|
|
Wild Goose Chase
The City of Boulder is in the process of down-zoning commercial property sufficient to eliminate 13,000 future jobs. (In any other city in America, this first sentence would read with equal credibility: "This morning, mice landed a spaceship on Mars.")
Proponents of down-zoning note that Boulder already has 100,000 jobs, half of which are filled by people who do not live here, and must commute. If existing zoning is built all the way out to maximum, planners estimate the creation of another 40,000 jobs. Since Boulder's supply of housing is essentially fixed, all the new workers will be commuters as well.
Boulder's quality of life is already damaged by traffic congestion, and a near-doubling of commuters would overwhelm any possible transportation alternatives. "If we allow this explosive growth, we'll kill the goose that laid the golden egg!"
Opponents say that Boulder is already perceived as hostile to business. High rents and an absence of sites for expansion are forcing Boulder's existing businesses to leave, and will make it difficult for new ones to start or move here. Our tax base will fall apart, particularly sales tax revenue, as Boulder's retail space becomes increasingly obsolete and unattractive.
If Boulder continues to push business away, one day it will wake up to a stagnant, high tax, low employment future. "This down-zoning will kill the goose that laid the golden egg!"
Hold the honking. Wait just one, goose-plucking second. Whose goose is getting gored here, anyway? Somebody is going goose wild, but is it the city, or the developers?
I recommend tentative support for the city gaggle, but suggest that you not get too excited about either side of the flap.
Over the last thirty years, the principal business of government in and near Boulder has been down-zoning. The Valley and County Comprehensive plans can only be described as massive down-zonings. The 1971 changes in state law prohibited any future Gunbarrel, Pinebrook Hills, Park Lake -- any small-scale subdivision of land not annexed to a municipality.
There has been only one up-zoning in all those years: simultaneous with the Danish plan, the City created high-density, MRE and HRE categories downtown. These spawned the "house-behind a house" projects, which many residents now wish had never happened, and a down-zoning back to original status is more than likely.
The first effort to slow commercial growth -- last year's attempt to ration building permits by the square foot per year -- drew a goose egg before it started. If anything, it accelerated building, as developers jostled for permits; and any one, large project would chew up a whole year's allocation. Down-zoning is better: all the victims take their whack at the same time.
Could this down-zoning harm the goose? Sure, but down-zoning is easy to reverse, while deconstructing buildings is difficult or impossible, as Whittier has found to its discomfort.
The greatest hazard in this down-zoning is City Council as Mother Goose. This is the same Council which has spent five futile years trying to identify a use for one, single site: 9th & Canyon. If they are not any good at micro-management, how will mega-management turn out?
Oh, well. A goose by any other name would smell as sweet.
(With apologies to P. Opus, bless his metaphorically challenged heart.)
|
