DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

There is no maximum population. The entire concept that there should be one is morally reprehensible, and intrinsically inequitable. By its very nature, that position says "I am more important than you."

You don't get to say that without being called out as bad for saying it. Especially when you claim to be a liberal bastion of equity.

Boulder could at least be honest about its intentions. The fact that Boulderites pat themselves on the back for equity and environmental stewardship, while actively trying to make their community less equitable and more polluting, is part of what grates people about Boulder. Lots of communities are selfish. Few combine Boulder's selfishness with its hypocrisy.

I understand your point.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

That's a hilarious comparison and disingenuous, Boulder-esque logic at it's finest. Boulder's population density is artificially high because it's greenbelt of exclusion is outside the city limits while Denver's has the opposite issue as the city limit include the entire airport property.

I'm sensing that you really don't want anything to change in Boulder- that you're fine with it being an exclusive community with a high wealth level and equally high levels of systemic exclusion of other socioeconomic strata. Which is just fine as long as you're willing to admit that what makes Boulder desirable in your eyes also makes it an incredibly inequitable place.

Boulder isn't a liberal progressive community, its more akin to a modern version of southern democrats focused on maintaining segregation. Fortunately, the political weight of Boulder continues to shrink similar to the Club 20's increasing irrelevance.

Thanks for being clear about your distaste for Boulder.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

The previously mentioned developer (in which the linkage fee came up) wouldn't have invested what they did if they hadn't run the numbers and figured out that they could profit even with the fee.

If Boulder becomes a lot less Boulder, then what?

I didn't say that no projects pencils. But fewer certainly do, and they need higher price points to make things work...which they can do because the fees scare some competition away. Basically the fees get baked into housing prices, for both new and existing units, with scarcity as the mechanism that makes that work.

Also, the project apparently hasn't started. At this stage, they're making a bet that it's worth putting money on an attempt to build. They and their partners will continue to assess the financial picture. Projects don't get built all the time.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

Thanks for being clear about your distaste for Boulder.

And thank you for being less than clear about your preference for Boulder as it is without needing to change anything.

[ams5280]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

Why single out Boulder for low density when it's not really that low?

Because no other city that size has the same political influence.

Can’t afford to build a train to Boulder with projected low ridership and a cost that could hamstring regional transit for decades? The Governor will bully your agency publicly and the Legislature will withhold state funding.

The unbuilt LRT extension to Highlands Ranch hasn’t elicited the same response. But Highlands Ranch is also not a great comparison.

I would venture to say that a good number of Boulder’s permanent residents are living illegally. You think only 3 or fewer college students can afford a 5-bedroom ranch in Martin Acres going for $4,000 a month?

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

Fair enough. That still makes Boulder about the same density as Highlands Ranch and still more dense that any other city in the metro area over 100,000. Why single out Boulder for low density when it's not really that low?

'Boulder is as dense as sprawling suburbs!' You nailed the problem better than I could.

Boulder is singled out because it causes sprawl (highlands ranch is the result, not the cause) and because 60,000 people don't drive to work in Highlands Ranch.

Highlands Ranch also doesn't offer some illusion of being a sustainable-minded, forward-thinking city. I think I might go easier on Boulder if they came out and said 'we are exclusionary elitists that are deliberately driving climate change and ozone pollution along the front range'. At least that would be honest.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

And thank you for being less than clear about your preference for Boulder as it is without needing to change anything.

Boulder isn't static.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by ams5280

Because no other city that size has the same political influence.

Can’t afford to build a train to Boulder with projected low ridership and a cost that could hamstring regional transit for decades? The Governor will bully your agency publicly and the Legislature will withhold state funding.

The unbuilt LRT extension to Highlands Ranch hasn’t elicited the same response. But Highlands Ranch is also not a great comparison.

I would venture to say that a good number of Boulder’s permanent residents are living illegally. You think only 3 or fewer college students can afford a 5-bedroom ranch in Martin Acres going for $4,000 a month?

Perhaps Boulder could withdraw from RTD (taking the RTD taxes it pays with it) and then transit could progress more to your liking.

Given CU's always-increasing tuition (for out-of-state students it's eyewatering), yes, 3 college students could afford $1333 each monthly rent.

[gopokes21]

I see that my favorite subject has boomeranged back here.

Here's my compromise proposal for Gov Polis and AlSmithee:

$2 billion for rail to Boulder, and $3 billion for rail specifically IN Denver city limits. Is it an even/fair deal for Denver? No, but it breaks the dam and allows for progress.

Oh and both ends of the deal are contingent upon each city maximizing TOD/density around every station area. No restrictions at least (looking mainly at Boulder). It's time to tie infrastructure to the housing crisis and actually make progress on both.

_____

Also re: your post that Boulder can take its ball and go home. That would actually be great. We can and should maintain a minimum level of regional service through RTD, but RTD absolutely should be scaled down and local transit shifted over to municipalities. If Boulder or Thornton want a local route, they should pay for it. If Denver wants something for itself, obviously it is going to have to cover that cost. Douglas County especially needs to cover the cost of its commuter and paratransit services, which are bleeding RTD dry. We're all getting screwed over the most by Douglas County, and second-most by Boulder.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

'Boulder is as dense as sprawling suburbs!' You nailed the problem better than I could.

No other city in Colorado over 100,000 is denser besides Denver.

Boulder is singled out because it causes sprawl (highlands ranch is the result, not the cause) and because 60,000 people don't drive to work in Highlands Ranch.

Highlands Ranch also doesn't offer some illusion of being a sustainable-minded, forward-thinking city. I think I might go easier on Boulder if they came out and said 'we are exclusionary elitists that are deliberately driving climate change and ozone pollution along the front range'. At least that would be honest.

CU's faculty, staff and students total roughly 40% of Boulder's population. That's a big gorilla which Boulder can't do anything about.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

Given CU's always-increasing tuition (for out-of-state students it's eyewatering), yes, 3 college students could afford $1333 each monthly rent.

Let me get this straight...because they're spending a ton of money on tuition, they must be able to spend a lot on housing too? WTF?

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by mhays

Let me get this straight...because they're spending a ton of money on tuition, they must be able to spend a lot on housing too? WTF?

https://www.collegetuitioncompare.co...oulder/tuition

The 2021 tuition & fees of University of Colorado Boulder (CU Boulder) are $12,466 for Colorado residents and $36,668 for out-of-state students

Yes, they can afford Boulder rent.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

...It's time to tie infrastructure to the housing crisis and actually make progress on both...

Obama studied this extensively and came up with fantastic recommendations for reform mechanisms, Trump blurted what Obama studied out in his baby tantrum ways and got listed a racist for mentioning it. Maybe Biden and all the clowns can tie these infrastructure dollars to local/state zoning reform, but my guess is they can't because they won't.

It's a fantastic idea in theory, but some places just can't be swayed by federal dollars. Now, if state transportation and federal transportation ganged up on local zoning codes and withheld real dollars and people started crashing their cars as a result, we would absolutely see positive zoning reforms. Again, the people in charge won't chose that course of action. Careerists aren't disruptors, they are status quo maintainers and that's where 99% of our governmental problems exist (IMO).

We can do this, we just won't, not yet at least.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

https://www.collegetuitioncompare.co...oulder/tuition

The 2021 tuition & fees of University of Colorado Boulder (CU Boulder) are $12,466 for Colorado residents and $36,668 for out-of-state students

Yes, they can afford Boulder rent.

That's what I thought. It's an emotion-based idea...you assume that anyone who can do an expensive thing MUST be impossibly wealthy. It's emotional because you can't afford the same thing.

A rational understanding would be that a lot of people go way into hock for college (because costs are high and they're not actually wealthy), including and sometimes especially those out-of-state students, and high rent is a serious problem.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's what I thought. It's an emotion-based idea...you assume that anyone who can do an expensive thing MUST be impossibly wealthy. It's emotional because you can't afford the same thing.

A rational understanding would be that a lot of people go way into hock for college (because costs are high and they're not actually wealthy), including and sometimes especially those out-of-state students, and high rent is a serious problem.

CU Boulder has attracted lots of out-of-state students for decades, and the tuition reflects that. If CU can't charge astronomical tuition and fees for out-of-state students, then in-state tuition will have to go up, which is a disservice to Colorado taxpayers.

Ever-increasing tuition and enrollment has a huge impact on Boulder.

[mhays]

Did you mean to respond to my points?

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by mhays

Did you mean to respond to my points?

There are more than enough wealthy out-of-state students to push up prices for housing.

It was almost 50/50 back in 2019

https://coloradosun.com/2019/02/25/c...ate-enrollment

And that's because Colorado has dropped state funding to a dribble. The money has to come from somewhere.

[mhays]

That's quite a tangent you're on. Yes there's an influx of new temporary residents every school year, like any college town.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was enough housing that they didn't drive prices up?

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by mhays

Let me get this straight...because they're spending a ton of money on tuition, they must be able to spend a lot on housing too? WTF?

That's called Boulder logic. Don't question it, just nod and smile.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

Fair enough. That still makes Boulder about the same density as Highlands Ranch and still more dense that any other city in the metro area over 100,000. Why single out Boulder for low density when it's not really that low?

I don't obsess over density as much as my other friends here. Obviously much of Boulder's (relative) density results from CU's student population.

IMO, it's about land, the cost of land which mhays speaks to plus local "Impact fees" is what keeps housing expensive.

With Boulder it's the fact that they built a wall around the city that virtually forced new residents to live in some other part of the county.

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

Perhaps Boulder could withdraw from RTD (taking the RTD taxes it pays with it) and then transit could progress more to your liking.

Given CU's always-increasing tuition (for out-of-state students it's eyewatering), yes, 3 college students could afford $1333 each monthly rent.

When FasTracks was passed all counties that were a part of that vote are committed to the RTD tax until all the bonding is paid off. While the FasTracks tax was four-tenths percent the vote by extension applies to the whole 1% RTD tax until FasTracks bonds are paid for. That's why Parker CO has already started the process to leave RTD in like 2050.