Steve Pomerance

As I was preparing to write this column, I read the news reports on 18 amendments that were made to HB23-213, the Polis land grab bill. This is the bill that would have rezoned essentially 100% of the single-family areas in larger Colorado cities and resort areas to allow up to sixplexes. These amendments now reduce that 100% to 30% (and sixplexes to fourplexes). The committee vote was 4-3, apparently with serious reservations about still allowing even that much densification being expressed, including by some of those voting “yes.” Now the bill only focuses on densifying areas near transit and trains, and not on multiplying Colorado’s population. I guess it’s now a “transit crisis,” not a “housing crisis.” But the bill still doesn’t distinguish families from unrelated folks in determining occupancy. So, single-family houses can still be replaced with rooming houses. The legislators focused on standard, fixed-line mass transit. No consideration was given to alternatives, like charging

A March 19 Camera staff editorial contained inaccurate assumptions about landlord behavior, if Boulder increases occupancy limits. The editorial suggested, “…allowing an additional person into a home would allow tenants to split the rent another way and hopefully relieve some financial stress.” That statement’s obvious, giant flaw is the assumption that somehow, the rent will remain static and unchanged if the landlord is allowed to rent to more unrelated people. Our current City Council also voices this naive, false assumption. It’s pure fantasy that landlords will keep the rent unchanged, if allowed to rent to more people. Landlords know how to use calculators. No knock against landlords, but let’s be honest, it’s a business and income source for them! Like most businesspersons, landlords understandably seek to maximize revenue and profits, not altruism. Bedrooms Are For People (BAFP) failed partly because there was no lever within the ballot measure to require affordability. Voters

The conversation we are going to have on April 20 regarding Governor Polis’s housing bill, SB23-213, has, to a considerable extent, been preempted by the position of the City Council’s Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, and likely to be supported by a majority of the members of Council. The Committee has adopted a position of “Support, while requesting amendments.” The scope of that position is unclear. Staff has proposed a number of amendments to improve the bill and make it more adaptable to the particular interests of the City of Boulder. What is not clear is what happens if the Council majority’s proposed amendments are not adopted. Are we expressing support for the bill no matter what its final provisions are, or will we oppose the bill if those amendments are not enacted?  I know that this legislation is near and dear to Governor Polis, but I suggest that the interests of the City of Boulder – which should be the   exclusive  interests of this Council – outweigh the more politi

So … what do we do with Gov. Jared Polis’s land grab bill? A friend told me that to influence some of the politicos, I need to put forward fixes to this horrible, damaging bill.  So, I’ll try. But first, a critical point: For those who think this bill’s overly loose state-imposed rezoning of single-family areas will lead to only incremental changes and only over a long time, think again! Once the first house on a block goes on the market, the big-money speculators will be making offers “too good to refuse.” And when it’s converted to a multi-plex built to the bill’s ridiculously excessive 125% of the currently allowed maximum size, the rest of the neighborhood’s residents will be running for the hills. Then the neighborhood could quickly convert to dense, almost treeless development since anything not built on will be needed for parking spaces because there will be none left on the street. Back to the bill:  The fundamental problem with this bill is that it is structured backward. The