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.
Although the typical Boulder electoral tendency to try to blur policy differences in public with gauzy happy-talk was on full display at three recent PLAN-Boulder fora for Boulder City Council candidates, clear distinctions could nonetheless be discerned between groups of the contenders on the perennial questions of more versus less growth, more versus less transfers of the cost impacts of new development away from developers and onto the general taxpayer, and more versus less control by local residents over development and re-development in their neighborhoods, as well as the recent issue of how far to proceed with the municipal electrical utility. Nearly every candidate concurred on the need for more permanently affordable “low” and “middle-income” housing in the city, but little agreement occurred about how to reach this objective, nor how to pay for it. The three fora were held on August 25, August 30, and September 8 and included all of the 14 […]
Vote no more taxes, renewals, new or otherwise, for anything. Think about it, If City Council and Jane Brautigam, city manager, can find millions of dollars to squander on divorcing Xcel Energy, then they surely can find the money they need to run the city without more taxes. Oh, sure it is nice to put more money into schools and all kinds of programs for the homeless and low-income, but think about it just a moment. Every time you extract more taxes are you not making another person homeless, marginalizing yet another person? Case in point, the gentleman who lost his home, a trailer in a trailer park, because he couldn’t pay his property taxes. Do you remember the story in the Camera?
Two unanimous Boulder City Council decisions within two months of each other illuminate a deep-seated ambivalence about city priorities.
Boulder’s Planning Board voted 6-1 late Thursday to recommend the City Council deny a developer’s request to annex a 22-acre parcel of Boulder County land into the city limits for a proposed housing development.
Board Member Bryan Bowen cast the sole dissenting vote.
In addition to that recommendation, the board also voted 5-2 to send a group of “guiding principles” regarding development of the controversial Hogan-Pancost property to the council for its consideration.
A public hearing on the concept plan for annexation and development of the Hogan-Pancost parcel, delayed in May at the developer’s request, will take place Thursday before the Boulder Planning Board.
But it might have been delayed one more time, had a citizens group opposing the plan gotten its way.T
The Southeast Boulder Neighborhood Association, a group primarily concerned with … development at Hogan-Pancost, believes the hearing should be held in September and not in mid-summer, when many are out of town.
“A lot of people are on vacation,” said Suzanne de Lucia, president of the group, which refers to itself as SEBNA, and which has worked with other groups such as the Boulder Neighborhood Association and the Twin Lakes Action Group.
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.