Comments from readers on my column on the ‘Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods’ survey

I received many times the usual number of comments regarding my recent column on the “Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods” survey and the willingness of some council members to ignore what the apparent majority of citizens respondents want. These came to me directly and also via NextDoor.

Here are some of them, occasionally with edits for length and style:

“Thank you for your editorial/letter about growth in Boulder. I thought I was the only one noticing and concerned about it!!”

“The ‘progressives’ who have taken control of Boulder just seem to be developers in disguise.”

“Neighborhood densifying: nothing has been said about PARKING — a disaster for those who do not have a driveway to park.”

“Why do the ‘progressives’ just want to stuff more and more people (and cars) into Boulder? It just makes no sense.”

“Collectively the community survey delivered a statistically significant ‘against’ the proposed changes … two to one not in favor, for instance in regard to RL-1 changes. As one of the most educated communities in the nation, we can collaborate and solve for this without the significant and detrimental first and second-order impacts that come from higher density. … Let’s pause any significant changes and have a citywide conversation on where we want to go and how we want to get there.”  

“Kudos to you Steve for saying it like it is in today’s editorial! It reflected my thoughts exactly.”

“As usual, Steve’s right! Who wants to densify Boulder? The Boulder Progressives who have aligned with developers. They have sold this as a way to decrease prices, but that never happens … when the demand is almost unlimited.”

“Can you say foregone conclusion? Just like Iris and other pet projects of this city council.”

“Well, this wouldn’t be the first time the city ignored things they don’t want to hear … have fun on (or near) Iris Ave next year :)”

“Vote the progressives out before they destroy our city.”

“Do we get a refund on the cost of the survey they ordered? Any consequences since they admit they must have done it wrong?”

“I live in S Boulder, directly under the redevelopment of the Lutheran church, now the Senior Affordable Housing facility. Before the development began we received these tiny postcards in the mail informing us of a public meeting to discuss the city’s plans. We got the word out and everyone impacted by this development showed up. They were shocked! We were not agreeable to the change to our neighborhood and they were forced to have more public meetings. They PRETENDED to care about our input and concerns. Turns out it was already a done deal.  They spouted a lot of nonsense about ‘Preserving the identity and feel of a neighborhood.’ They even submitted 3 different architectural plans for our reviews. They chose the one we disliked the most! Turns out it was already a done deal.”

“Steve’s dead nuts on. I’d like to see the obfuscation(s) pulled aside to expose the REAL agendas here. Who in positions of power and influence is ‘getting paid’?”

“Really, it’s only when you run nonsensical, patently irrational behaviors through the ‘power/money’ filter that things … suddenly make sense.” 

“The self-named progressives here are not left. They are the ultimate growth and development people. These people are not progressives.  Progressives conserve. Our city council is going for something grandiose, flash, and waste.”

“BTW, on Iris today west of 28th. Traffic reduced to one lane and backed up 3 blocks! Not even a busy time.”

“I agree with Steve on everything except one thing. The opposite of the NIMBY insult is YIYBY. The people who are telling us we need to destroy our quality of life are not volunteering to destroy their own quality of life too. Densification is forcing people like me to move out of Boulder so that the progressives can have it for themselves.”

“Remember, zoning rules are a two-way contract between the city and its residents. Residents don’t get to violate the zoning rules, but apparently the city can arbitrarily change zoning rules without even checking with the people it’s going to impact.”

“Steve is correct in saying that people put down their hard-earned cash to buy into areas — and they should have a right to keep those areas intact. But, as John Locke pointed out in his book — when trust is broken, a democracy will not function and will cease to exist. And in that construct the progressives are no less a threat than the MAGA right.”

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