Opinion: Why is Boulder sending out another biased survey?

No doubt many of you remember the surveys the city of Boulder sent out a couple of years ago that appeared to be so biased as to be essentially useless other than as propaganda pieces. Well, last Friday I and many others received another one of these sell-jobs enticingly titled “Family-Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods.” 

Translating, this means adding the maximum density to the still surviving lower-density parts of Boulder that the council can do without violating the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. FYI, the BVCP cannot be changed without the consent of the County Commissioners, who have a lot more sense and are not advocates of unlimited growth at any cost. Fortunately, this limits the damage the “progressives” can cause, at least for the immediate future.

In addition to the cavalier attitude of some of our council members about unilaterally changing the character and livability of our neighborhoods, the survey offends by asserting that this is an attempt to address housing costs. But the council has made no effort to determine the size of the market, which is what determines whether such incremental increases in supply will have any measurable effect on costs. And given the data that I have shared about the Denver metro area being the number one target for people wanting to move, such changes will likely have no significant effect on prices.

After providing a lot of information on what changes are being proposed but none on the negative impacts, the survey asks the question, “Do you have any other thoughts or ideas to share related to expanding housing choices in Boulder?” The problem is that the question is, frankly, baloney. This is not about “expanding housing choices.” It’s about increasing density and increasing Boulder’s population, covered over with this veneer of “choice,” as if it’s about abortion rights.

By the way, I ran the numbers on Boulder’s progress toward meeting its 15% affordable housing goal. Based on the data the city provides on the Housing and Human Services website, it will take us another 45 to 50 years to get there. But, no surprise, the “progressives” have not raised the current 25% permanently affordable housing requirement (which needs to be at 50% to prevent things from getting worse) nor raised the jobs-housing linkage fee from $30/sq.ft. for office space to what’s needed (which is a multiple of this). This makes it crystal clear that the goal is more, not better or truly affordable.

The survey completely avoids everything related to the impacts of growth. For example, there is zero discussion about:

• the public resources necessary to support all these more people, like rec centers, parks, street capacity, parking, transit, etc.;

• who will pay for these facilities given Boulder’s notable lack of development impact fees;

• whether these resources can be added or are even available, like water, where Boulder could lose one-third of its supply (the CBT) depending on the Colorado River negotiations, or like reducing lanes on Iris (where, just east, a giant housing development is being built);

• if the folks that already live there would be better off with all this densification. 

All this is carefully avoided, no doubt because, in fact, those of us who live in these targeted neighborhoods will be worse off.

What really exposes the dictatorial approach is the total absence of any discussion about giving the people already living in the neighborhoods a real say. The idea of us voting on what happens to our neighborhoods, that we bought into (and in many cases built in) years or decades ago, seems to be repellent to the progressives’ “we know what’s best for you” mentality.

It would be a radical change for the better if the City of Boulder planners and upper-level staff made a strong effort to persuade the council to seriously consider quality of life and costs, both financial and otherwise, and then to provide informed choices for those of us who are already here.

And likewise for our council members, maybe they might remember that they are supposed to represent the citizens who are here, not just pursue their own narrow goals which many have clearly never thought through.

One interesting technical flaw: I took the survey on Saturday and was able to respond multiple times. I filled it out and then hit “Submit.” (When I failed to click “Share Your Input” first, it went into an infinite loop.) Then I exited and restarted my web browser and filled out the survey again. No doubt many others also figured this out. So, any statistical conclusions are likely meaningless.

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