News, Analysis and Opinion for the Informed Boulder Resident
Wednesday March 29th 2017

Support the Blue Line

Subscribe to the Blue Line

That's what she said

city council transportation energy municipalization xcel housing urban planning april fools bicycles climate action election 2011 density boulder county affordable housing open space agriculture renewables CU local food election 2013 climate change development youth jefferson parkway pedestrian election 2015 preservation Rocky Flats BVSD immigration recreation mountain bikes GMOs transit urban design boards and commissions farming decarbonization plan boulder fracking fires wildlife colorado politics architecture smart regs downtown new era colorado plutonium journalism homeless transit village parking commuting radioactive waste ghgs natural gas rental height limits planning board historic preservation april fools 2015 walkability energy efficiency coal diversity Neighborhoods historic district North Boulder education students land use gardens population growth arts election 2010 bus growth solar water supply zoning University Hill taxes election 2012 water quality RTD library nutrition groundwater safety bike lane flood affairs of the heart electric utility flood plain sprawl april fools 2016 mayor organic election zero waste wetlands planning reserve county commissioners politics hazardous waste hogan-pancost street design obama electric vehicle ballot right-sizing transportation master plan longmont Mapleton solar panels PV comprehensive plan golden recycling climate smart loan diagonal plaza bears colorado legislature blue line flood mitigation congestion conservation easement food epa pesticide boulder junction road diet drought election 2016 community cycles inequality renewable energy flooding bus rapid transit PUC children campaign finance daily camera Newlands league of women voters ecocycle BVCP ken wilson automobile community sam weaver david miller climate change deniers wind power bob bellemare boulder creek bsec contamination kevin hotaling boulder crime suzanne jones tim plass john tayer arizona mlk EV green points technology Orchard Grove Whittier civil rights west tsa public spaces marijuana

Other People’s Money


By

Screen clip from a City of Boulder online zoning map

Macon Cowles and Steve Pomerance (Boulder Daily Camera, January 5) both address the same issue: what Cowles calls using Other People’s Money and what economists frame as externalizing costs. The natural tendency for people to try to get something for nothing is universal, and it is one of the roles of government to try to figure out when this individual tendency might actually be beneficial to the whole. Congress decided, for example, in 1986, at the height of the Reagan administration, to require hospitals to treat anyone needing emergency health care, regardless of their ability to pay (or their legal status in the country, for that matter). The calculus employed by Congress probably factored in how unseemly it would be to have the bloated bodies of poor people littering our sidewalks. (It should be noted that this was an unfunded mandate-we have all paid for treatment of uninsured patients since then, despite claims that this cost is just now being imposed on us.)

But, there has been no such argument put forward, at least not as far as I am aware, that supports subsidizing rural residents, as Cowles argues is the case (and which rough math suggests must be true). Let’s have someone tote this up-maybe the Commissioners’ offer to pay 20% of subdivision road rehabilitation is too generous.

Pomerance points out that development of commercially-zoned lands in Boulder will impose very large costs on residents not only of Boulder, but of the region. He suggests that we reduce those external costs by regulating the negative effects of commercial development. Make no mistake, his proposed standards are meant to be formidable requirements, but they should be viewed as appropriate by those who have the imagination to visualize the alternative. Pomerance does not mention population in his standards, so his proposal cannot be tagged as anti-growth. In fact, a more favorable outcome (perfect being out of reach) could be realized if a significant fraction of commercial landowners were to petition to “downzone” their land to a multifamily use for non-luxury housing, thus allowing Boulder’s population to grow into a better balance against fewer jobs. Make no mistake, Boulder’s future will be ugly if we do nothing about this.

Rate this article: 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (5 votes, average: 2.20 out of 5)
Loading...

What do you think? Leave a comment!

You must be logged in to post a comment.