Steve Pomerance

When I came to Boulder in the ’60s, I was young and blissfully unaware of the huge efforts the current residents were making to keep Boulder a wonderful place, including the Blue Line, that protects our mountain backdrop from development, the 55-foot height limit that protects our views, and the open space program that protects us from sprawl. But eventually I came to realize that the very qualities that make Boulder great, and the kinds of people who care enough to try to preserve them, were what make Boulder such a desirable place to do development. So without carefully managed growth, including growth paying its own way, we would lose those qualities and become just another overcrowded, overpriced, traffic-congested “success” story, like Silicon Valley. I am supporting candidates that I think will continue this effort to keep Boulder a wonderful place with citizens who truly care about our “commons” — the qualities and amenities that make Boulder unique. Here they are in alphabe...

For the last 50 years at least, Boulder has had a “housing crisis.” Our housing has always been more expensive than in our neighboring cities. We started with a fantastic natural setting and a stable economy because of CU and the federal labs. Boulder’s desirability increased with the Blue Line preventing development on the mountain backdrop, our open space limiting urban sprawl, and our 55-foot height limit preserving views. But over that time period, we went from a town with 30th Street being dirt and a turkey farm at the Williams Village site, to a booming employment center with jobs growing faster than housing. The current high-tech craze, exemplified by Google, escalated the already rapid increase in housing prices, with multimillion dollar cash offers, and the scraping of modest single-family homes and local service businesses and replacing them with McMansions, high-rise apartments, and giant office and hotel complexes. The city’s studies have shown that new, market-rate h...

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...

The city council recently approved pay raises for Boulder’s city manager and attorney. They both received “equity” raises, apparently to bring them up to comparable levels with others in similar positions. They also received “very high” performance ratings and 4 percent permanent “performance” salary increases. The totals were a 9 percent increase for the manager, to $236,508, and a 5 percent increase for the attorney, to $203,839. Does the council really think that the city’s performance was that great? And why were these not just bonuses, so as to leave room for future flexibility? Besides, matching other cities’ salaries, and then raising them, will unnecessarily escalate all salaries when others cities follow suit. The 2014 Boulder Transportation Master Plan shows a very significant funding gap between expected revenues and what is needed to reduce vehicle-miles-traveled and prevent congestion increases. The TMP calculates that this would require almost doubling expected reven...

The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan has now been in existence since the 1970s. It originally was a relatively simple agreement between the county commissioners and the city council that prevented sprawl and kept urban development within the city’s borders. Over the years, it has expanded to become a massive document containing multiple (and sometimes conflicting) policies, land use maps, department master plans, and the like. But it lacks three critical elements — a clearly defined vision for Boulder’s future, a citizen approval process for this vision, and a way for the citizens to ensure that their government sticks with this vision once approved. These shortcomings have shown up multiple times in recent years. For example, the proposed Hogan-Pancost annexation, near the East Boulder Community Center, was supported by city staff and rejected by the planning board, both based on the BVCP’s policies. The Envision East Arapahoe project, with its 55-foot buildings, emerged out of t...

I read in Wednesday’s Camera that the Boulder planning staff is proposing a moratorium on new buildings over 35 feet, except in downtown and Boulder Junction. They are also proposing to implement jobs-housing linkage fees, through which business development would pay for affordable housing for lower-income employees. And they are pushing for form-based zoning, which, if done properly, should produce much better design and, more importantly, eliminate most of the “let’s cut a deal” bargaining where a developer gets more height in exchange for providing some alleged “community benefit.” Pardon my cynicism, but I am highly suspicious that this will amount to anything. There are any number of 55-foot buildings already approved or in the review process in Downtown, the Boulder Junction area, on 28th Street, and elsewhere. Will all these be put on hold? Linkage fees only count if they are high enough, and Boulder’s existing fee is a tiny fraction of what is required. Form-based zoning on...

Boulder’s open space program has probably provided more benefits to Boulder residents than any other single program. Our prime water supply, the 55-foot height limit, the Blue Line, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, etc. all are important. But open space has provided us with unparalleled protection from sprawl and fantastic access to the outdoors. On Tuesday night, the City Council discussed options for extending the current open space taxes. Low interest rates and favorable land prices make this the time to go full out to complete the property purchase program. Here’s the way I see it: The council has already identified a long list of properties that it wants to acquire, called the Accelerated Acquisition Plan, estimated to cost nearly $90 million. It includes very visible parcels along the road to Lyons, and others east and south of town. In addition, the council is looking to open space to purchase oil and gas drilling rights, help build a regional trail network, and incr...

The July 5 New York Times science section ran a fascinating article called, “Thirst for Fairness May Have Helped Us Survive.” It argues that “humans have an inherent distaste for hierarchical extremes,” and that “the thirst for fairness runs deep.” But “low hierarchy doesn`t mean no hierarchy,” and “the basic template for human social groups is moderately but not unerringly egalitarian.” This view of human nature is in conflict with our current American society, where wealth is becoming more and more concentrated in a small segment of our population. The effect of this concentration is felt in our political life, where the ability to spend enormous sums on elections has become a dominant determinant of who gets elected. The “Citizens United” decision exacerbated this problem, allowing corporations to make political donations, not as the shareholders might want, but as the corporate officers choose. None other that John C. Bogle, the founder of Vanguard Funds, wrote an editorial for...

I`ve been involved in local politics for going on 30 years now, and I was under the illusion that there wasn`t much left that could surprise me. But the recent lawsuit challenging the “Taxpayers Bill of Rights,” TABOR, caught me completely off guard. This lawsuit against the State of Colorado was filed by a group of mostly current and former elected officials. It argues that TABOR violates Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution, which in part states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” The lawsuit claims, among other things, that TABOR “compromises and undermines the fundamental nature of the state`s Republican Form of Government.” And “By removing the taxing power of the General Assembly, the TABOR amendment renders the Colorado General Assembly unable to fulfill its legislative obligations under a Republican Form of Government.” The New Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “republic” as (1) a government ha...

A few years ago the Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) board proposed putting a hotel on Open Space near Chautauqua. This absurd concept only emerged into the light of day because one board member had the courage to actually speak about it, breaking the “code of secrecy” that seems to surround much of what goes on with the CCA. Now we have another development proposal, not nearly as outrageous, but potentially equally ill-conceived. It’s to build a “modest 7,000 square foot” building, containing offices, maintenance facilities, and a meeting space, where the current Chautauqua Picnic Shelter is located, just to the south of the auditorium where we go to hear the Colorado Music Festival. Apparently, one reason to build this is to generate more revenue so that the CCA board can fund their “Chautauqua 2020 Plan.” (The CCA’s Web site contains a general “2020 vision statement,” but lacks details, supporting documentation, and financials. The proposed building was reportedly represent...

In spite of how much I like mountain biking, I do not want to see mountain bikes allowed in the area west of Broadway/93, south of Baseline/Chautauqua and north of Eldorado Springs Drive. For those mountain bikers who will immediately question my credentials, I`ve ridden mountain bikes for decades, including the Hall and Heil Ranch rides, the Doudy Draw area, Walker Ranch, Monarch Pass, Fruita, Moab, including Slick Rock, Porcupine Rim and Poison Spider, Aspen-Crested Butte and back, and so on. The relatively pristine area of prairie and foothills between the south edge of town and South Boulder Creek offers a unique experience of peace and serenity. It`s a trip back into the past. Just walk west on the Lower Big Bluestem Trail from the trailhead south of town on Colorado 93 just north of the trailer park. Within minutes you are out in the prairie, looking west at the mountains, with only tall grass around you. The vista is huge, and even if you see another hiker, they are dwarfed ...

Last Sunday`s Daily Camera lead story discussed many of the cutting edge initiatives that Boulder citizens have taken over more than half a century to protect the quality of life in Boulder from “What might have been.” These include the Blue Line that restricts water delivery and thus development to below 5,750 feet, the Open Space program that protects sensitive habitat, the 55 foot height limit that protects our views, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan that limits most development to within the city limits, and so on. Because of these efforts, Boulder is a very desirable place to live. And the inevitable effect of this is that the price of land, housing, and commercial property is higher than in less desirable places. The pressure on housing prices is further amplified by the presence of the University of Colorado, whose growth is, to some extent, driven by the internal economic benefits of an expanding research agenda with the attendant desire to house even more students, ...

Or if you prefer a community perspective, it could be the “Our Money, Our Free Speech” Act. In my last column, I suggested a law that would require approval by stockholders before a corporation could spend money on political advertising. It seems reasonable that stockholders should be the ones to make this decision, as I suspect that they would rather have the money themselves as dividends than give it to some unknown corporate VP to spend on his or her choice of candidates. I received some positive feedback on the idea, so I thought it might be worth exploring further. This concept is in reaction to the Supreme Court`s overreaching 5-4 “Citizens United” decision that allows non-political organizations like publicly held corporations to put unlimited money into campaigns. The fundamental issue is one of property rights — why does a company I invested in because of its business potential get to spend my profits, without my consent, in support a candidate or issue that I might disagr...