This commentary is by Harlin Savage, Marki LeCompte, Emily Reynolds and Stephen Angus, members of Save South Boulder, a group opposing the South Boulder Creek flood project.
We speak for the trees. For the grass. For the legacy. We are what’s left of old Boulder — the weird, the wild, the watchers of the floodplain and defenders of what made this city extraordinary. We are the memory and myth of the People’s Republic of Boulder. We are what’s left of the Left.
What’s happening to the South Boulder Creek floodplain — also known as CU South — is heartbreaking. Many of us believed this land was sacred, untouchable. It doesn’t matter who “owns” it. The land is the land. The trees are the trees. The grass is itself. The illusion that public input matters has worn thin.
As so many of us worry about the health of democracy, the abuse of power and the unchecked march of corporate greed, it’s easy to overlook what’s happening right here at home. Boulder, once a national symbol of progressive values and environmental stewardship, is being reshaped by the same forces we used to resist. What we’re seeing isn’t progress — it’s capitulation.
Corporate influence and a default mindset of growth have taken over. CU, a historically conservative, bureaucratic institution, is being granted outsized power. Instead of serving as a counterbalance, city council appears more enabler than watchdog. What happened to Boulder values — creativity, bold thinking, prioritizing community over profit?
We were once a magnet for artists, visionaries and activists. Now, many have left — priced out, pushed out, or simply worn down. With that exodus has come a failure of imagination. Projects are bungled, budgets bloated, services neglected. The municipalization effort collapsed under its own weight. Composting failed. Even the medians are overgrown.
And yet, we continue to act as if surrender to growth is inevitable. CU South is a perfect example. Everyone knows the truth: CU can build what it wants. It doesn’t have to honor agreements. It doesn’t have to follow rules. The city has little leverage—and less will to use it.
Still, we raise our voices — because the land deserves a voice. Because legacy matters. Because we owe something to future generations.
We are the speakers for the trees, the grass, the birds, the wind. We are the remnants of a Boulder that once prided itself on thinking differently. We are not anti-housing, anti-student, or anti-change. We are pro-honesty, pro-nature, and pro-community. We believe the essence of Boulder is still worth protecting.
We’re asking for leadership that listens. For planning that reflects our values. For decisions that prioritize the health of the land and the people who live on it—not just the institutions that seek to exploit it.
Our hearts are breaking. But we’re still here. And we’re still speaking.
Signed,
A Few of the Old Weirdos
Still Speaking for the Land
Thank you for having the courage to stand up for what once made Boulder so special, dear weirdos. You speak for nature itself, which has no voice. Every time I walk along the berm on CU South behind my home I mourn that the impending, short sighted bulldozing is waiting in the wings, ready to scrape the trees, obliterate the homes of the birds, and to pave over more of paradise. We can always have more houses, retail spaces, glaring streetlights, noisy, polluting traffic….. just to mention only a few of the amenities of “progress”. Please. Let’s rethink this before it’s too late.
Conflating this campaign to Progressive values may perfectly also distill all that’s wrong with Boulder right now. Quixotic, divisive, and completely divorced from reality. So who are they speaking to/for here exactly…the land, fellow fuddy-duddies lost in a nostalgic fog, or saner folks who may yet perfectly remember the 2013 flood. As I lived in SoBo and Bear Creek inundation ruined my apt along with most of my worldly possessions. Lest the rest of us not forget…this project is about taking those hard lessons, and trying to help actually “Save South Boulder” the next time. That’s true leadership, not letting a doddering gang of fools intimidate the city with vexatious litigation while pushing solipsistic “feelings” over the facts/science of flood mitigation and how that may best serve our community. The birds and even the grass itself will survive another big flood, but per the recent reminder in Texas many people might not. Thus beyond the bad faith sermon on fiscal austerity and distrust of local gov…what’s value of human lives versus the lofty ideals of identity-based politics and extremist entitlement.
In addition to your ever colorful adjectives, it should be pointed out that this “doddering gang of fools” is not the Boulder “left.” Not progressive. They may be weirdos but they are not the left. This was an intentionally Boulder-centric marketing piece designed to evoke an ancient past that still resonates. A last shot across the bow since none of their other tactics have worked.
Thank you for centering the needs of nature in the greater Boulder Valley. Nonetheless, any biodiversity loss in CU South is less biodiversity loss in neighboring cities and communities that might otherwise have their Wildland developed if not Boulder’s. Also, not allowing CU South to proceed will further add additional traffic caused by more and more students and faculty choosing to live outside Boulder since they would less likely live and work in housing options otherwise provided by CU South. Given these tradeoffs, I remain in support of CU South.
I am at least glad that per the designs proposed by CU (alongside the earmarked newly added Open Space land), CU built structures aim to thoughtfully minimize environmental impacts, excepting perhaps the excessive proposed parking for their buildings. I whole heartedly agree that per Joni Mitchell, I don’t want to “pave paradise and put up a parking lot.” But I do want greater opportunities for Boulder students and educators to live where they work. These are investments in students’ future as well as flood mitigation so “losing” a portion of undeveloped land for these goals is an acceptable tradeoff.
Thus I have one suggestion for Save South Boulder. Since the final architecture design is many years off, engaging CU to review any design proposals and minimize their parking intensity and asphalt covered land in the designs might be a more affective avenue at this juncture for Save South Boulder to pursue. Buildings in flood mitigated areas are acceptable to me but impermeable parking lots 3x the size of these buildings that prevent ground water filtration and intensify surface water runoff is something we should avoid. There may also be other biophyllic design elements we can encourage CU to pursue.
The city voted for this project multiple times and CU will inevitably press forward. Thus, it may be better to partner with CU to inform community inspired design elements. That is, so long as Save South Boulder hasn’t destroyed any option for a productive relationship with the city and CU.
Thank you for speaking out for the rest of us who were born here or have lived here for many years. The gentrification of our town, with its giant, box-like buildings and ever increasing traffic, have driven many of us away. When will all this “development” end?
Infilling Boulder with more living space and protecting existing structures is the opposite of gentrification. Boulder is fast become a town that people who work for a living can’t afford. Do we really want even more traffic coming into and out of town each day? This Nimbyism in the camouflage of protecting the land is maddening. Let’s not, by preventing infill, turn Boulder into a mountainous Santa Barbara where firefighters, police officers, teachers and those in the service industries can no longer live.
I appreciate the passion in this piece, but I find it difficult to reconcile some of its claims with the actual history and facts.
The authors write: “Many of us believed this land was sacred, untouchable.” But this site was a former gravel pit, mined for decades before CU purchased it. It’s not untouched wilderness. Thanks to the annexation agreement, 119 acres will be permanently preserved as open space, with additional acreage added to the city’s open space system.
They also say: “The illusion that public input matters has worn thin.” But public input wasn’t ignored. These authors put this very issue to a public vote twice and lost both times. Both times, the majority of Boulder voters supported moving forward with annexation and CU development. That’s not democratic failure; that’s democratic decision-making.
It’s also ironic to hear concerns about growth and unaffordability from voices that have long opposed infill and compact development near the city. Halting housing in Boulder, especially for students and university staff, has helped drive up housing costs and pushed people to live farther away, increasing commuter traffic, emissions, and sprawl in surrounding areas. CU South isn’t just a flood mitigation project. It’s also a chance to add on-campus housing that reduces pressure on the city’s overburdened housing stock.
Like Daniel Howard said in a thoughtful comment, any biodiversity loss at CU South may well prevent far greater losses elsewhere in communities like Erie, Lafayette, or Longmont, where that growth will otherwise go.
Continuing lawsuits that the courts have now dismissed as meritless only undermines the credibility of those who say they’re fighting for the public good.
We should protect what’s truly sacred: safe housing, climate resilience, and democratic process. CU South advances all three.
Michael, you can’t build your way out of overbuilding. That doesn’t improve quality of life. Balancing jobs with housing does.
Safe housing, climate resilience and democratic process were not advanced by the annexation agreement, deception was.
Lynn, the reality is that we have not even come close to trying to build enough housing in Boulder. For decades, we have restricted multi-family housing and limited growth near jobs and transit. That imbalance has not improved our quality of life. It has led to sprawl, longer commutes, higher emissions, and extreme housing costs that are pricing out the very people who make this community work.
The CU South annexation includes flood protection, new housing opportunities, and hundreds of acres of preserved open space. These are real investments in safety, resilience, and livability. It included years of public input, followed by two public votes. Both times, voters upheld the annexation agreement.
That is not deception. That is democracy, even when the result is not what some may have hoped for. Instead of trying to stop and delay everything, we should focus on shaping outcomes that reflect our community’s values and needs.
Lynn, you might appreciate this CPR article explaining how “big” municipal governments’ zoning rules only legalize unaffordable housing to be built on most of city managed land.
It’s silly given public support for finding solutions towards affordable housing, yet, city governments choose to maintain their rule over private homeowners and make affordable housing illegal on the majority of city managed land.
“Nearly 70% of Colorado land zoned for housing prohibits the most affordable types of homes, study finds”
https://coloradosun.com/2025/07/01/national-zoning-atlas-study-colorado-land-use-apartments-townhomes-lot-sizes-parking/
Good opinion. Boulder was forward-thinking decades ago when they decided to set aside chunck of land as open space in perpetuity – a wonderful idea. But those set-asides have limited Boulder’s ability to grow. Oh, well! You properly made your bed, now lie comfortably in it and stop beating yourself up because not everyone who wishes to live in Boulder can do so.
Just to clarify, CU South was not part of the City of Boulder until the 2021 annexation agreement. For decades, it was outside city limits, which meant the city had no control over how that land could be used.
The annexation changed that. It brought the land into the city and secured major public benefits, including permanent open space, long-planned flood protection for thousands of residents, and future housing on a limited portion of the site. This is a separate issue from the city’s past open space acquisitions and does not take away from those earlier preservation efforts.
The authors of this opinion piece oppose this annexation agreement based on the false impression that they are saving “pristine” land from needed housing development. But this site was a former gravel pit, mined for decades before CU purchased it. It’s not untouched wilderness. And thanks to the annexation agreement, 119 acres will be permanently preserved as open space
Rather than undermining Boulder’s legacy, the annexation builds on it by balancing safety, environmental stewardship, and the housing needs of our community.
I am not yet an Old Weirdo, but I have lived in Boulder for 25+ years. I remember the city that the authors are referencing. New money, new tech, new growth has indeed overtaken the ethos of our community, to the detriment of its former values. Keep Boulder Weird is now just a t-shirt slogan, not a value in and of itself. Two key words struck me as crucial in this discussion of the future of our community: will and imagination. They both existed in abundance in the late 90s and early aughts, and long before. Now, it seems that there is less will to create intelligent solutions and less imagination for a community that includes everyone. I used to live next to CU South. I understand the need and intent of the project. It seems to be forward thinking, when compared to other projects being approved by the Planning Board and the City which simply increase the wealth gap and the number of in-commuters every day (upwards of 60K people who can’t afford to live where they work).
CU South, on its face, makes a lot more sense than more multi-million dollar townhomes along major arteries, or tax incentives for the Sundance Festival, which will create seasonal traffic at best. Boulder is becoming Menlo Park Front Range. That is not what this town needs. It does not serve the interests of all the people. Where are the leaders with both the will and imagination to make this place the example of forward thinking that it once was?
Great commentary. This summarizes the broader context and issues coherently. CU South is the least of our problems in Boulder. It’s a reasonable compromise.
I agree with those that are wanting to preserve undeveloped land, trees, grass and animal habitats. Because the concrete jungle is expanding at unbelievable rates we need to act consciously and cautiously. Around the world many countries are making decisions that help the planet and partner with nature.
I’d like to echo Daniel and Michael’s comments. CU’s development of CU South has to simply be accepted. It’s been coming for almost 30 years now, ever since Boulder dithered and dropped the ball back in 1996 when the opportunity to acquire it arose. Boulder voters were asked twice and approved the annexation twice.
Boulder and CU should be working together to integrate CU South into the city’s infrastructure, particularly transit, to lessen the traffic impacts on the streets and neighborhoods around it.
The comments on this piece reflect the push and pull that is happening in Boulder, leading to, it seems, dissatisfaction on everyone’s part with our city. I am not a flood mitigation expert and this issue seems to have been litigated enough so I accept the current plan. But, it is clear to me that CU must stop growing in Boulder–they have other campuses that could be developed (Colorado Springs) and the University’s massive increase in enrollment, along with other factors, has changed Boulder forever. What’s done is done (sadly) but we need different leadership since I don’t think anyone would say that Boulder today is a better place to live than it was 5 or 10 years ago. (I could go way further back but I’m trying to be realistic.) Let’s get some voices on City Council that appreciate Boulder’s visionary greenbelt and height restrictions, and who understand that the “funky, weird” vibe–that they now are “studying” and trying to recover–is gone because they built over it.
Sad. Boulder lost its soul when they succumbed to trump derangement and the mental illness that followed. The nihilistic virtue signaling culture meant that you really had to elect radicals to city council. The radical NGO’s noticed this and they ran the slate of “Boulder Progressives”. These people were the proverbial “tipping point”. The Boulder that these folks long for no longer exists. It’s gone and it’s not coming back. It happened quickly and forcefully, the speed and momentum driven by the lack of a non corrupt media source in town to push back on what was happening. We were able to move on and find greener pastures, but I’m sad for the Boulder natives who might have less ability to pick up and move, they’ve had to sit back at watch the destruction of their once idyllic community in less than ten years.
Right! Boulder was right in line with the trump playbook before we “lost our soul.” What an absurd way of thinking. The real problem is we lost all the “radicals” somewhere along the line long ago. We are now so bland and middle of the road politically that we stand by and watch silently while Boulder becomes a place where no one but the wealthy can survive. Leadership picks around the edges of what is possible and rewards itself with large pay raises. Leaders are not willing or able to put forward any actual policies, programs, or strategies that will make a difference for the better in Boulder. Meanwhile, they privilege expensive programs and projects that staff work on constantly, but that provide few if any benefits. Status quo prevails in Boulder.
I’m not a Boulder native, but the last 54 of my 72 years have been spent here. And my parents both went to CU after WWII, so I have some perspective on the changes in this town. First off, I would say that nature is honored in Boulder. After all, we have a significant number of acres of protected land in Boulder County that we have taxed ourselves to pay for. And we regulate human use to ensure that nesting birds and other wildlife can exist without undue disturbance. We build and maintain trails to allow access but limit erosion and environmental damage. Second, turning to our sense of place and honoring all who have dwelled here, the support for indigenous history is to be applauded. Sure, there is continuous growth, but when should we have shut the doors, and what would be the impact of that? In 1900 the population was 6,000. When my parents graduated in 1950 in was 20,000. When I arrived in 1970 it was 67,000. By 2000 it was 95,000. And today it is about 105,000. By contrast, Colorado Springs went from 21,000 in 1900 to almost 500,000 today. Our growth controls, blue lines, open space purchases, conservation easements, and other self-imposed limits have served us well. Sure, the town isn’t the same, but it’s a damn fine place to live. And while I know that my regular use of CU South will have to adapt in the coming years, I know that Boulder will remain steadfast in its focus on keeping this community unique and special. And for that I am thankful, and disagree with those who feel Boulder has lost its soul or otherwise capitulated. In the face of constant pressure and demand to grow we have held fast to our principles, and continue to live in a city with wonderful amenities, cultural awareness, outdoor spirit and all that makes life worthwhile.
Look, any housing built on CU South is going to be great for those that live there, but it is not at the scale that is going to mean less housing is going to be built in Erie or the L towns. The market is also different, those on CU South will be related to University, not workers. The scale of CU South will also have zero impact on the number of commuters, the scale is simple not there, compared to the number of new jobs in Boulder and the growth of the University. I find those that say otherwise are being purposely dishonest on these two points.
Sean, are you saying that we should oppose every new housing development on the basis that none of them individually will completely solve the housing shortage in Boulder?
Kudos to Boulder Reporting Lab for publishing this editorial, with which I thoroughly disagree, which stimulated this good dialog. Kudos to Michael Mills for his insightful rebuttal. And kudos to Don Hobbs for reminding us that Boulder is still a great city with great values and a lot of success under its belt.
In today’s America, we are told that “progress” is whatever drives up speculative profits for the very rich. Of course, for those who pay the externalized costs of those profits, it often looks more like “regress.”
For the University and the current city government, progress is defined to be unrestrained growth based on the assumption that it will keep the property asset bubble inflating forever. But inevitably, there comes a point where the declining quality of life that comes with overcrowding destroys what attracted people and made profitable speculation possible in the first place. The gentrification that has given Boulder the highest cost of living among Colorado cities, and the slight decrease in population since 2020 despite a 9.3% vacancy rate in Q4 2024, suggest that we may already be approaching that point. The speculators cash in and move on, but the rest of us are left with the intractable urban decay that is so common in the many, many American boom towns that have gone bust.
Judith & Fred Jones
Well said!
Judith and Fred – erudite.
Boulder has decided a young high tech workforce is the future of the city, and they will be content to live in 300 square foot micro units near busy transportation corridors and other similar situations that don’t require them to own vehicles. As if they will all be content to ride buses every time they want to leave Boulder. Evidently, they believe this demographic will somehow lead to a revitalized Pearl Street Mall and increased sales taxes and funding for the city coffers. The city leadership will likely never address the rot at the core of how this city operates, like $30k monthly rents for arts organizations in the downtown center, for example. But perhaps this was all inevitable. Without serious innovation, the capitalist system goes to extremes in places like this over time.
I remember the sacred gravel pit mining operation. And the dust. I
Thank you for having the courage to share your opinion. I can only remember CU South as being a wild area; however, when I speak with Boulder natives who grew up in the 1960’s and 1970’s they all share that this area was a working quarry. That said, I can imagine adding more traffic to Table Mesa Drive or Broadway by adding 500 homes and up to 33 university buildings.
When I lived at Tantra Lake, I didn’t bring my own car and only shared a car part time with my partner. Otherwise, I’d usually bike to Table Mesa shopping center, use the NCAR shuttle up the hill if I didn’t want to bike, or take other bike routes to get downtown when I wanted. These options existed since I lived inside Boulder.
However, if any hired faculty or new students can’t live in a place like CU South or elsewhere in the city, they’ll likely live in Broomfield or other towns. Notably, many of my co-workers at NCAR can’t afford to live here and instead live in one of these towns. These people have to drive and add to traffic at greater intensity than a collection of homes in town where some might bike or use a bus. If those 500 homes don’t get built here (or preferentially somewhere else in Boulder as I also value the undisturbed beauty of CU South but the project has already been approved), than those 500 families still need to live somewhere and the traffic still gets intensified, if not moreso because none of them can bike or easily bus commute. Though, I do have one colleague that enjoys bike commuting regularly from Broomfield.
All in all, if traffic is the concern, regulate the traffic. To my earlier post, pressure CU to provide less parking for anything built in CU South and connect the existing on campus transit services from main campus to CU South to enable more people to not need a car at CU South.
That would be a better solution than not building and expecting traffic to improve or even stay at current levels. I never have traffic as a bike commuter so definitely try it out, using an e-bike if you need to.
I suggest the Arapaho & Ute tribal people reclaim all of the land in Boulder Valley and truly protect it, restore it to its original state.
The gravel pit was always expected to become open space. Then, in the ‘90s, Boulder Mayor Leslie Durgin floated the idea of developing part of the property for a Women of the West Museum. That woke up CU to the idea that the property was not necessarily open space to be. CU swept in and bought it from under Open Space’s noses.