19 hours Ago
In January, the Boulder City Council will consider making some very significant changes in the zoning for our neighborhoods, potentially leading to building of multiple units on what were single-family zoned lots. Their arguments for such upzoning generally ignore the negative effects, are not particularly strong or logical in my opinion, and do not have neighborhood support. Yet, the process proceeds forward as if on rails.
This willingness to proceed irrespective of strong public sentiment against this is, in my view, largely a function of the current council’s approach of minimizing their face-to-face participation with the citizens of Boulder. For example, public participation in meetings is now down to two minutes per person (it used to be three minutes), with the number of speakers limited (it used to be unlimited). But what is far worse is the practice of council members not engaging with citizens who raise legitimate issues.
That just dissuades citizens who have important things to say from even bothering to come. It doesn’t have to be this way. The council can easily avoid attempts by activists to use the council as a political tool, as happened around the Israeli-Palestinian issues.
The mayor can point out that their Rules of Decorum state, “All remarks shall be limited to matters related to the business of the city.” These Rules also allow the mayor to provide a verbal warning if people are in violation , and to remove “an offender from the council chambers” if necessary. There’s no need to shut the meeting down, as has happened in the recent past .
A change to the current procedures (actually, a restoration to previous policy) to better engage with citizens would be to have council members ask questions right after someone testifies. That way people know they are heard, and issues can be raised and discussed. The current scheme to force citizens to wait hours until the end of the meeting for a response is absurd.
All this relates directly to the neighborhood densification issue and the need for the council to really listen to the citizens. City staff recently conducted a survey, bizarrely named “Vibrant Neighborhoods Questionnaire”; the results showed a significant majority against densification, with stronger opposition for less dense neighborhoods. But much more powerful were the 34 pages of comments from the citizens.
I have never seen such an outpouring of sentiment; per my estimate, a strong majority is against densification. Really worth reading! (See Attachment D in the 12/19/24 Agenda Item for First Reading of Ordinance 8666, “Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods.” ) Below are a few of the many, many comments against densification.
(They have been edited for clarity.) “Boulder is expensive because tons and tons of people want to live here. These proposed changes won’t make any difference in the supply or the nearly infinite demand.
They will however destroy existing neighborhoods and communities.” (p64) “Boulder is already overdeveloped with building taking place all over the city. Traffic has become unmanageable, and the city has turned a deaf ear to concerns regarding quality of life here, limited resources, e.
g. water and safety. It’s unreasonable to think that everyone who works here should be able to live here.
” (p64) “Land speculators and developers will love your plan!” (p68) “Replacing single-family homes with duplexes will encourage more investment buyers who can rent for double the money or sell for double the money.” (p71) “I didn’t spend half of my life getting my home in a nice neighborhood just to have the city turn Boulder into LODO.” (p72) “.
.. Why should all the families be forced to make up for the University’s failures to secure housing for its students?” (p74) “Are you communicating with planning and transportation depts? .
.. You are eliminating lanes to drive on in town while at the same time trying to cram more people into the same space — you are creating more congestion, less green space and ruining the city that I moved to before most of you were born.
” (p77) “The density you have supported and continue to propose has destroyed Boulder. Congratulations, you have ruined a perfectly charming little town.” ( p80 ) “.
.. We already have a ton of houses with 5-8 college students per house that leaves our street with little parking as it is.
” (p81) “Please keep Martin Acres a family neighborhood. We have already taken so much of the CU expansion. .
.. Please do not allow CU and developers to ruin an amazing place to have a family.
” (p89) My conclusion: The Council needs to do house-by-house surveys of all neighborhoods. If residents don’t want densification, then stop trying to force it down their throats. Steve Pomerance is a former member of the Boulder City Counci l.
Emai l [email protected] ..
