In response to Christina Gosnell’s absurd attempt to equate support for the City of Boulder’s efforts to expand co-ops into low-density neighborhoods with opposition to the values represented by Donald Trump the only conceivable response is: give me a break. Opposition to co-ops has nothing to do with hatred, misogyny, or prejudice. Opponents do not care who lives in co-ops, what their politics, gender or ethnic origins might be, or who they love. Continue reading “Mark Wallach: Opposition to Co-op Ordinance is not “intolerance””
One group of Boulder residents argues for dense development everywhere, in the hope that this will make the city more affordable.Others see the Boulder they love at risk of destruction from a “build baby build” ethos. Ultimately, Boulder must do what it can to strike a smart balance: neighborhood by neighborhood.
What makes the city so desirable is that it has been carefully planned. Our community group, Neighbors of 3303 Broadway, is thus deeply concerned to see a proposal that attempts to bypass sound planning: the redevelopment of the old People’s Clinic site at 3303 Broadway.
As is usually the case whenever a big commercial development is proposed in Boulder, the high-end senior housing complex planned for a 15-acre plot high atop Mapleton Hill has drawn the early ire of some neighbors worried about the project’s “fit” in the neighborhood.
The Oct. 26 Camera front-page article “City seeks big, varied housing development” describes plans for a planned 194-unit development at 30th and Pearl Streets.This is in addition to the approved land-use change to build 29-67 units on Stanford Court, in our south Boulder single-family neighborhood.Plans to build multiple units into areas zoned for single families are also opposed by other neighbors at Bluebell and Martin Acres. A high-density expansion on open space is opposed by the Twin Lakes Action Group in the county. There seems to be a continual effort to add big, high-density buildings into residential neighborhoods in spite of strong opposition from the neighbors.
It is generally accepted that growth does not pay for itself. Our schools are bursting at the seams, traffic is out of control and Boulder’s quality of life is affected. We ask City Council to get an independent evaluation of the the impact of a development on neighborhoods before approving it.
Anne and Mike Fenerty
On Oct. 16, the Daily Camera published a guest opinion by council member Jan Burton (“Changing world requires fresh look at housing options”). It was clearly the first shot across the bow to radically change the supposedly “outdated” zoning of our neighborhoods. … Ms. Burton insulted those of us who love our neighborhoods by saying that the days of “Leave it to Beaver” are over.
Are you concerned about the skyrocketing increases in property tax? What about the flight of longtime residents from Boulder? Now is the time to act if you want to protest the county’s proposed 5.5 percent budget increase for 2017, affecting our property taxes.
Boulder homeowners, you’re getting the bum’s rush and being thrown out of due process on rezoning. City Council is the bum rusher, pushing a co-op ordinance that’s a major de facto up-zoning without calling it a zoning change. Under the guise of compassion, they’re siding with pro co-op blamers who call you a NIMBY if you object. They’re enabling self-described YIMBYs and developers who preach “yes” to degrading your invaluable quiet and privacy and parading their self-righteousness about it.
[Editor’s Note: A slightly different version of this editorial was sent as a letter to the Boulder City Council and published here at BNA as: A Different Frame for Co-op Debate]