"And we realize it gives Xcel Energy, the utility trying to stop the muni, a tactical advantage because it can discuss everything in secret. But the fact is: It always had the tactical advantage, including the funds to fight Boulder".
So is Erica's (or "we" the editorial board's) logical conclusion that Boulder shouldn't compensate for Xcel's tactical advantage by taking back some of their own?
I don't understand, are you saying I was not intellectually honest? And what about?
Will Toor: ""I don't think it will dial back on the redevelopment that is coming, but it will make it better development that will do more to address the needs of lower- and middle-income people".
Yes I agree with Will that redevelopment will address the needs of lower and middle income people but it will also create many more low income jobs to service those new people. That will result in a greater proportion of lower income service workers, and consequent demand for housing for them. The more you play catch-up to the job projections in Boulder by providing housing for them, the more you have to create more housing for the attendant service industry jobs resulting from the demand from the people in the housing. You also have to determine ways to incentivize service workers to come here only to work, then go back to their communities. Likewise you have to incentivize those commuting to Denver to live in this dense transit development and I doubt they are going to want to give up the low density spaces in which they reside. It's like expecting the police to live in the community in which they work but housing costs are so high that the lower level officers can't afford to live there. Basically you would have to have some way of increasing the pay of service workers, because it doesn't appear to be as hard as lowering the expense of housing. The expense of the lowest cost housing is still probably 70% of a service workers income. Add to that that Boulder is so desirable that wages are lower here.
My question to Will is-- what constitutes "better" development in your eyes? This ultimately speaks to what the Boulder population should be fixed at, as well as how dense that should be-- how much square footage of space should each person take up? This is related to income disparity because unless you can force someone of high income to use less space, you can't maximize density. The newer population's living spaces, the dense housing, provides smaller and smaller square footages/person. There comes a limit on how small (and how many stories high) but not so on the higher income square footages/person, which seems to grow and grow. By providing more lower and middle income housing and generating low paying service jobs that go with it you are perpetuating the very problem you are trying to solve.
I read $900-$1300 for a one to two bedroom in the Depot Square project.
Maybe with Fast Tracks on board, an increase in population in Boulder of 11, 000 could be justified to offset the jobs/housing imbalance. However, Burlington Northern should have been negotiated with before the FT ballot measure was offered. It can hardly be proposed that a consolation for FastTracks failure is that it was due to the high cost BN demanded on the track rental to offset the exchange in use from freight to passenger status on their existent lines. It is unconscionable that FastTracks never manifested following the vote for the funding. Instead we have a "managed" lane containing an American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) - Plenary, privatized tollway of approximately $10 (starting) to a high of $28 Round Trip (50 yr. contract) combined with a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) minimum increase from two to three occupants (HOV-3) and BusRapidTransit (BRT) as a concession. This is hardly the level of carrying capacity of high speed commuter rail proposed with Fast Tracks, yet the Transit Village Area Plan was rolled out on the precedence of Fast Tracks. A revised assessment of TVAP should have been done. Also, for one, there is no guarantee that these 11 thousand new residents of Boulder will be commuting to Denver. They may just be staying in Boulder moving in on the slightly less expensive housing E of downtown. So far as housing some of those 60 K in-commuters, what is the tradeoff in increased income disparity? New population demands new services and new services create low income jobs. Are those $900-$1300/mo. residential opportunities going to house those new service industry jobs generated by their very creation?
I want to see in Real Time 3D graphics, concept plans of the whole city's build-out and density scenarios going as far into the future as European or other global cities we model ourselves on. A number of scenarios, so I can get a feel of what the place would feel like, what the nodes, neighborhoods and commercial and industrial centers would look like and in proportion to the Blue Line, hiking and peripheral open spaces and Flatirons. So I could have a choice.
I am asking the public . Not speculating.
I made a comment and there was a glitch, causing it to be posted before I had completed it . Since I am on moderation status, my comment disappears until editors review it and I was disabled from using the edit tool to even finish it.
How are the city and the Wildlife people going to avert bears from drinking ethylene glycol (antifreeze)? How is the upcoming trash restriction going to solve this problem?
I made a comment and there was a glitch whereby it was posted before I had completed it . Since I am on moderation status, my comment disappears until editors review it. I am disabled from using the edit tool to finish my comment. I am sorry to anyone reading this but it is out of my control, as I have consulted Kevin Kaufman to request being removed from moderation status for a couple years and he is unwilling to accept it.
Thanks, Lynn Segal