Opinion: It’s not the process, it’s the people

Around noon on Wednesday, I read the Camera story on the latest attempt by our council to fix their abysmal public processes. They allege to want to get more and better input by taking up the suggestion by the National League of Cities folks to have citizen forums on specific topics early in their process. The story said that the first forum will be Thursday, Sept. 26.

So I immediately tried to sign up. But, per the City’s web site, the meeting was to be virtual and signup was already closed. So, I emailed the council and staff that both state law and the city charter require such meetings to be open to the public. When I rechecked at 4 p.m., it had become a real meeting (6 p.m. in the council chambers) open to the public.

This is just the latest example of a failure by the council to manage themselves effectively. The meeting with the NLC folks (that I attended) where this process was demonstrated was way back in February. Now, all of a sudden, the council wants to try this out. But the process appears to have not been thought through, and the info provided was outdated.

A similar mess happened last week. The Camera covered a dispute among council members related to increasing the minimum wage. The dispute was over which options to take up at the council meeting. One option had a large increase in the first year; the other was more gradual.

What concerned me was that the council was considering not including one of these in the alternatives presented at the business meeting when council would be voting. And a third alternative — raising the minimum in coordination with other Boulder County cities — didn’t seem to even be on the table. So, in effect, the decision would have been made ahead of time. So, why bother to attend and participate?

Another recent example is their “Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods” survey on densification. The title is obviously grossly biased; many would argue that densification would make their neighborhoods less family-friendly and much more crowded and noisier. So, no surprise, the survey ignores all the negative impacts. And, you could take it as many times as you want, so its statistics are meaningless. But even though the council has been aware of these issues for many weeks, as of last week, nothing got fixed!

Even worse is the “reinterpretation” of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s meaning. In brief, in many single-family areas the BVCP provides upper limits on housing density of a maximum of six units per acre. Changing the BVCP require the concurrence of the County Commissioners to protect us from the whims of the council members.

In my experience, these land use designations have always been interpreted in the obvious way — that “6 units per acre” means six housing units maximum are allowed per acre of private developable land. But the city staff (with the concurrence of the council) is now re-interpreting this acreage as including adjoining streets, creeks, nearby parks, etc. So, per one friend’s calculations, this could easily double their neighborhood’s density to 12 units per acre.

As I’ve pointed out before, the “housing crisis” is not solvable by “building more.” The one survey I found has the Denver area as the number one “dream destination,” preferred by 17% of U.S. respondents. That’s approaching 60 million people, making the obvious negative impacts, like running out of water or monumental traffic jams, basically unsolvable in acceptable ways. But the council has ignored such input; apparently, it’s not consistent with their value systems.

There are lots of other ignored suggestions: Limiting renters’ auto ownership (as done at the converted Marpa House apartments) to go along with eliminating parking minimums. Raising the jobs-housing linkage fees high enough to provide affordable housing for all the new workers who need it. Doing a serious risk analysis regarding Boulder’s West Slope water supply, so we don’t get caught short if the Colorado River Compact ends up being enforced. Creating impact fees for transportation, so that new development pays to mitigate the increased congestion it creates. The same for parks and rec centers, so that we don’t have to raise our taxes to pay for new facilities whose need is created by new development. On process, discussing issues with citizens who testify at council meetings rather than stonewalling them. Reinstituting the Council Agenda Committee’s work on meeting content. Making all material on important projects easily accessible. Etc., etc.

 

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