Steve Pomerance

A ffordable housing in Boulder has been an ongoing discussion for as long as I have been involved in local politics, now going on 30 years. Unfortunately, the current Task Force report fails to address the fundamental issues. But fortunately, many City Council members are questioning the advice on what to do and who should pay. Boulder’s first affordable housing program (that I know about) was over 30 years ago. It required developers to make a small fraction of their units affordable, but these units reverted to market prices after a time, obviously not a long-term solution. When I was on the council, I pushed a conceptual change — affordable housing created under any city program or regulation was to be permanent. In addition, I worked with Mayor Leslie Durgin to develop with a funding mechanism called the CHAP (Community Housing Assistance Program) which included various taxing and fee mechanisms. The next significant step was Inclusionary Zoning, which required developers to

Many Boulder citizens I’ve recently met are intensely interested in the opportunity a municipal electric utility represents to have more economic, reliable, and cleaner power. I have spent hours discussing what would happen if 2B and 2C pass, and how Boulder’s residences and businesses are protected during the process. Here are the major points. First  – Ballot Issues 2B and 2C do not create the municipal utility (or “muni.”) 2C authorizes the city council to create a muni, but only under very stringent financial and other constraints. 2B creates a source of funding to achieve certainty on costs, including the acquisition of the distribution system (poles, wires, transformers, substations, etc.) and of possible compensation to Xcel for stranded assets (facilities that wouldn’t have a market if Boulder leaves Xcel.) If costs are so high that Boulder cannot match Xcel’s rates at the time of anticipated startup, then the process will be halted, and the muni will not be formed. S