Steve Pomerance

The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s stated core value is Sustainability. Other values include “identity and sense of place” and “great neighborhoods.” The question is whether the proposed densification of our single-family neighborhoods, allowing apartment buildings, business and retail development, etc. is consistent with these values. This densification involves making BVCP Land Use Map changes. Under the City-County agreement (see, for example, Appendix B, Exhibit B, pages 159 et seq, in the 2020 BVCP update), such Map changes must meet the following criteria: a) On balance, is consistent with the policies and overall intent of the comprehensive plan; b) would not have significant cross-jurisdictional impacts that may affect residents, properties or facilities outside the city; c) would not materially affect the land use and growth projections that were the basis of the comprehensive plan; d) does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities a...

Colorado’s “housing crisis” has been a rallying cry for more and more development over the last few years. But looking at the reality yields a much more nuanced picture. I finally found the underlying document produced by the state’s Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), where the “housing crisis” was discussed in detail. Published in September 2025, it’s called “Colorado’s Housing Shortfall: An Estimate and Review of Existing Studies.” There’s no direct link, but it can be found at “Colorado’s Housing Shortfall 9/2/25,” and then downloaded per the link at the bottom of this article. It’s worth the look, in my opinion. It points out that there has been a definite increase in the cost of housing, and argues that this is due to a “shortfall” in construction rates, elevated interest rates and rising construction costs. Interesting, what’s ignored is the almost total lack of regulatory efforts to control prices, as well as the obvious constraints on water, road capacity, open space, neighbor...

Colorado’s “housing crisis” is essentially unsolvable by simply building more market-rate housing, at least if we care about our quality of life here in Colorado. According to a 2023 survey of 1,000 Americans, discussed in a recent Forbes story, Denver took first place as the most desired place to live. Seventeen percent of the respondents picked it first; that represents 58 million people nationwide. Even if only 1 in 5 had the means to move here, that’s 11.6 million people, nearly tripling Colorado’s population. Do we want 2-3 times as many people in Colorado, with the attendant crowds, traffic jams, air pollution, water shortages, etc.? How about mandatory reservation systems requiring weeks-ahead planning just to visit mountain areas? Rocky Mountain National Park, Brainard Lake, Mt. Blue Sky, and Quandary Peak already require reservations. Great Sand Dunes may soon, as visitation has about doubled in the last 10 years. What about going skiing, but with even longer lift lines and bi...

From 1950 to 1960, Boulder’s population doubled from around 20,000 to almost 40,000. This led to Boulder’s most important actions to preserve our natural surroundings: the Blue Line, which limited the City to providing water only below a certain altitude and thereby preserved our mountain backdrop; the Open Space program, which bought land to protect its natural qualities and the species that live there; and the 55-foot building height limit, which allowed us to see above our human-made developments and enjoy the views of the sky and the Flatirons. (Unfortunately, CU is not subject to Boulder’s zoning laws, and so builds as high as it wants.) We now have a population of over 108,000 people, almost triple the 1960 population level. And we are not alone. The Denver metro area has gone from just over 800,000 residents in 1960 to nearly 3 million now, over three and a half times as many. The earth’s population grew from around 3 billion in 1960 to over 8 billion, and could hit 10 billion i...

By the time you read this, the City Council will have decided whether to repeal Boulder’s Residential Growth Management System. This piece of our city code addresses how many housing units are allowed to be built in a year. It has significant exemptions, like for affordable housing units and whole projects with at least 35% affordable units. Thus, it provides an incentive for developers to include more affordable units. The reason this is an issue is that the Legislature, in its infinite wisdom, decided that the “housing crisis” required them to pass a law last session that forbids local governments from limiting the annual number of residential building permits. They called such restrictions “anti-growth laws.” But the council’s concern is misguided: Boulder’s RGMS is NOT in violation of this state law, simply because our current RGMS exempts affordable housing units. According to BRC 9-14-8 “Exemptions,” the City can approve an UNLIMITED number of permanently affordable units by righ...

In a recent presentation, the City of Boulder’s planning director identified sustainability and resilience as two concepts critical for defining Boulder’s future. But is there a real commitment to take the necessary actions? I suspect that the full implications of these concepts will be ignored, and that our future will be business as usual — more and more growth and development without any requirement to maintain the qualities that make Boulder great. The Brundtland Commission of the United Nations defined sustainability well: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It’s obvious that “meeting the needs of the present” cannot mean continually allowing conditions to deteriorate. But that is just what we are doing. For example, continuing to allow more residential development without adequate funding to provide libraries, parks, recreation centers, and schools is not...

This column was stimulated by a recent city of Boulder newspaper ad. It said, “Now Showing on Boulder’s Channel 8 — Is Building in Boulder Over?” The ad goes on to discuss Longs Gardens, a 25-acre parcel of agricultural land near Broadway and Iris Avenue, and asks whether this site is appropriate for “the ‘right kind of development’ that is not car dependent.” The show itself was basically a discussion about some of the more recent iterations of “new urbanism” (dense, mixed use areas that in theory promote alternatives to driving) versus the value of green space and urban agriculture (including its value to children as a learning experience). I found the presentations, which involved a sitting council member and a member of the Transportation Advisory Board, rather troubling. First, neither participant provided any context. Discussions about growth in Boulder need to start with the numbers: Under its current zoning, Boulder has the potential to add something like 60,000 more jobs t...

What got me thinking about this topic was the article in the Camera a few days ago announcing the upcoming debate on fracking between County Commissioner Elise Jones and Governor John Hickenlooper. To quote the Camera, “the goal of the 45-minute session is to provide a state-versus-local perspective on the effects of fracking, including public health concerns, the environmental impacts and local economic considerations.” To me, an equally important issue is the use of natural gas as the “transition fuel.” Hickenlooper speaks of it this way, but if he really grasped its significance, he’d be raising a whole host of other issues. Of primary importance is that methane (70-90 percent of natural gas) is a potent greenhouse gas that, per the EPA, has 25 times the global warming potential of CO2 over a 100-year period, with the effect concentrated in the first decades. Although burning methane may produce half as much CO2 per unit of electric energy produced as coal, any gas leaking from ...