Please vote no on Questions 300 and 301
There are better ways to address and plan for Boulder’s evolution. Consider this: for decades thousands of people have moved to Boulder with a similar rationale — this is a place where they felt they could pursue and live their best life. We are a magnet. We match most of our best stereotypes and have dozens of empowering and niche attributes people find once they’re here. Everyone who has chosen to live here has some sense of gratitude they figured out a way to make it work — perhaps even finding their “dream” home. Think about how you spend your free time here: the events, the recreation, the schools, the restaurants you choose. The weather, the festivals, the bike paths and more places for a good coffee meeting than cities five times our size. The list continues with countless wonderful experiences and people.
How we perceive and plan for the continued arrival of people also yearning to live here — as all of us nonnatives have managed to do — deserves thoughtful and sophisticated policies. Indeed, Boulder’s land use and growth control measures of the past decades were profoundly visionary in their holistic approach to guide and shape the city’s growth. There’s the height limit of 55 feet to ensure no towers block most views. We tax ourselves to surround the city with open space. Via the “blue line” across the foothills we keep our view of nature, not others’ mansions: brilliant! These planning concepts have both tangibly and spiritually benefited generations of Boulderites — while massively adding to our allure.
Given that the City Attorney’s office has informed City Council that both the Neighborhood Vote and the Growth Must Pay measures contain vague instructions that will require further legal clarification, the guaranteed effect of these two measures is that the City will stop issuing all building permits and make no land use changes for months, maybe more than a year. That blunt and impractical effect on our city’s natural evolution is egregious. It would immediately affect projects of varying sizes and types. Perhaps even worse, these measures do nothing to decrease the allure of Boulder — but they further warp the supply and demand dynamics facing us, making property in Boulder instantly less accessible, more valuable and expensive (i.e. property taxes bump even more).
At best we can merely guide the macro market forces on Boulder, and we’re aren’t going to “build our way out”; I’m not advocating that. But not building anything, by design or by legal quagmire, is not “community planning”. We can’t act — and codify in our charter — as if we can slam the door on change with an attitude of “you’re too late, sorry!” Make no mistake: these two measures empower more costs, hurdles and standards than are ever likely to be met — but not in a manner that benefits everyone like those remarkable policies of the past. Instead they allow small minorities to create standards for acceptance into Boulder that are more about keeping people out than welcoming people in. I’m glad this wasn’t the case when I first rented in 1989 when I left the CU dorms.
We must take the neighborhood and growth debates into our Comp Plan process and hash out more flexible and realistic protocols. And most of all, let’s NOT become “that kind of town” where we completely flipped our ethos of progressive idealism into selfish NIMBYism. Vote no on 300 and 301.
Dan Powers/Boulder
300 gives citizens a voice
Deep rooted citizen concerns about increased traffic congestion, rapid and often uncreative large scale development has put measures 300 and 301 on the ballot. Right now neighbors must struggle mightily to have their voices heard. Usually by the time they become aware of a large scale development project it is far along the planning pipe line. They have to scramble to organize and compete with the highly paid development staff and their professional presentations. The Safeway project in Boulder a number of years ago is an excellent example. Their plan for a 55,000-square foot store was in direct opposition to the sub community plan that took neighbors years to create. It had all kinds of size and height exemptions. What stopped this development was a group of dedicated neighbors who spent more a year doing their own research and traffic studies to show that the proposed site was not right for such a large store. Interestingly, the Safeway store was eventually and appropriately sited at the intersection of two four lane highways at Iris and 28th just as the neighborhood citizen group recommended. But what a struggle it was!
300 would give citizens a much needed presence and voice.
301 would help decrease the strain on our critical city services and infrastructure. Just how did it come to be that affordable housing somehow got conjoined with big development?
If 301 gets passed the city would have sufficient funds to do their own affordable housing.
Ellen Stark/Boulder
Vote for Layton
I am voting for Angie Layton for Louisville City Council Ward III and hope you will also. I am a 10-year resident of Louisville and have known Angie that entire time. I have never seen someone as dedicated to Louisville and the things that make this city great.
Angie has lived in Louisville with her husband for almost 15 years raising their two daughters in the community. Angie is a business owner and has also worked, volunteered and been on the board of numerous non-profit organizations in the region. Angie has attended and participated in countless City Council meetings. Both of Angie’s daughters attended schools in Louisville and the Boulder Valley School District.
Angie is understandably concerned about growing population in our City and schools and will ensure that our voice is heard when the city develops its plan for the redevelopment of the Sam’s Club property. Angie will work well with City Boards and Commissions to manage growth and maintain the high quality of life residents now enjoy.
Angie has also served on the Louisville Cultural Council for the past three years, especially important experi ence in light of the new Cultural Arts Master Plan that the City envisions having available in draft form by early 2016. This Master Plan will be vital in the current discussion at City Council concerning special events, including the future of the Street Faire, the use of Community Park, and the ability to expand the City’s offerings in the arts.
To review Angie’s experience, numerous accomplishments, and dedication to public service go to: www.angielayton.com Thank you.
Dominick M. Saia/Louisville
Listen to Pomerance on 300 and 301
I don’t always agree with Steve Pomerance, but I respect him as one of Boulder’s most involved and visionary citizens. Years ago, he wrote and spoke widely about his concerns with what he saw as out-of-control commercial development in Boulder. He warned that this would create an unhealthy imbalance between jobs and housing that would lead to rising rents and housing prices, a work force that would need to live in outlying areas, and the ensuing traffic and unhappiness this would create. Now, years later, do you think he was right?
This year, Steve helped write two citizen initiatives: 300 and 301. Their aim is to have development fully pay for the costs it creates and to allow neighborhoods the right to have a vote on proposed major changes. Some opponents to these measures say they “are flawed;” but all agree that they will slow down the commercial machine. Do you believe that our present system is also flawed? Would it be good to have a slowdown of development until a truly inclusinve process exists? And is it time to give more citizens a voice?
Some are concerned that these proposals will limit opportunities for affordable housing, homeless shelters and other needed projects. In these last years of ever-increasing development, has Boulder become more affordable? Have there been sufficient proposals for group homes or shelters? If development pays its full share of impact costs — instead of those costs being placed upon all residents — and is no longer allowed to “buy out” of providing affordable housing, could the city become more affordable for all? And how did Boulder’s affordable housing become so dependent on development?
Finally, do you believe that at our best, we are a government of, by, and for the people?
These are questions we should all consider before voting.
Rivvy Neshama/Boulder
