Opinion: The Roman Colosseum approach to selling densification

I was reading last Sunday’s Camera and came across the City of Boulder’s public meeting schedule. It announced two Saturday events, at 7:00 p.m. on Jan. 25 at the library and at 2:00 p.m. on Feb. 08 at the council chambers. They’re called “You’re Invited to Shape Boulder’s Future Through Storytelling,” and described as follows: “Join the City of Boulder, Boulder County, and Motus Playback Theater … for a dynamic event where your stories help shape the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update through interactive theatrical performance.”

The link to the city’s website provided this info: “BOLDER. BOULDER. BETTER. With Motus Playback Theater. Join Motus Playback Theater, Boulder County and the City of Boulder for a fun and engaging event where your vision for Boulder comes to life on stage! Share your story or reflection about what matters most to you, and watch professional actors transform it into a theatrical performance with movement, music and spoken word.”

But I found zero info on how to input ideas, who would do the translation from words to performance, on what basis stories would be chosen, how long each performance would last, and how negative comments would be interpreted.

Also missing was the critical information on exactly how these “storytelling” events were supposed to make any difference in the outcome of the BVCP update. For example, are all City Council members required to attend both events and write up notes on the meaning of the performances to themselves? Will they share their reactions publicly? Or is the staff going to hire a critic to interpret the performances for the council? And how will anyone know to what extent the performances reflect the community’s sentiments or even that of the people who put their ideas forward?

To me, this has the ring of a Roman Colosseum event designed to divert the masses from the very serious problems with the emperor’s lack of clothing. (Please excuse the historical/literary conflation.)

Taking this approach seems similar to me to the discounting by the council’s “progressives” of the survey results from a couple of months ago. They continue to resist doing a proper survey, apparently fearful that the indisputable results might disrupt their plans to add tens of thousands of housing units and destroy single-family neighborhoods. I note that Louisville just did surveying for their own comp plan update; they actually included scenarios, and then provided data summaries of the results. It can be done.

Related to this, the argument for the rather vague concept of “15-minute neighborhoods” keeps cropping up. The city does have a good map that attempts to quantify this concept by showing the average walking and biking times to “points of interest” (eating, health care, etc.) Almost all of Boulder is within 14-16 minutes or less of walking to 20 such points. Only the very periphery is further.

What’s obviously missing is good data on to what extent “15-minute neighborhoods” really work. For example, what percentage of Boulderites in those neighborhoods walk versus drive to shopping centers? Why hasn’t the city studied this? My own observation is that most people don’t walk 10-15 minutes each way to do most of their activities, even if they could. 

So, what is the progressives’ real goal? Clearly, it’s not affordability, since they still haven’t raised the permanently affordable housing percentage requirements nor the jobs-housing linkage fees. And it’s not realistic to expect lots of employees to move from single-family houses outside Boulder to ridiculously expensive ADUs, condos or apartments here. I guess their goal is just adding more people, plain and simple.

As to the cost of doing a proper survey, a related issue was one Councilmember Mark Wallach brought up regarding the recent abandonment of snow plowing on certain steep streets. The excuse for not doing this plowing was mostly a budget issue. I (re)checked, and over the last nearly 20 years, the per-capita, inflation-adjusted budget has gone up over 20%, or something over $100 million per year, conservatively estimated. So, there’s no lack of money to do the plowing … or comprehensive surveys.

If the progressives don’t want to do a decent job, how about just putting objectively phrased, unbiased questions on the ballot? Then the info would be unarguably valid; everyone would have had their say. The cost, even for a special election, is way less than the price effects on housing of “densification” on even one block. But of course, giving the citizens a real say might (and likely would) disrupt the “grow, baby, grow” approach, to paraphrase our new White House occupant.

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

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 cost...
Read more