Opinion: Giving thanks and hoping for a more sustainable city

On Thanksgiving, it seems appropriate to look back and try to appreciate the good things that have happened, while at the same time looking forward to what might be. When I was in college, my worst skill was writing, and all through my youth, I really disliked listening to people talking politics. Now, I really appreciate that I have mostly gotten past both those blocks and have the chance to write about our local political scene, though I’m still more interested in policy than politics.

For example, I appreciate that Boulder now has its own fiber network, and we won’t have to rely on private providers with their own systems for internet. But regarding the recent contract signed to give ALLO-Communications a 20-year lease, I note that, per a person at the Institute for Local Self Reliance, some of the best systems are municipally operated and are right here on the Front Range, in Loveland, Fort Collins, Estes Park. Maybe next time…

On a larger scale, I really appreciate the work of the many Boulder citizens that have made Boulder such a great place. I especially want to thank those who started the Open Space program that has preserved over 46,000 acres of land, which prevented Boulder from sprawling like other cities, and who put the 55-foot height limit in place, which has prevented Boulder from being filled with high-rises.

Unfortunately, CU continues to over-build, like the huge, oversized hotel/conference center at Broadway and University. And the City has never protected its parks land even as well as our minimally protected Open Space. So, the city council can proceed to develop 200+ acres in the Area III “Planning Reserve” without having to go to a citizens vote.

On that topic, I give a lot of thanks to Councilmember Mark Wallach for raising serious financial questions around this development notion, pointing out the massive costs (potentially approaching a billion dollars per one of his Hotline emails). And that’s on top of the already huge amount of in-city residential development on the horizon (over ten thousand units).

The City is ill-prepared to preserve our quality of life in the face of all this growth, the costs of which, by any sense of fairness, should not be foisted on the current citizens. And that is in addition to some coming significant financial hits, like the rebuilding/replacement of the South Boulder Recreation Center.

I do appreciate that the City, just a few years ago, finally did a Facilities Master Plan that looked at such issues. But this should have been done decades ago, so that there would have been time to prepare by collecting fees from users, so, when the time came, the money for the reconstruction would have already been collected. Now the situation is in semi-emergency mode. As I’ve heard said, “Better late than never.” But not much…

I also should acknowledge that our City is good at collecting taxes. Some weeks ago, I looked at the per capita budget over the last approximately 20 years, and, after adjustment for inflation, it has increased by about 50%. So why was nothing saved for such a predictable future capital expense?

This all goes to the big question about whether we want to keep growing, and to the extent we do, who should pay. For example, our traffic situation is becoming more and more intolerable. Yet the council has made no real effort to require new development to pay the costs of preventing traffic increases, such as more transit, carpooling, etc. The current transportation impact fees are tiny.

For another example, with all the residential growth recently allowed, we will likely need a fourth recreation center. But how will it be paid for and who will pay? Even with the recently increased Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fees, it appears that nothing is being saved for this.

An additional irritation is Gov. Jared Polis’ Office of Economic Development’s tax subsidies to get businesses to move here. I’ve heard the argument from some of our elected officials that we should encourage the latest in tech business to locate here. But they don’t seem to grasp that, if we want to preserve a quality city, there are limits to growth. And giving our money away to keep adding more and more, without doing a serious look at carrying capacity and what the citizens want (the critical issue), just doesn’t seem like good politics or good policy.

So, thanks to those who gave us a quality city. Let’s not lose it.

 

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