News, Analysis and Opinion for the Informed Boulder Resident
Saturday August 17th 2019

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 election agriculture renewables CU local food climate change election 2013 development jefferson parkway youth pedestrian election 2015 preservation Rocky Flats election 2017 recreation BVSD immigration mountain bikes boards and commissions GMOs decarbonization urban design transit fracking plan boulder farming fires wildlife planning board colorado politics architecture downtown smart regs new era colorado land use natural gas plutonium homeless journalism transit village parking commuting ghgs radioactive waste rental taxes height limits coal historic preservation walkability energy efficiency april fools 2015 Neighborhoods zoning population growth diversity historic district flood students growth North Boulder gardens arts education election 2018 solar bus election 2010 University Hill water supply nutrition RTD bike lane electric utility library safety sprawl groundwater water quality election 2012 affairs of the heart april fools 2016 renewable energy organic flood plain planning reserve mayor zero waste blue line wetlands county commissioners hogan-pancost politics electric vehicle hazardous waste transportation master plan obama longmont ballot right-sizing street design golden Mapleton solar panels PV climate smart loan recycling comprehensive plan diagonal plaza bears colorado legislature flood mitigation campaign finance congestion conservation easement food epa boulder junction pesticide drought oil flooding inequality election 2016 road diet planning bus rapid transit commercial development daily camera climate change deniers automobile PUC children ecocycle community cycles BVCP Newlands community league of women voters wind power public health ken wilson david miller sam weaver civil rights mlk west tsa crime public spaces city attorney boulder creek al bartlett marijuana green points technology EV Orchard Grove Whittier arizona

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.