Opinion: Council faces several issues that require serious introspection

“Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” 

What made me think of this saying was the recent criticism by some Boulder City Council members of Boulder County’s plans for spending its just-passed affordable housing sales tax (actually an extension and repurposing of an expiring tax). The saying is supposed to remind people not to criticize others for flaws that they may also suffer. 

Their major criticism is that the County did not give Boulder its share of the total revenues as funds to go into Boulder’s long-running affordable housing programs but instead will be part of the County’s separately run programs. I understand the thinking, but it raises the question about what improvements are needed in Boulder’s own “glass house” housing programs, which, at current rates, will not reach the (inadequate) target of 15% permanently affordable units until the 2060s.  Here are some examples:

The inclusionary zoning requirement (the fraction of new housing development that must be permanently affordable) needs updating. It’s only about half what it needs to be to maintain Boulder’s population’s economic distribution just in the new developments, much less for the city at large.

The cash-in-lieu requirement (for developments that, for one reason or another, cannot do their affordable housing on site) is too low; the bulk of the money to construct the new affordable units comes from grants, etc., which are effectively taxpayer money. Thus, we pay, and what developers don’t pay just becomes more profit.

The jobs-housing linkage fee (what new jobs development pays to provide housing affordable to new workers) is currently $30 per square foot for office space. But per the 2016 KMA study, adjusted for inflation, it should be approaching $150 per square foot. 

And the council still encourages new job growth in some locations, even though we already have upwards of 70,000 in-commuters. 

The affordability requirements for ADUs, multiplexes, etc., that the council is planning to jam into lower-density neighborhoods, and which most residents don’t want, are also inadequate. I also note that Littleton just put their “missing middle” program on indefinite hold, finally recognizing that existing residents have some rights to preserve their neighborhoods.

We are headed to traffic gridlock because we have no “adequate public facilities” requirements to prevent new development where roads/transit are inadequate, and inadequate impact fees to cover the costs of additional transportation infrastructure. “Transit-oriented development” sounds good, but where is the council’s quantitative data that shows that all these new residents will sufficiently limit their driving? And who will pay RTD’s additional costs, given it’s only 4% funded by fares?

The ”buy-down” middle housing program, which exchanges current financial assistance for future price restrictions needs more focus, as it’s very cost-effective.

The $500,000 the County reserved for administration and expenses is only 3% of the first year’s expected revenues of $16.7 million. Reserves are typically one-time hits, since the money is not spent unless necessary. A few percent for administration is not way out of line.

As to whether the county should have given the city its share of the money directly and let the city spend it, if this was the agreement, why wasn’t it announced before the vote, and included in the Resolution the commissioners passed? And why did the council not pass a resolution explaining that this is why they were supporting the tax extension?

The council also faces another issue that requires some serious introspection — the protests at the council meetings regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. City staff sent out a Hotline on Monday that, at the Jan. 9 meeting, the council will consider holding its next two regular council meetings virtually, rather than in-person.

The Hotline did not explain this shift to virtual, other than a vague statement about health or safety concerns. So, I assume that council’s plan is to minimize the opportunity to protest while the council figures out what to do, since temporarily shutting down meetings didn’t work. But the protesters may see this shift to virtual as a win. So, I would not be surprised if, when in-person meetings resume, the protesters show up in full force.

Unfortunately, this shift to virtual also means we citizens will continue to be deprived of our chance to talk to council face to face to discuss our legitimate concerns. Thus, I hope that council members will be ready to fully utilize their (already existing) powers to keep the meetings civil and focused on actual city business. But it does seem that now the protesters are the dog that’s wagging the council tail, and the Muni Building is now available to all as “protest central."

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