By Sam Weaver and Mary Young
It’s election season in Boulder. This year’s ballot includes selection of city leadership and decisions on several ballot questions. We wish to share why we will vote NO on two very weighty ballot initiatives, Questions 300 and 302. Their practical outcomes could have consequences that far outweigh their simplistic slogans and might well set our community back by several years or decades.
Bedrooms Are For People is the slogan for Question 300, and who could disagree? Underlying this warm fuzzy imagery is the reality that 300 de-regulates occupancy rules, codifying into law that the number of bedrooms in a structure should govern the number of people who can live there. The simplistic drafting of Measure 300 almost guarantees negative consequences.
At its best, the Council process of developing robust policy is much like engineering in product development; a coordinated and collaborative process among multiple stakeholders. Prior to first release, a product undergoes critical reviews where unintended consequences are identified and designed out. Invariably, more necessary changes arise once the product is in the field, and fixes are made and the product is re-released. This loop continues until the product works as intended. Similarly, an ordinance often undergoes several revisions as the community experiences the policy on the ground.
Unlike process-driven policy development, citizen initiatives are drafted to meet the needs of preferred constituents. Because our City Charter (Section 52) does not allow for substantive changes to citizen initiatives after adoption, it is a wise path to socialize proposed legislation broadly. Unwisely, this step was not taken and 300 sits on the ballot with obvious flaws which will be very difficult to fix later.
Ballot Question 300 asks (emphasis ours): ‘Shall the City of Boulder expand access to housing by allowing all housing units to be occupied by a number of people equal to the number of legal bedrooms, plus one additional person per home, provided that relevant health and safety codes are met?’
Some local groups support 300 because it will purportedly help evicted families to legally double up with another family. Will it? Could two families each consisting of two adults and two children double up in a four-bedroom dwelling? No. To do so legally under 300, the dwelling would need to have at least seven bedrooms. If this situation was the target for the remedy, 300 fails badly. Who benefits? Not these families.
Consider a small three-bedroom 1950s ranch house with no updates that sells to an investor for $1 million as just happened near one of us. The investor could pop the top, add another three bedrooms, rent to students for $1,000/bedroom and pay off the mortgage in 15 years. The investor would profit through the renters’ payment of their mortgage, plus real estate appreciation, plus $72,000 per year after the mortgage is paid off. Or, this investor could raze the house altogether and build a 10-bedroom house, a de facto dormitory, which would have even better investor returns. Who benefits? The investor.
Such a scenario is likely in areas in close proximity to CU: Aurora Seven, Martin Acres, Table Mesa, Goss Grove and, of course, the Hill. Austin elected leaders recently made a similar occupancy de-regulation mistake, with these exact consequences; voters have now reversed that error.
Creators of this measure repeatedly declined to collaborate with anyone outside their circles and refused critical review input. It raises the questions: Are the unintended consequences the desired effects? Do the proponents care that this housing reform includes no provisions for affordability, and makes adding them later much more difficult? Is this part of an ideological crusade to eliminate single-family zoning? Does this policy benefit those that are most vulnerable and in need?
We agree that it’s time to update our residential zoning practices but we advocate for a thoughtful process with robust community engagement. Passage of measure 300 would be like releasing a square wheel into the field without the ability to ever round its corners. Direct fixes would be precluded by our Charter and corrective measures to prevent the worst investor-enriching outcomes would be indirect and inadequate.
Ballot Question 302 concerns CU South and attempts to prevent any future annexation of the property by imposing onerous conditions. It is, in its intended effects, a poison pill. On this premise alone, 302 deserves a NO vote. But it is worse than that. Ongoing efforts by proponents to call a referendum on Council’s recent 6-1 annexation vote could render 302 effective under certain scenarios, permanently prohibiting flood mitigation and stranding 2,300 residents in a high hazard flood zone forever.
The nearly unanimous Council annexation of CU South provided for many significant community benefits including flood protection for thousands of people, conservation and restoration of open lands adjacent to prime riparian habitat, and housing for CU staff, faculty, and students. Measure 302 could permanently reverse all of these benefits. Who benefits with perpetuation of the status quo? Not the people living in danger downstream, not unprotected open space left with unremediated mining impacts, not residents in need of close in housing.
Many legitimate concerns and issues surfaced during the 10-year public process that led to last month’s Council action. All of the concerns were addressed in the context of a fair compromise. In the negotiated annexation settlement, CU gave up land and water and the city gained Open Space. CU and the city also agreed to prohibit any habitable structures in the 100 and 500 year flood plains.
The saga of CU South is long. A checkered history of missed opportunities and poor faith dealings fostered bad blood with a legacy of over 25 years, all of it irrelevant to today’s challenges. The story’s villains, heroes and fools are mostly departed from the scene. It’s time for responsible stewardship of this property for our community.
Please join us in voting NO on 300 and 302, and declining to sign all circulating petitions.
Mary Young and Sam Weaver have been on a collaborative 10-year journey through Boulder politics, first on Planning Board then as two-term City Council members. Their shared political journey ends this November. They both hold degrees in engineering and have worked in product design professionally. Both have helped craft and refine urban development policies for over a decade as part of their service to the city.
