Boulder sits at a crossroads with its future. A decision as important as several decades ago when Boulder implemented the blue line, decided to purchase open space, etc. That set of decisions had an immense impact on what Boulder has become over the last 40 years. Yes there were a bunch of individual decisions but they all fell under the umbrella of a base philosophy.
Boulder now faces a decision of equal import. We are a victim of our own success. People want to live here. Lots of people want to live here. But there is a finite amount of available space. And so when there is a growing demand and a fixed supply the result is very simple, the price goes up.
Boulder is well on the road to becoming another Aspen. Only the rich will be able to live here. All of the service and middle class jobs will be filled by commuters. We will have fewer families with children and fewer year round residents. And C.U. will push more and more off-campus students to homes in surrounding communities.
Boulder needs to decide how we want to evolve as a community and how to make it happen. Because if we don't make that decision ourselves, then the real estate market will make it for us.
Some people want to freeze Boulder as is. Ok, lets say we can turn this city into another Charleston S.C. where we freeze all areas of historical value. Then our society becomes static and that will drive out the new startup businesses. Startups occur in a vibrant evolving community. It does not have to be expanding but it does have to be alive and evolving. We can freeze the physical Boulder, but not the people, the culture, the society. That will all stagnate if we freeze the city.
Ok, what if we could eliminate new demand - that would resolve the problem. Except... property owners would fight any such proposal. For most people, their primary wealth is their home and/or an office building they own. You want to see voters take an interest in the city council election? Then threaten the increase in the value of their property.
We also have a fundamental argument within the environmental community here. On the one hand, high density housing provides more housing with a smaller carbon footprint and makes mass transit more effective. On the other hand, low density housing minimizes the total environmental impact but provides almost no new housing. (The fact that mass transit is ineffective in this case is irrelevant because the rich do not use the bus.)
The council we are electing needs to figure out where we want to take Boulder, and how to get there. The key point in electing this council is, we presently don't know how to get there. We need a council that can lead this conversation (it will require participation from the community too) and that has members who come at the problem from different directions.
It is key that we figure out our basic approach. Because everything we do has to work with the approach we select. If we decide questions like Washington School, future Open Space purchases, the Transit Village, a Conference Center, if we decide all of those one by one in no larger context - then we are just making our problem worse. Because with no framework, we will be all over the place.
Where do we want to go - that is the key question. The rest is details. And that is why it is essential that we elect a council with a diverse set of backgrounds and views. Because a council composed of similar opinions cannot solve this problem, and won't even try.
This election decides if we determine our future, or just let it happen to us.
Please click here for part 2.
