Steve Pomerance

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 ...

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 backw...

Proposition 123 is a state-level initiative to direct taxpayers’ money into affordable housing programs. Ignoring the myriad details, Prop 123 doesn’t institute the preconditions I would require before supporting using state taxes for affordable housing. First, any state-level affordable housing funding should have as a prerequisite that the region is adjusting its zoning to balance jobs and housing growth. Simply put, if a city continually adds more and more job development (office, commercial, industrial, etc.), then it needs to balance that with an adequate amount of housing. And for those who think that continually adding jobs makes a place better off financially, Boulder’s seminal Jobs/Housing Study twenty years ago showed that, at best, it’s break-even regarding operating costs and a net loser when you consider growth-related capital costs. (By the way, Boulder failed to do this balancing with the East Boulder Sub-Community Plan — a missed opportunity.) Second, all job develo...

As Boulder’s election season cranks up, there is a lot of noise around Boulder’s sacred cow of affordable housing. Fast-growth candidates seem to assert that building more market rate housing will somehow solve “the problem.” Slow-growth candidates seem to be more measured and consider other dimensions to the issue. But the problem is still ill-defined: Is this something that can actually be solved, or a concern that will persist irrespective of the actions taken, or a surrogate for other agendas, or what? Leaving aside this lack of clarity, the main difficulty we face is that our current affordable housing program relies financially to a large extent on growth of one kind or another. Each new housing development must provide 25% on-site affordable units or pay fees-in-lieu for off-site units. Business development pays jobs-housing linkage fees that cover a bit less than a quarter of the cost of providing housing for workers who need it. A minor portion comes from local taxes and ...

Albert Einstein said, “ We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. ” Boulder is supposed to be one of the most educated cities in the country, so you’d think that we wouldn’t just commit the same follies as every other high tech town. But we’ve been headed that way for a long time. Boulder’s own Comprehensive Plan states that Boulder is an “employment center,” and for the last quarter of a century our government has encouraged jobs to be added as fast as the space could get built. Even Boulder Junction, started in 2004, would add about as many new jobs as new residents. Boulder has supported spending state tax credits to encourage companies to come to town. Boulder’s city manager unilaterally applied to have much of east Boulder designated an “opportunity zone,” which grants unnecessary huge tax breaks for developers in this supposedly “economically depressed” area. Affordable housing programs have been implemented, but they couldn’t keep u...

I want to catch up on a number of Boulder topics where significant progress has been made, and to acknowledge the majority of the City Council for making this happen. I’m serving on the elections working group. In just two meetings we’ve resolved the basic issues around the municipal initiative process that was upset by ballot issue 2Q. It appears that we will have a process ready to be put on the ballot as a charter amendment this November. It will be similar to the one that existed prior to 2Q but with some significant improvements. We haven’t started on the effort to shine light onto “dark money.” But given the council’s clear direction to push the envelope on this one, I am confident that we can come up some good strategies that will reveal the big money donors behind the ads that push certain candidates but avoid saying the magic words “vote for” or “vote against” that would trigger their being regulated. The council majority has kept its promise to increase the jobs-housing...

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...

The stimulus to write this came from a recent article in the Camera about how the developer of Pearl West — the huge office building at 11th and Pearl — allegedly didn’t have the money to finish the theater that the developer promised when the site review was approved by the Planning Board. What good is a promise if there is no requirement to deliver? The problem is that there is a fundamental flaw in Boulder’s planning process. Developers of projects, other than small ones, are required to go through the “site review” process, where the judgment of a majority of the Planning Board as to whether the project meets vague criteria is substituted for actual numerical rules about height, setbacks, density, etc. The bounds are much looser, and the Planning Board almost invariably approves structures considerably larger than the underlying zoning would allow. This size inflation generally has a negative impact on the neighbors, so the only guaranteed outcome is a giant fight. And because ...

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...

Many claims have been made about what Boulder’s recent survey really means regarding attitudes toward growth. Just looking at the survey responses gives one impression, but carefully reviewing the survey document itself to see whether it provides accurate and complete background material gives quite another. Unfortunately, much of the material for the growth questions was simply inadequate, and, as a result, respondents would likely choose answers that were more pro-growth than if they were given better information. It’s not that what the survey said was wrong, but, in many instances, what was missing was far more important than what was included. Here are some examples; see what you think: The “Background” for the growth management questions states that by 2040 we may see an additional 18,000+ more residents and a similar number of more jobs. But these numbers are not even close to what Boulder could be if fully built out. How would survey respondents know this, since the “Backgro...

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...

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...