Steve Pomerance

In the almost 60 years I’ve lived here, Boulder’s housing has always been more expensive than surrounding areas. So various city councils have tried to provide more affordable housing, including imposing “inclusionary housing” requirements (a percentage of new units be affordable, 10% in the mid-1980s, 25% now), having new business development pay “jobs-housing linkage fees” (now $30 per square foot for office space), pushing dense housing developments (the tree-barren Boulder Junction on 30th Street, Liquor Mart site, etc.), allowing some ADUs with rent control, instituting a buy-down program (providing down payment cash in exchange for limiting appreciation), etc. Most councils were realistic and implicitly aware that housing issues were not ultimately “solvable” — that is, Boulder was never going to come close to fully meeting the demand, and so prices and rents were never going to stabilize and be as affordable as in other places. This is doubly so because of CU’s ever-increasing s

This November, Boulderites will vote for mayor. It’s important to remember that the whole city council, including the mayor, will still vote on all ordinances, resolutions and motions. The mayor’s most visible role will still be running the meetings. But an elected mayor could make a big difference in how meetings are prepared for and how outreach is handled. Improving both processes would improve both how Boulder’s government is perceived by the citizens and the quality of the council’s decisions. An example is the recent decision by the council to allow e-bikes on certain Open Space trails. The vote was 8-0 to allow e-bikes. From council members’ lack of response to the strong majority of speakers who testified against allowing e-bikes, it appeared that council members had made up their minds before the meeting. So, testifying was apparently a waste of time. (I spoke, and the experience was like talking to a wall.) What difference could an elected mayor have made? For example, he/she

I’d like to acknowledge Boulder City Council members Bob Yates and Tara Winer for showing up at the discussion of the proposed homeless day center at 1844 Folsom. Per the Camera’s story on Wednesday, many residents of Horizon West next door raised a lot of legitimate concerns. What’s interesting to me is that the process for selection of the site did not involve talking to the residents of the various possible neighborhoods prior to the site selection. This put the city staff person in charge in the unenviable position of having to justify this lack of early input; that criticism should properly be directed at the council members who approve the site selection criteria as well as the process. This process will no doubt be repeated when some neighbors wake up one morning to find out that the house next door has been purchased to become an addict recovery home, with something like eight recovering addicts and five staff members, as the city was planning to do some months ago. I realize t