I read with interest last week’s guest opinion from City Council candidates Benjamin, Rigler and Grano, who appear perplexed that much of the Boulder community feels threatened by the high-growth policies with which they have been associated. The most pro-development groups in town have endorsed two of them: Engage Boulder, Better Boulder and Open Boulder. And while they each now pledge allegiance to the Blue Line and height restrictions the conversion appears to be more expedient than heartfelt: none of their websites contains a single sentence supporting those policies.
The Nov. 7 election for the Boulder City Council will be one of the most important in the city’s history. There, I said it. Sound like hyperbole? Then consider this: The results will determine who will decide policy surrounding the extremely important planning issues of growth, housing and zoning/density — the NIMBYs (Not in My Backyard) or the YIMBYs (Yes in My Backyard).It’s going to be a very contentious race, based on candidates’ stands on these issues facing the city in the next few years.
Will new council members, YIMBYs, increase density and encourage the building of more housing to attract more people to move here and ease pressure on ever-climbing home costs? If we do increase density, will the housing supply ever keep pace with the demand in Boulder, which is becoming an even more desirable place to live because of its beauty and a rising high-tech presence?
Or will they, NIMBYs, leave density laws untouched? That would discourage, for example, the relaxing of the present regulation that limits the number of unrelated people that may live in one dwelling.
Boulder Planning Board produces the result they were expected to produce: they approved housing for young homeless adults at 1440 Pine St.
After 18 months of community debate — often unusually heated, even by Boulder’s standards — the city Planning Board on Tuesday night approved a proposal to build housing for homeless young adults in a new downtown facility.
The board voted 6-1, with member Crystal Gray representing the lone voice of dissent.
Read the Full Story at the Daily Camera: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_31025612/boulder-board-approves-housing-homeless-at-1440-pine
I recently scooped the Daily Camera when several pro-growth City Council members sat down with me to outline their thoughts surrounding density and subsidized housing programs.
First, I asked if they were aware that higher density has only driven up home prices, reduced quality of life, and has never, ever, solved affordability. “But it’s sustainable” was the response. I then asked: “Is there any data that shows sustainability will actually increase for the specific case of Boulder?” “Not really, but Will Toor said it would” was the reply.
Density. Density. Density. We’re told this is the byword of the new environmentalism. It really means: Crowding. More crowding. Overcrowding. Trouble is, the environment that density proponents claim to speak for can’t hack it.
Views of the Flatirons, the foothills and Indian Peaks belong to all of us. Views of hulking cereal box buildings belong to Ambien pushers who want us fast asleep so we won’t notice that their only green initiative is to increase the density of green wads in their pockets.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, I totally disagree with all 20 of Mr. Gelband’s “suggestions”! (“Changing the discussion of housing, supply affordability,” Daily Camera, Jan. 1.) This gentleman proposes that all of those who have worked hard to attain a quality-of-life living situation in Boulder are rich elite insert your expletive here!