solutions because (1) the demand for housing in Colorado is too great to solve in this way, with millions of people wanting to move here, and (2) commuting is so disbursed that bus/bus rapid transit cannot fully meet the need, so traffic will increase substantially regardless, to say nothing of the increased sales taxes required to fund it. From scanning the Roadmap, it appears that Polis just assumes that more of whatever is always better, with no real quantitative analysis provided to compare costs and benefits, etc.

Worse, the Colorado Air Quality Commission approved a rule that, according to the Environmental Defense Fund and others, will allow 1.2 million metric tons more climate pollution than if the emissions from the specified industries stayed flat. This new rule’s effect will be that we will continue to not meet Federal standards. Neither the Legislature nor the governor seem to have the commitment to do what it takes to clean up our air. 

I don’t get it. Yes, cleaning up our filthy air will require some dramatic moves and it may cost some money, but it will be worth it. For example, regarding one of the biggest emitters, the Suncor refinery in Commerce City, there actually are refineries that operate quite cleanly, for example in the Netherlands. So why don’t we get one here? The health benefits alone would more than pay for the changeover.

All the growth that would come along with Silicon Valley II will require more water. But the recently created statewide task force that was supposed to address the reduced flows in the Colorado River came up with some quite weak proposals relative to the problem. From reading reports on their work, it appears that, for whatever reason, they did not address the fundamental issue — that there just isn’t enough water to meet all the present plus future obligations (and some task force members apparently agree).

The 1922 Colorado River Compact gives 7.5 million acre-feet per year on average to the Lower Basin states of California, Arizona and Nevada. It’s clearly written out, in the Compact’s Article III(d). When this obligation is added to treaty obligations to Mexico, the Native American tribes, and pre-Compact water rights, there could be a scenario where there is no water left for the Front Range cities that depend on post-Compact trans-mountain diversions, including Boulder, Denver, Colorado Springs and Pueblo. So, under Polis’s Roadmap plus Silicon Valley II, Front Range cities may have to spend billions to try to buy up farmers’ water rights, likely ending a lot of West Slope agriculture.

Polis should instead create a growth-constrained, environmentally sensitive, and tax-payer-friendly Roadmap that doesn’t include Silicon Valley II. It would require all new job development to pay for affordable housing for its new workers. It would ensure that enough new housing to maintain our economic diversity is price-restricted. For existing housing, it should exchange down payment assistance for price controls on future sales to help lower-income buyers and restrict price escalation. 

The Roadmap should reduce traffic by, e.g., charging for parking and paying people to carpool. The emissions rules should be strong enough to get us to Federal air standards within a few years. And, on a whole other topic, the governor, Legislature and Public Utilities Commission should work together to end Xcel’s monopoly, which forces us to pay far more than necessary for our conversion to renewable energy.

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