Opinion: Is this the future we want for Boulder?


Boulder’s latest “Community Profile” has both commercial and residential growth continuing at exactly the same percentage rate per year from now through 2035. Currently Boulder has almost 60,000 in-commuters. Given these matching growth rates and the current large surplus of jobs over workers, the number of in-commuters will continue to increase as we add at least another 60,000 jobs and 20,000 or so more residents to what the planning department calls “reasonable build-out.”
Is adding more and more employment where we should be headed? It increases traffic congestion and drives up the price of housing, resulting in decreased “diversity.” The spillover effects of adding housing to try to catch up to jobs are equally pernicious — city and school district facilities are overcrowded, services are stretched thin, traffic is made even worse, and finite resources like water and open space are stressed. None of this is desirable, so why are we going there?
The excess of in-commuters cannot reasonably be addressed by adding more housing. The Denver Metro area jobs/pop ratio was about 2/3 pre-Recession; Boulder’s is almost exactly 1/1. Adding enough housing just for the current in-commuters would increase Boulder’s population by 60,000, if every new resident worked here, to 90,000, at the 2/3 ratio.
Many of our major intersections are already at or beyond capacity during rush hours, with multiple light cycle waits over an increasing fraction of each day. Until now, the city’s “standard” has been no more than a certain percentage of intersections with multiple light cycle waits. So once an intersection is counted as failing, having it degrade from, say, two hours to five hours of delays makes no difference in meeting the standard. But this increase strongly impacts people’s ability to get around, by car or by bus. Boulder city staff has finally proposed adding the length of intersection delays and rush-hour travel times to the list of transportation plan standards. These should also be measured over the whole day to paint an accurate picture of changes as they occur and of the real experience of Boulderites who must use the roads to actually get somewhere.
Some of the city’s housing ideas, like allowing more accessory dwelling units in neighborhoods, may make sense on their own. But we need to follow the first rule of holes — when you find yourself in one, stop digging. If housing prices are rising because of increased demand from employment growth, maybe we need to address the cause, not the effect, as does the current proposal to increase allowable housing densities by counting adjacent street right-of-ways as open space! Another idea floating around is to put more services in employment areas, so that workers don’t have to drive around so much. This also may make sense, but planners will then want to completely redevelop these areas to meet their mental pictures of desirable “urban streetscapes.” This raises rents and pushes out existing service businesses that actually benefit citizens; it happened in Boulder Junction and would happen from the oversized Baseline Zero hotel project near Martin Acres.
Added to the city’s current growth projections for inside the city limits is the possible development of the planning reserve, which is hundreds of acres north east of U.S. 36. Apparently some council members are pretty hot on this – otherwise why push to eliminate the county’s veto power in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan agreement? And then there is the University of Colorado, which just keeps building more and more.
The council ought to review the financial analyses done in the 2001-03 Jobs/Pop Study to see that no growth in Boulder pays its own way. So all of this projected growth will almost certainly result in general service levels becoming worse for everyone — an implicit tax — even if we have some major explicit tax increases, as seem to be coming. In particular, none of the current fees, taxes, or plans are even close to being adequate to solve the long-term transportation issue.
Much as some council members don’t want to give up power, it’s time to give the citizens the deciding voice. The city should develop a full range of realistic alternative scenarios to the current path, and analyze the costs and benefits involved. Then do a substantial public process, as was done in the 1990’s with the Integrated Planning Project, so the citizens of Boulder can really understand what the options are. My guess is that the feedback will once again be overwhelmingly clear — it’s time to stop digging!
Profile: https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/2014-boulder-colorado-community-profile-1-201404171641.pdf


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