Posts

Showing posts with the label Population

Opinion: Crowded, congested and dry – the future of Boulder

Last week, the  Boulder City Council voted 7-2  to proceed with looking at annexing an area of currently rural land north-east of U.S. 36, called the Area III planning reserve. It’s approximately 500 acres, part private and part owned by the Parks Department, bought decades ago for eventual use as playing fields, etc. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan states that expanding the city into the Area III-PR “will only be considered if there are priority community needs that cannot be met within the existing Service Area.” Sensibly, the Planning Board voted 4-3 against looking further at this time. The basic argument being made is that we need more housing. More, more and more housing. A friend did a detailed look at coming housing growth inside the Boulder city limits. Here are the numbers: There are about 27 projects at various stages, totaling over 15,000 new units....

Opinion: It’s time to start planning for fewer people

I’ve suspected for a long time that climate change is making our world population level unsustainable. Reading “Recipe for disaster” in the Nov. 16 issue of New Scientist, a respected British science publication, confirmed that view and lays out the long-term future we face. Our food situation is dire: Climate change has had devastating consequences for farmers around the globe. And efforts to compensate, such as clearing forests to grow more crops, have led to increasing carbon dioxide levels, as well as biodiversity loss.  Pests and pathogens are expected to increase. Glacial melting is reducing water supply in some areas. The Dec. 9 New York Times reported that three-quarters of the Earth’s surface has become “persistently drier” in recent decades. And, although increased CO2 levels have slightly improved plant growth rates, once the global temperature rises to exceed 3 degrees C, that effect will reverse. Our local water supply is at risk. The Denver Post last week reported tha...

Opinion: ‘One size fits all’ densification of transit corridors bill has serious flaws

House Bill 24-1313, or Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities , which is now at the state Senate, is the successor to the pro-growth bill that failed to pass at the end of last year’s session. That bill generated a lot of substantive objections, especially over the loss of local control over how much and what kind of growth Colorado communities wanted. Unfortunately, this 70-page bill is not much better. And it’s so complicated that just the administrative costs will be substantial. Here’s my attempt to identify some of its many issues. This bill basically attempts to leverage communities with significant transit service to allow massive densification, up to 40 units per acre, of areas within a half mile of certain transit stops. That’s way above the typical low-density neighborhood with maybe four to six units per acre. It threatens to cut off certain federal highway funds or legally force communities to comply if its goals are not achieved. The bill exempts many areas from its h...

Opinion: Bad land use bills abound from our Democratic-controlled Legislature

After my column on the Zenzinger/Kirkmeyer land use bill appeared two weeks ago, those legislators told me that the draft they sent me was just for my review and was not for publication. This was not clear to me in their original communication. Anyway, I apologized to them. And, whatever their bill’s flaws, it was way better than the latest “housing crisis” bill that I discuss here. Representatives Steven Woodrow and Iman Jodeh’s bill, HB24-1313, sets housing density standards for “transit areas,” those within a half mile of a transit corridor station. It first incentivizes this increase in density, but if the community doesn’t comply, it forces them to do it anyway. All of this will be supervised by Polis’s Department of Local Affairs. Their bill starts with the state demographer making a precise forecast of Colorado’s growth — “ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED (more) PEOPLE BY 2050.” That’s about a 30% increase, around 1% per year compounded. This is obviously based on ...

Opinion: It’s time to plan for a steady-state, sustainable community

I guess that, with my math and engineering background, I’m always looking at the numbers. These recent news stories got me going: On Dec. 2, The Denver Post covered RTD’s report on its July/August  “Zero Fare for Cleaner Air” program.  Allowing people to ride for free in July and August cost RTD $15.2 million in lost fares and other expenses. It reduced emissions by more than 6 million pounds (3,000 tons). But Colorado’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Roadmap calls for a CO2 emissions reduction of 12.7 million tons per year by 2030. The Zero Fare program’s reduction, if done for a full year, would reduce emissions by only 0.14% of what’s needed. This reduction cost is around $5,000 per ton, about 27 times the social cost of carbon dioxide, currently $185 per ton, according to  Resources for the Future’s 2022 report .  Zero Fare reduced vehicle miles traveled by 145,000 miles per day, almost unnoticeable compared to the Denver area total of around 84 million miles per...

Opinion: The reality behind the supposed ‘housing crisis’

Our governments, both state and local, are suddenly freaking out about the “housing crisis.” Given the level of hype, you’d think that we were in Turkey, with earthquake-collapsed buildings in all directions. But no one seems willing to dig into the underlying causes. Instead, as has occurred many times before, they just push for more growth, while ignoring critical concerns: Coloradans actually want less or no growth; continuing to grow indefinitely is not sustainable; and the COVID “bump” was just that — people shifted to working remotely in more desirable living situations. Recent surveys say most Coloradans don’t want lots more people moving here. To quote one article, “Rasmussen Reports surveyed over 1,000 ‘likely to vote’ Coloradans to gauge their feelings on the matter. Overwhelmingly, the answers showed they want to limit population growth. In recent years 92% feel that the state has become more crowded. 90% desire a future where far fewer people move to the state. 59% prefer a...

Opinion: Humans – the most invasive species

A couple of weeks ago, having received both my COVID vaccinations, I decided to risk a plane flight and went to San Diego. After flying across the mostly unoccupied areas of western Colorado, Utah, and eastern Nevada, we went over Las Vegas. I was looking down at the tall buildings in the casino area, and had the thought that they looked like a huge termite hill surrounded by a sprawl of peripheral sub-nests. It was as if a new species of giant insect had invaded the area. As we approached the coast of California, the same sensation came over me, like I was seeing another form of this species’ home, with a lower but more clearly rectangular pattern. Anyway, I think you get the idea – what I was imagining seeing was the takeover of the natural environment by a highly successful species that had transformed huge swaths of land into a form that works for it. These experiences did not have any feeling of negative judgment. It was more one of those epiphanies that we all get sometimes, ...