Steve Pomerance

I attended the Monday evening meeting of the four bodies that review and approve the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update. The final item, changing the land use designations for existing established neighborhoods to allow massive densification, was very revealing. Both the County Commissioners and County Planning Commission were concerned about the impacts on these neighborhoods. But the majority of both the City Council and City Planning Board were ready to push forward to allow densification. I was appalled by their lack of concern for what their constituents who live there actually want and the total lack of interest in giving them a direct say (like voting) on the matter. On the budget issues, the South Boulder Recreation Center needs a complete rebuild, or possibly replacement, and our city is trying to sort out how to pay for it. But it is far from the only building that is old or deteriorating. Boulder first looked at the problem with the 2021 Boulder Facilities Master Plan,...

Note: This column has been updated to reflect that six cities are a part of the lawsuit against the state to protect local authority. A key story in Monday’s Camera was about Lafayette having joined Aurora, Arvada, Glendale, Greenwood Village, and Westminster in a critically important lawsuit that will decide whether home rule cities, including Boulder, get to determine their own land use, or if the Legislature and governor can dictate how to zone and manage our cities. I’ve put a fair amount of time into researching this issue; here’s what I’ve found to date: The Colorado Constitution allows cities to become “home rule” and in effect, self-governing by the citizens passing a charter defining their form of government, with certain basic structural rules. Article XX, Sec.6 provides that the laws of home rule cities “supersede … any state law in conflict therewith.” The case law refining this system started in the late 1800s on topics relevant to all cities, like how courts operated. The...

The first meeting of the group of 48 volunteers to discuss “15-minute neighborhoods” was Saturday, May 10. According to one of the many pages on the city’s website devoted to this subject, “15-minute neighborhoods are neighborhoods where daily goods, services and transit are within a 15-minute walk (about a 1/4 mile) of where people live or work.” Unfortunately, because much of the city’s material comes across as being biased towards establishing these neighborhoods (which require massive densification of most residential areas), the people who volunteered were possibly biased toward that outcome. But the rest of us will not know, and have no way to determine, the extent of such bias in this process, because the meetings’ locations, names of participants, agendas and materials are secret. So, those of us who were not among the chosen cannot attend these “Citizen Assembly” meetings even as observers. I think that is terrible. A process this consequential should be done openly! The argum...

I just read an excellent paper called  “The Questionable Economics of the 15-Minute City”  by Rachel Meltzer, a professor of planning and urban economics at Harvard. To quote her, “The economics of the 15-minute city don’t really work.” Her analysis points out that any kind of establishment, whether it is a supermarket or an urgent care clinic, has fixed costs. So, the “catchment area” needs to be big enough to have enough customers to cover those costs. Also, many stores have become bigger and contain a wider variety of goods than 20 or 50 years ago. Thus, any given area is now served by fewer stores with more goods per store. Looking at Boulder, we see these economics at work. For example, we have about 10 grocery stores, and over the last years, we’ve had two supermarkets close and a couple of new ones open, that I can think of. And they are mostly distributed geographically. So, even with all the planned growth in East Bo...

Earlier this year, the February 6 city council agenda provided notice for Boulder’s first executive session with the opaque explanation: “pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) for conference with attorneys for the City for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions regarding meeting management and the First Amendment.” This behind-closed-door session was actually about how the council was finally going to wrest control of its meetings back from the protesters, after a year-plus of almost constant disruptions. I’m happy to see this finally happening, though, in my opinion, it did not require instituting executive sessions, which I don’t support because their privacy encourages bad behavior and deal cutting. Colorado statute 24-6-402(4) states that the public notice of an executive session requires “identification of the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive...

I was reading last Sunday’s Camera and came across the City of Boulder’s public meeting schedule. It announced two Saturday events, at 7:00 p.m. on Jan. 25 at the library and at 2:00 p.m. on Feb. 08 at the council chambers. They’re called “You’re Invited to Shape Boulder’s Future Through Storytelling,” and described as follows: “Join the City of Boulder, Boulder County, and Motus Playback Theater … for a dynamic event where your stories help shape the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update through interactive theatrical performance.” The link to the city’s website provided this info: “BOLDER. BOULDER. BETTER. With Motus Playback Theater. Join Motus Playback Theater, Boulder County and the City of Boulder for a fun and engaging event where your vision for Boulder comes to life on stage! Share your story or reflection about what matters most to you, and watch professional actors transform it into a theatrical performance with movement, music and spoken word.” But I found zero info on h...

In January, the Boulder City Council will consider making some very significant changes in the zoning for our neighborhoods, potentially leading to building of multiple units on what were single-family zoned lots. Their arguments for such upzoning generally ignore the negative effects, are not particularly strong or logical in my opinion, and do not have neighborhood support. Yet, the process proceeds forward as if on rails. This willingness to proceed irrespective of strong public sentiment against this is, in my view, largely a function of the current council’s approach of minimizing their face-to-face participation with the citizens of Boulder. For example, public participation in meetings is now down to two minutes per person (it used to be three minutes), with the number of speakers limited (it used to be unlimited). But what is far worse is the practice of council members not engaging with citizens who raise legitimate issues. That just dissuades citizens who have important thing...

I received many times the usual number of comments regarding my recent column on the “Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods” survey and the willingness of some council members to ignore what the apparent majority of citizens respondents want. These came to me directly and also via NextDoor. Here are some of them, occasionally with edits for length and style: “Thank you for your editorial/letter about growth in Boulder. I thought I was the only one noticing and concerned about it!!” “The ‘progressives’ who have taken control of Boulder just seem to be developers in disguise.” “Neighborhood densifying: nothing has been said about PARKING — a disaster for those who do not have a driveway to park.” “Why do the ‘progressives’ just want to stuff more and more people (and cars) into Boulder? It just makes no sense.” “Collectively the community survey delivered a statistically significant ‘against’ the proposed changes … two to one not in favor, for instance...

I seldom get angry about political matters, since I generally focus on policies rather than personalities. But the October 17 city council session on the results of their flawed “Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods” survey really got to me. No surprise to me, a substantial majority of the survey respondents did not favor densification of their single-family neighborhoods. After all, people bought into these neighborhoods precisely because of their lack of overcrowding, large amounts of green space and quiet streets. So why would they want to convert to being dense, noisy, traffic-ridden, overdeveloped and overpopulated? This serious lack of support apparently upset the plans of the “progressives” on the council to use the survey results to support their densification goals. So, they responded at the meeting by undercutting the survey, saying that it was not statistically valid. And, strangely, this view was not refuted by...

Around noon on Wednesday, I read the Camera story on the latest attempt by our council to  fix their abysmal public processes . They allege to want to get more and better input by taking up the suggestion by the National League of Cities folks to have citizen forums on specific topics early in their process. The story said that the first forum will be Thursday, Sept. 26. So I immediately tried to sign up. But, per the City’s web site, the meeting was to be virtual and signup was already closed. So, I emailed the council and staff that both state law and the city charter require such meetings to be open to the public. When I rechecked at 4 p.m., it had become a real meeting (6 p.m. in the council chambers) open to the public. This is just the latest example of a failure by the council to manage themselves effectively. The meeting with the NLC folks (that I attended) where this process was demonstrated was way back in February. Now, all of a sudden, ...

No doubt many of you remember the surveys the city of Boulder sent out a couple of years ago that appeared to be so biased as to be essentially useless other than as propaganda pieces. Well, last Friday I and many others received another one of these sell-jobs enticingly titled “Family-Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods.”  Translating, this means adding the maximum density to the still surviving lower-density parts of Boulder that the council can do without violating the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. FYI, the BVCP cannot be changed without the consent of the County Commissioners, who have a lot more sense and are not advocates of unlimited growth at any cost. Fortunately, this limits the damage the “progressives” can cause, at least for the immediate future. In addition to the cavalier attitude of some of our council members about unilaterally changing the character and livability of our neighborhoods, the survey offends by asserting that this is an attempt to address housing cost...

Maybe the truth might be too uncomfortable to hear. I’m talking about the latest densification proposals being bandied about at recent Boulder City Council meetings. Last year there were some relatively innocuous moves to up-zone a few areas to allow for a bit more housing. But now the push is on to densify many single-family neighborhoods. I’m not talking about a few limited-size accessory dwelling units (ADUs), but wholesale changes in the zoning itself to reduce minimum lot sizes that would multiply the number of houses and people. Let’s be clear — the “progressive” majority doesn’t seem to really care about making housing truly more affordable. If they did, they would have already raised the percentage of permanently affordable units required for new developments from the current 25% (some or all of which can be off site) to 50% on site. This is the minimum required to even come close to maintaining our economic mix of citizens. And they would have increased the jobs-housing linkag...

Trying to keep up on the latest nonsense on SB23-213, Gov. Jared Polis’ land grab bill, is brutal. The bill keeps getting amended, first in the Senate and now in the House, and no doubt more to come in a joint session. The Denver Post captured the basic flaws perfectly in their Wednesday editorial: “Colorado lawmakers’ attempt to completely overhaul planning and zoning in almost every municipality across this state with a single piece of legislation was ambitious, drastic, and rushed. “We can think of nothing this session that would have affected the lives of home-owning Coloradans more than the original proposal in The Land Use bill to eliminate single-family-only zoning across the state in favor of more density. And sadly, we are not convinced by the data that it would have made housing any more affordable for those who are still struggling to buy.” In short, the whole bill was built on fantasy thinking, unsupported by the data.  An earlier amendment to completely eliminate occup...

It should be obvious, but apparently isn’t, that the doubling of the number of humans on the planet, from 4 billion in 1974 to 8 billion now, has overstressed our planet’s ability to support our presence in all sorts of ways, from the rapid increase in greenhouse gases leading to likely runaway climate change, to wiping out other species on a massive scale, to droughts threatening our ability to thrive. For example, arctic temperatures are rising almost four times as fast as the global average, potentially releasing hundreds of billions of tons of methane and carbon dioxide, according to some estimates, as permafrost melts. But our governments keep promoting more growth, as if that is magically going to solve our problems.  Locally, the latest is the push by both our governor and our city council for more and denser housing to allegedly help with the affordability issue. But at the same time, our state government’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) subs...

Why are we chasing Denver’s density? A friend asked me what I knew about Boulder’s plans for increasing density. She was concerned about the push for Boulder being “inclusive,” a catchall phrase currently bandied about that means pretty much whatever the person hearing or reading it imagines. Certainly there has been a lot of verbiage about “densifying,” like forcing neighborhoods to accept multi-unit buildings or high-rise developments right next to or replacing single-family houses, schemes that the current Boulder City Council seems to have abandoned, at least temporarily, because of public outcry and anger. So I can understand her concern. Since at some level this is a numbers game, I did a bit of research comparing Boulder to Denver. Obviously, Boulder is smaller than Denver, but I thought the ratios would be interesting: Per the 2018 Boulder Community Profile, our city occupies 27.3 square miles, had a population of 108,507 people, and had 100,148 jobs when the data was ...

According to the 2018 Boulder Community Profile, since 2000 job growth has been about 50% faster than residential. Excluding kids and retired folks, jobs likely grew at more than double the rate for resident workers. We now have well over 60,000 in-commuters. As a result, traffic congestion has dramatically increased. Unless we make some significant changes, it will just get worse faster, because we have exceeded the capacity of almost all our intersections. Even secondary streets are now heavily congested. Water, Boulder’s prized resource, may finally come under pressure. We get a significant portion of our supply from the Colorado River via the Big Thompson project. Given the multi-decade drought induced by climate change and the Colorado River Compact constraints, at some point, probably sooner than later, we will be forced either to buy out farmers’ water rights or live with a lot less. More people means more big buildings, more views blocked, more open opace trampled, more ...

In the June 20 Camera, Mayor Suzanne Jones is quoted instructing citizens who came to speak about the huge senior living complex proposed for 311 Mapleton, “The decisions are whether it meets the criteria, or not, not whether or not we like it.” I appreciate Mayor Jones’ thoughts, but Boulder’s site review process, which is used to evaluate such large projects, is fraught with subjectivity, fundamentally because the “criteria” lack objective standards and limits. The first step is that the council must agree that, “the proposed site plan is consistent with the land use map, and the service area map, and, on balance, the policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.” But as was noted in the recent consultant’s review of the BVCP, policies can be found that support whatever anyone wants, making this policy requirement meaningless. And each “land use” allows multiple zoning categories, so existing zoning can be changed, as this proposal requests. (I have serious questions as to w...

This concept, popularized by Garret Hardin in the 1960s, discusses a community owned pasture that is becoming overgrazed because, although each additional cow on the land benefited that cow’s owner, the end result was damage to everyone. In other words, the cumulative effect of decisions that may benefit given individuals may irreversibly harm the whole community. This problem manifests itself in as many ways as we have “commons.” At the most global level, our common atmosphere has provided us with the stable climate that allowed humans to flourish. Yet our extra cows — our individual greenhouse gas emissions — are in the process of destabilizing our climate, threatening to extinguish much of life on Earth. Locally, we have many commons: wonderful open space, great mountain views, mostly non-gridlocked street system, lots of parks and recreation centers, good schools, multiple bikeways, some permanently affordable housing, accessible libraries, peaceful and uncongested neighbor...