High density, low confidence

With changes looming, Boulder struggles to strike balance on building, population density

0

Perhaps the biggest issue in Boulder, and Boulder County to a growing extent, is density. How will we accommodate the ever-growing number of people who work and live here if we can’t build up and we can’t build out?

If we are to believe headlines, ballot initiatives, council rhetoric and press releases, the city is working to achieve solutions that will help put more residential units in Boulder, make the city more affordable and make it easier to access from East County. But solving the problem of density is a complex issue, one that ropes in many aspects that directly affect quality of life in Boulder.

“We’ve made ourselves a very desirable place to live,” says Boulder Mayor Matt Appelbaum. “That’s normally considered a good thing, but it comes with side effects that aren’t desirable, such as being expensive.”

One of the main victims of this densification is the middle class. Supporting the middle class is one of the city’s main objectives as outlined in their Comprehensive Housing Strategy. Appelbaum says it’s “troubling” that Boulder will continue to lose much of this income group, who are increasingly moving to East County and elsewhere to stave off high costs of living in the city.

But current proposals — from citizens, advocacy groups and council — don’t seem to provide viable solutions. There are those who want to halt building in the city limits altogether, and there are those that want to open up as much building as possible. Shutting down building and allowing individual neighborhoods to decide what and who are allowed in, as one ballot measure proposes and which Appelbaum calls the “Gated Community Act,” allows those with means to act selfishly. But putting in blocks of new housing, often in ugly, uninspiring buildings doesn’t seem to be a solution either.

For instance, a development of 300 senior housing units with 83 reserved for affordable housing was just recently proposed for the area between 47th street and the diagonal highway. Such a project highlights the issues of throwing teaspoons of water at wildfires — it densely populates one area of town (in this case, between two highways and a railroad), creating major transportation and quality of life issues for whomever would live there, while there is still the 60,000 other people who commute into Boulder for work who might choose to live here if possible.

“I don’t think we’re going to get ahead of it,” Appelbaum says of Boulder’s density. “That’s just where we are.”

You have to wonder after a quote like that if Boulder can do anything to support those in the middle-income bracket. Appelbaum says the debate about which way to solve density problems has gotten off to an “irrational” start. He also says that development will be the key issue that voters will factor in when deciding the five City Council seats up for election this year, and in voting for two potential ballot initiatives that would have a tremendous impact on the way Boulder looks — and who decides how it looks — for years to come.

To set the scene, the City of Boulder laid out a comprehensive plan in January to address how to tackle the density issue. The Comprehensive Housing Strategy is a series of guidelines and deadlines whose outcome is to hopefully create economically and racially diverse neighborhoods, improve transportation in and out of the city and reserve affordable housing (and to help current homeowners live affordably).

Right now, we’re in “Phase Two” of said master plan, which is basically a community engagement and fact-finding mission. Phase three, which kicks off this summer, is the time for “strategic action,” where council will develop “short-, medium- and long-term” plans that will help achieve those goals listed above. Hence, why you’re hearing about development a lot more, why the city held a “Fresh Perspectives on Housing,” panel on April 27, and why those two ballot initiatives regarding development are circulating for signatures.

And what of those ballot measures? The first initiative would allow voters in residential neighborhoods to veto any development projects. It’s meant to prevent development that “may have impacts on, for example, quality of life, neighborhood character and property values.”

“I suppose it would give Boulder another number one ranking — we have a lot — but we would be the most elitist community,” says Appelbaum. “If that’s what you want, move to a gated community, but don’t do it in a real city that’s doing its best to manage its future and do a lot of good things.”

The second initiative attacks density from another side. The city is still seeking clarity on the initiative’s wording, but “Development Shall Pay Its Own Way,” would at least prevent all new construction in the city that doesn’t eventually pay for or offset all costs incurred by the city during construction, including residential and commercial construction, renovations, add-ons and more. Both initiatives were proposed by the Livable Boulder group, whose opinion of development in the city can be summed up on their website when they say, “It is apparent that a housing binge is overtaking Boulder in a way that will destroy its appeal.”

Appelbaum says the initiatives “could win,” but that he is holding out hope for a more balanced approach to solving the density issue. What is clear is that halting development and allowing neighborhoods to pick and choose which development they want in their area would be a major blow to middle class families in town, no matter how you think the problem should be solved.

What is perhaps most disheartening is that many of the density issues Boulder faces now were addressed in a 1999 report, “A Toolkit of Housing Options.” In that report were suggestions like buying up trailer parks (manufactured homes are a vital source of affordable housing in town), promoting cooperative housing projects, allowing accessory dwelling units, lowering occupancy of unrelated tenant restrictions,and much more. In short, these solutions were proposed 16 years ago out of the impetus to prevent the very density issues we face today.

Given that demand will always outperform supply in Boulder’s housing market, and that mandates in the city on height and open space building restrictions prevent an increase in housing availability, what options do middle class Boulder residents have at the moment?

You can look at altering the economic structure from within, like tax amendments, improving transportation and many of the things the city laid out in 1999. But, seeing as those developments are slow-moving, one way middle class residents have earned extra income, and which is getting a lot of attention from the city now, is short-term rentals and accessory dwelling units.

By renting rooms, lofts and other units on their property, middle income individuals and families are assertively supplementing their income, and relying on their own assets instead of help from the city. Recently, as many as 600 Boulder listings were on Airbnb, a site that allows home owners to rent their space for short periods of time, and 300 on VRBO, a vacation rental site.

The catch, of course, is that short-term rentals are illegal in Boulder. Due to zoning restrictions, homeowners can’t technically use their dwellings for short-term rentals because they’re not licensed and not subject to the taxes and regulations that, say, hotels are.

When 20 Airbnb renters in Boulder were sent cease and desist letters earlier this year, the reasons for why these residents need to supplement their income become immediately clear. Amy Marquis, who has a popular listing on Airbnb, wrote her neighbors in order to rally support for her enterprise.

“We did it because [my husband] Tom had just lost his job, and we had to quickly find a way to bring in new income if we wanted to stay in our home,” Marquis wrote. “We had serious discussions about selling the house. … The modest income we’ve earned in return remains our steadiest, most reliable income today. It helps us buy groceries, pay the mortgage and pay for our daughter’s preschool.”

In a letter to City Council, Airbnb renter Erik Johnson outlined the value that these short-term rentals provide the community.

“We provide an affordable alternative to visitors who may not care to stay in a hotel,” he wrote. “We also provide some flex housing for neighbors. … We feel we are part of a trend in new economic models that people are devising across the economy — from co-housing to car-sharing, crowd-sourcing to community-supported-agriculture, people are finding ways to connect more directly to meet their needs.”

And Vivienne Palmer, founder of the Affordable Boulder Alliance, says that renting space in homes or on lots is a “deeply middle class vocation,” in Boulder.

“I am a long-time Boulderite and renting a room in my house is absolutely a means to making it in this town,” she says.

Appelbaum says there is general consensus on the Council that legalizing short-term rentals should happen this year. However, there is large disagreement on how to manage these short-term rentals, and some restrictions might prohibit the financial gain a middle-class family receives for such an endeavor.

Those possible restrictions include a hospitality tax of 8 or 9 percent, which is what hotel and motel owners deal with. Restrictions might also include a licensing fee, and a limit on how many days per year one could rent a space — Palmer says a 30- or 60-day limit, which has been tossed out in City Council, would stunt revenue so much that it might not be enough to adequately supplement her income.

The biggest issue the City has with short-term rentals is that, as is, investors can swoop in and buy up property just to make a steep profit by renting it out for days or a few weeks at a time. Appelbaum says to combat this, the City would look into requiring that only space that one lives in could be rented in the short-term. The other problem Appelbaum sees is that rentals and accessory dwelling units could raise property prices.

“The theory is that somebody will build this unit in their backyard and it’ll be this affordable place for someone to move into,” Appelbaum says. “[But] I don’t know how useful these various techniques are in providing people affordable places to live or providing people who live here more income. Somebody having a separate building in their yard that they’re renting out short-term, it tends to drive up the prices of the property.”

So in the meantime, even as the City tries to figure out what to do to keep its middle class, more and more people in this income bracket are fleeing to East County. This population flight puts stress on a broader area, including the county’s transportation system and the cities of Longmont, Lafayette and Louisville themselves.

City Council’s early contention is that solving Boulder’s density problem lies in improving transportation to East County and in the continued growth of those communities.

“We have a limited supply of housing [in Boulder], and I don’t see that changing dramatically, at least in the foreseeable future,” Appelbaum says. “Even Lafayette and Longmont are coming to an end. In terms of vacant ground for subdivision, they’re getting nearer to the end.”

It may be the case that Louisville is closest to Boulder in terms of filling out in development, but Longmont has room going east to I-25 that the Longmont City Council is at least considering for development. Because they do not have the building restrictions Boulder has, they have more flexibility in determining the shape and outcome of their residential and commercial neighborhoods.

Lyons, too, serves as an interesting contrast to Boulder’s density issues. Trying to get residents back into their homes after the 2013 floods, voters there have knocked down multiple ballot issues asking to build replacement housing on parkland. As options become limited there, the town will turn to solutions that include buying adjacent private land for development, promoting accessory dwelling units and more; however, the point is that they have a little bit of freedom (unless their ballot initiatives keep coming) to determine how to put a lot of people in a little area that Boulder does not have.

Given that development in East County will expand outside of county lines, that puts the onus back on transportation to help middle class people work in Boulder and have a comfortable and reasonable commute, income and quality of life. However, Appelbaum says he’s not confident the city will get the funds it needs from the state and its subsequent transportation authorities, nor is there enough space in those East County towns to prevent population density county-wide.

We won’t really have an answer to the density issue for another 10 to 20 years, or more. But as Boulder gears up to enact strategic plans, ballot initiatives come to a vote, construction projects start (and don’t start), there is a hazy crystal ball that looks into that distant future and could become clear in a matter of months.