2 weeks Ago
Around noon on Wednesday, I read the Camera story on the latest attempt by our council to fix their abysmal public processes . They allege to want to get more and better input by taking up the suggestion by the National League of Cities folks to have citizen forums on specific topics early in their process. The story said that the first forum will be Thursday, Sept.
26. Steve PomeranceFor the Camera So I immediately tried to sign up. But, per the City’s web site, the meeting was to be virtual and signup was already closed.
So, I emailed the council and staff that both state law and the city charter require such meetings to be open to the public. When I rechecked at 4 p.m.
, it had become a real meeting (6 p.m. in the council chambers) open to the public.
This is just the latest example of a failure by the council to manage themselves effectively. The meeting with the NLC folks (that I attended) where this process was demonstrated was way back in February. Now, all of a sudden, the council wants to try this out.
But the process appears to have not been thought through, and the info provided was outdated. A similar mess happened last week. The Camera covered a dispute among council members related to increasing the minimum wage .
The dispute was over which options to take up at the council meeting. One option had a large increase in the first year; the other was more gradual. What concerned me was that the council was considering not including one of these in the alternatives presented at the business meeting when council would be voting.
And a third alternative — raising the minimum in coordination with other Boulder County cities — didn’t seem to even be on the table. So, in effect, the decision would have been made ahead of time. So, why bother to attend and participate? Another recent example is their “Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods” survey on densification.
The title is obviously grossly biased; many would argue that densification would make their neighborhoods less family-friendly and much more crowded and noisier. So, no surprise, the survey ignores all the negative impacts. And, you could take it as many times as you want, so its statistics are meaningless.
But even though the council has been aware of these issues for many weeks, as of last week, nothing got fixed! Even worse is the “reinterpretation” of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s meaning. In brief, in many single-family areas the BVCP provides upper limits on housing density of a maximum of six units per acre. Changing the BVCP require the concurrence of the County Commissioners to protect us from the whims of the council members.
In my experience, these land use designations have always been interpreted in the obvious way — that “6 units per acre” means six housing units maximum are allowed per acre of private developable land. But the city staff (with the concurrence of the council ) is now re-interpreting this acreage as including adjoining streets, creeks, nearby parks, etc. So, per one friend’s calculations, this could easily double their neighborhood’s density to 12 units per acre.
As I’ve pointed out before , the “housing crisis” is not solvable by “building more.” The one survey I found has the Denver area as the number one “dream destination,” preferred by 17% of U.S.
respondents. That’s approaching 60 million people, making the obvious negative impacts, like running out of water or monumental traffic jams, basically unsolvable in acceptable ways. But the council has ignored such input; apparently, it’s not consistent with their value systems.
There are lots of other ignored suggestions: Limiting renters’ auto ownership (as done at the converted Marpa House apartments) to go along with eliminating parking minimums . Raising the jobs-housing linkage fees high enough to provide affordable housing for all the new workers who need it. Doing a serious risk analysis regarding Boulder’s West Slope water supply, so we don’t get caught short if the Colorado River Compact ends up being enforced .
Creating impact fees for transportation, so that new development pays to mitigate the increased congestion it creates. The same for parks and rec centers, so that we don’t have to raise our taxes to pay for new facilities whose need is created by new development. On process , discussing issues with citizens who testify at council meetings rather than stonewalling them.
Reinstituting the Council Agenda Committee’s work on meeting content. Making all material on important projects easily accessible. Etc.
, etc. Does all this tell you where the problem resides? Steve Pomerance is a former member of the Boulder City Council. Email stevepomerance@yahoo.
com ..
