This article was written by Adrian Sopher and originally appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on 9/26/2015
What clever names... "Neighborhoods' Right to Vote," "Development Shall Pay Its Own Way."
The obvious implication of these statements is that under the current and presumably flawed state of affairs, people are disenfranchised and disregarded in the public process. The names of the ballot initiatives say everything you need to know about them. Who wouldn't vote for them? It would be like voting against kids and family. Only problem is, it just isn't true.
Boulder has an extremely robust public engagement process that gives neighbors, neighborhoods and residents as a whole, a huge say in the outcome of projects of a certain scale. And, as outlined in a recent commentary in these pages, multiple projects over the last 10 years have been significantly modified or denied approval by the planning board or city council, due specifically to neighborhood input. How do we know this occurs? Because it's the law.
According to the city land use code, larger projects require an extensive review process. That process requires public outreach and input, as well as approval of the planning board and city council. The board and council reviews have specific guidelines, and require that in order to approve a project, they must find that it meets specific criteria defined in the land use code.
Ballot Initiative No. 300 will undermine this constructive and collaborative public process. All it will take to stop a project is for a neighbor to gather signatures door-to-door by saying a project is bad. In some parts of town, this could take as few as 30 signatures. That's it; then it goes to a vote. That vote requires no criteria and no assessment of criteria; no larger community input or values need be considered. No Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan or land use code need be referenced.
And likewise, development fees already pay over 18 percent of the entire city budget. But if Initiative No. 301 is adopted, attempts to prove that a project is actually able to account for its impacts will likely tie it up in legal proceedings indefinitely. Under these conditions, no sane property owner would take such a risk and the impact on the community would be devastating, likely stopping affordable multi-family housing projects that typically aren't viable without zoning adjustments.
Yes, a catchy slogan has power. But don't be fooled. If truth in advertising were a requirement, a better statement of purpose for Nos. 300 and 301 might suggest another name. Possibly the "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" initiatives.
Vote No on 300 and 301. They're bad ideas, and bad public policy.
To learn more about Ballot 300 & 301, make sure to visit www.OneBoulder.org.