Opinion: Can Boulder afford ‘affordable housing?’


The more detailed question is — should Boulder continue with its current policies that are mostly number driven, that have resulted in concentrating affordable housing in small areas of town, and that have effectively turned over major decisions to unelected people and entities whose interests are not necessarily aligned with the citizens at large?
Both proponents and opponents of the proposed development at Lee Hill Drive to house homeless people have legitimate perspectives. The “housing first” concept has apparently worked well for Denver, and concentrating such services in one location improves administrative efficiency. But asking one part of town to absorb large numbers of affordable housing units, as North Boulder has, and now absorb yet another transient population, is both unfair and inappropriate given the city’s stated intent to spread affordable housing throughout the community.
The reason this project is not subject to the more typical development review goes back decades to a group home that was opposed by some neighbors. Since the City Council expected that there always would be “objectors,” the council decided that such projects should be allowed “by right,” i.e. not subject to review other than the standard building regulations. Unfortunately, it appears that this decision was overly broad, leading to the intractable current situation, where in spite of serious objections being raised, the council has little legal room to maneuver.
Boulder’s affordable housing program is dominated by a few issues. First is the goal of having 10 percent of all housing be “affordable,” a number that was made up out of thin air many years ago. This numerical target fails to capture the complex nature of both the diversity of populations to be served and the importance of goals like geographic distribution. Second is “inclusionary zoning,” where developers are supposed to provide 20 percent of a residential project’s units as affordable, but are allowed to escape this requirement by paying a “fee in lieu.” This has resulted in an unlikely alliance between for-profit developers, who prefer to avoid having to put poor folks in their expensive condo projects, and nonprofit developers, who like getting the cash so they can build more projects themselves.
The combination of these policies has resulted in Boulder’s affordable housing being concentrated where new development can occur, rather than, for example, spending the money to “buy down” the price of existing units all over town. Essentially, the numerical target plus the economics of development have overwhelmed our community planning goals.
What Boulder needs to do is to re-examine its affordable housing policies from the goals and objectives down to the development regulations, fees and taxes. But this re-examination cannot be turned over to the same groups as before. I observed the last two efforts, and both had the same problem –they were dominated by housing and development interests.
A first step would be to discard the arbitrary 10 percent goal and try to look at housing from a holistic perspective. For example, does it make sense to try to house more workers in Boulder to reduce the current approximately 60,000 in-commuters when we have zoning for another 60,000-plus additional jobs? Should we build more housing when the city’s impact fees are inadequate to provide parks, libraries and schools for these folks, or to prevent serious traffic congestion? How much of our nation’s homeless population should we try to help, and what role should the rest of Boulder County play? How important is dispersal of affordable units versus more concentrated but possibly cheaper units? What demographic groups should get priority?
We also need to ask the fundamental questions that are tough for a generally liberal community, like how much better off will we be if we achieve some numerical target, or provide subsidized housing for those already living here, or serve one particular demographic over another? And are we OK with the inequity of providing subsidized housing for a lucky few, while other Boulderites in equivalent circumstances go without?
To provide a fresh look at the options, the council should appoint a real citizen board — not just housing and development advocates –that would focus on evaluating policy choices for the long term. But this time the goal is not to convince the community to support the current direction, but come up with a path that meshes all of Boulder’s goals.

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 the new co
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