Jobs and the need for housing
Author: Lou DellaCava
I'm here to represent the point of view of Boulder's stakeholder businesses and their employees. I want to make the case for people, their needs and their contributions.
Somehow within the vision City and County leaders propose for Boulder - people, and their needs have been diminished - become secondary. While it always sounds so appealing to champion non-people causes like wetlands, ecosystems, open space, prairie dogs, and household pets, we've begun to act as if the problem with the world, especially in this Boulder valley is - people. "If only we could get rid of the people . . ." Queer logic for a community composed of people. Are there higher and lower life forms of people? Who are these people who annoy us so much?
Private commerce in this country is the mechanism that provides solutions for peoples' needs. People work, and produce, and serve each other, and they grow - - and we need 'em. But what do we do in Boulder? Frustrate them. First, we reduce their opportunities to live here; then we annoy and anger them by not improving their transportation systems; then we chase them to surrounding towns to buy their goods. Everything from bulk basics like shampoo and toothpaste, diapers and toilet paper - to recreational - and discretionary items like - hiking boots, dress shirts and prom gowns. I'm talking about Costco & Sam's, Kohls & Home Depot, Galyan's, Lord & Taylor and Nordstroms.
Boulder doesn't provide these venues - and that was no accident, it was purposeful. There's something elitist - even perverse about this result.
Now in our latest insult, we're proposing to limit the very door to people's opportunities for personal growth and social progress - their jobs.
And for me, as a person who began life with little privilege, low aspiration level, and not even the knowledge of those facts, I had the good fortune to be born in the USA - where personal freedom and the opportunity to apply determination, grow in skills, and pursue dreams have provided a means to a better life for myself and my family.
So this philosophy of depriving people of basic opportunities such as living space, access to their needs, and especially a job - peeves me. It is a notion extreme in its elitism, and it is odious and offensive - particularly to any one who has experienced the rush that comes from achievement born of freedom. Where the privilege of living in a free America, which permits people to contribute and grow, - generates hope and pride within the human spirit; the politics of exclusion and deprivation sucks hope and vitality from people; and breeds frustration, resentment and anger.
What is it that's wrong with the City's current notion that we can, - or should - limit people's access to basic needs like housing - and jobs? The short answer is - that some in government actually believe we can achieve - by use of prescriptive regulation - a predetermined social outcome - with precision - 20 years hence. (This is either naivete, - or worse - arrogance).
Let's examine the history of Boulder's attempts at social & economic controls:
A Residential growth caps, or the Danish Plan and its derivatives. This has been an abject failure. Why? Look at its results: - Soaring home prices. - Lack of investment in transportation infrastructure. And - a major cause of regional sprawl. How'd this happen? The politicians & planning officials of 1976 assumed (or sold us on the proposition) that the problem was simple, not complex; . . . that they understood the future well enough to predict, and achieve their objective; . . . and that Boulder could always maintain its tax revenues, as well as its regional influence. Clearly, those assumptions were faulty.
B Non-residential growth moratoriums and industrial downzoning: Another failure. Why? These actions encouraged surrounding communities to court and attract competing retail and industrial investment. So we got Interlocken, and Flatirons Crossing - on our doorstep.
C Big Box Retailers Unwelcome: This is a failure both humorous and tragic. Why? Market forces placed them just a few yards outside our perimeter. So sales taxes go to other towns; and our citizens flock to them anyway. Is this not ironic? - that our citizens said they didn't want these retailers in Boulder, while their behavior suggests otherwise?
Conclusion? Policies which interfere with market and social forces - over an extended time - induce bad results, and more difficult problems to deal with later - at much higher economic and social cost.
Now, most of us realize that we've become a socially unbalanced community. Lower and moderate income groups find it almost impossible to live here. So they live close. Now we're defining that as another problem, - "the jobs / housing imbalance", which our politicians say must be solved. "Let's increase housing opportunities", (they say). The business community agrees, and supports the Council's proposal to impose modest tax increases to fund affordable housing, - and it fails at the polls. Council continues to claim that we must provide more housing, and directs staff to include this objective in the Comp Plan. Lo & behold, citizens parade before Boards and Commissions, outraged that they may have to live near medium density housing, and the attendant occupancy by - (Heaven forbid!) - that lower life form which must live in medium density housing? These citizens claim their "quality of life" will be sacrificed. And our fearless leaders quickly - cave under the pressure - and retreat. One is left to question whether affordable housing perhaps, was not all that important to them after all.
This "quality of life" statement has already been overdone, overused and exaggerated. Recognizing that some may disagree, my observation is - that most people's quality of life over the last 30, 20 and 10 years has improved. The major factors in one's "quality of life" are a decent home, and a job. Clearly, we who live here have those. And we make more; have better jobs; and have more recreational and cultural opportunities than ever before. The cost? Increased traffic and congestion. O Poor us! Has someone promised us a rose garden without a single thorn in it? Then not delivered? And if you listen to Mayor Toor, he now says that recent studies prove Boulder's congestion isn't really all that bad! Can't have it both ways.
The threat laden rhetoric politicians use when they wave this "quality of life" banner as their campaign slogan has caused a number of good solutions to be rejected summarily (annexations). The rhetoric is wearing thin. The claim is hollow. And the implied threat is not helpful when looking to the private sector for cooperation to make improvements.
Is it possible to overcome this condition? Yes, but it may be uncomfortable politically. How? One way is for our officials to muster the gumption and the leadership to respond to neighborhood whining. We need to remind ourselves that we're a well-satisfied and lucky set of over-privileged citizens; and that a healthy community requires tolerance, and compromise - in order to ensure that it can staff and support its comprehensive social needs - such as employees for schools, government, cultural efforts and hospital activities, not to mention the dry cleaner, restaurant and shoe repair shop.
And if our leaders can't bring themselves to make these courageous statements, then another solution - which will work - is to face the investment required to efficiently bring these employees in from surrounding communities, where they can afford to live. That means improving roads, building bypasses, timing traffic signals, and generally recognizing that the automobile is an integral part of the average person's life. After all, wasn't it City of Boulder policies which forced this dislocation to begin with? There are no thorn-less rose gardens, and - There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Let's discuss the Comp Plan's strategies to a) - impose, - rather than incent mixed use, particularly housing, on commercial properties, and b) - its job reduction & commercial downzoning proposal as a solution to "balance jobs and housing."
Housing on commercial properties is problematic in that it requires heavy densification (perhaps 50+units/acre) to have economic merit to the property owner. In addition, it has onerous economic impacts (negative) on tax revenues. When analyzed, it will prove to be a loser. Why? Converting retail footage to residential not only wipes out any current and future sales tax revenues from that footage; it also reduces the property tax generated by that footage - by two thirds. (Property taxes are what funds schools - and residents increase demand on schools. Retail generally imposes little load on schools while paying 200% more toward school funding). Housing, particularly at a site like Crossroads, will require structured parking, elevators and more expensive construction techniques than housing built on undeveloped ground. It is likely that housing at Crossroads for example, will require a price point of $300 per sf, or more, if unsubsidized. And if 20% is required to be affordable housing, then the remaining units will cost even more. Boulder's Economic Sustainability Steering Committee recently released a draft strategic plan stating that the "average" Boulder working family can afford a $176,000 home, assuming a 20% down payment. In Erie, or Longmont, that family can buy a 1500 sq ft home with a small yard & a garage for that. At Crossroads, that same family would likely be shown a condominium of less than 600 sq ft, - if such a product were even offered. (And I suspect it would not be offered because the single family alternative is so much more appealing, - even with a commute.) After all, most people don't come to Boulder to live in a dense urban setting. Alternatively, the housing which is more likely to be offered at Crossroads is the luxury condo, (@ 1500+ sf), appealing to the higher income buyer; and this unit will likely take the price point to $600,000 to $1.0 million per unit. Why? Because there is a market there, although rather thin.
So, here's my question - - how do luxury condos at Crossroads solve the affordable housing challenge? And how would they balance jobs and housing efficiently, without losing unacceptable amounts of tax revenue?
Now, on job reduction. This new drive to permanently reduce potential jobs will not accomplish that objective either. Markets are fluid, and jobs will intensify within available space, if that is required. Otherwise, employers will migrate their operations to efficiently planned centers just outside our walls. That is happening now due to competition from surrounding communities eager to secure jobs for their citizens. In either case, Boulder will have made a strong statement to private sector employers that they too are not welcome here; and that Boulder is opting out of an economic system which provides opportunities for vital companies, both young and mature, but which need flexibility to grow. We're more likely to achieve the worst of all scenarios - a community which declines in vitality & contribution to the nation, - unable to attract the middle class workers needed to support it, - suffering a declining revenue base, and - without either the will, or wherewithal to effectively compete.
In the USA, our national philosophy supports and encourages individual contribution, competition, and a rising standard of living for all citizens, all within a framework of free, competitive markets. It is this mechanism - a free, competitive market - which efficiently allocates resources; and which rewards those with the courage and determination to use their knowledge and skills to pursue dreams. Since this system generates overwhelmingly powerful forces, it is best to embrace solutions which work with - rather than against these rhythms. In addition, it is important to recognize that our national philosophy works most powerfully for those who are less-privileged. Boulder's attitudes for over 20 years have attempted to resist and overturn these forces. And I believe the experiment has proven not only self defeating, but also damaging.
Summary and Conclusion
It is imperative in our little corner of the world that we be cautious, reflective, even humble, about our ability to control and limit the overwhelming appeal of free people seeking to improve their lives, in a society with celebrates such results. With respect to the Council's Comprehensive Plan goals, we believe: 1. That the "jobs/housing problem," as defined, is based on faulty assumptions and perceptions, - therefore your solutions will not achieve projected results. 2. That you don't yet understand all the long term effects of taking restrictive actions in a free market, - therefore your solutions will not achieve projected results. 3. That restricting job growth prescriptively is too blunt an instrument, and is inappropriate in that it works adverse to market forces. The conflict will yield distortions you haven't contemplated, - therefore your solutions will not achieve projected results. And 4. That any "solutions" should be focused on incentives, rather than sanctions, to increase the supply of affordable housing; and that we must make increased investments in all transportation systems, - but particularly vehicular.
With all due respect mates, we've lived under the Boulder model of prescriptive regulatory solutions for over 20 years, and observed that it doesn't work. We believe a change of attitude, as well as policy is needed. And let's remember, when the talking is over, it will be the private sector (property owners, developers and employers) which get to implement the solutions.
I'd keep my bet on the US model.
