If you have been following the doings of the Boulder City Council, you are probably aware that I resigned my seat on the council last week in protest of the vote we took to change our current policy and accept federal grants for the airport, an act that requires us to commit to operating the airport in perpetuity under the jurisdiction of the FAA.
I did not plan it this way, but it turned out to be a fairly dramatic, mic-drop moment. I read a few comments explaining my decision, acknowledged my respect and affection for my colleagues (real, not theatrics), and limped off the dais with my cane (I am recovering from a hip fracture) and out the door. Some of my colleagues knew in advance that I might do this (although I did not decide to do it until the actual moment), but I think shock was the featured emotion of the evening. Here one moment, gone the next.
OK, so there was a bit of drama, but this begs the question: Why take this step? In stepping down, I lost my voice as an elected official and the ability to have an impact on a range of other issues that will affect Boulder in the future. I also know that by leaving before I completed my term, I disappointed some of those who supported me in my three election campaigns. All of this has been pointed out to me by a number of people, but I knew this before I stepped down. All in all, this was as draconian an action as I could have taken. Again, the question is: Why?
The answer is that I believe not only that we acted in error, but that the scope of our failure in going in this direction required a response beyond merely recording a vote in opposition to our new policy. I was not merely saying that I object, but that the depth of my objection makes it impossible for me to continue to serve the city as a member of the council.
Every poll taken in this community — every one — lists housing affordability as one of the top two or three concerns. Yet we continue to develop housing that is neither affordable to middle-income residents nor attractive to families. Over 90% of the housing developed in Boulder in the past five years has been either market-rate rentals or student housing. Is it any wonder that we are losing families and our schools are losing children?
The airport provided us with an opportunity to change the equation. Because we own the land, if only we could get control over it, it could be developed as we want, not as out-of-town developers want. The airport’s 179 acres could be home to 1,500 to 2,000 units, and that is without pushing density. The impact on our overpriced housing market could be immense.
Now, I must be honest: Doing so would not be easy. It would require us to let all existing covenants we have entered into expire, which would be in 2040, and then engage in litigation with an FAA that is desperate to keep us within the system. Would it work? I don’t know, but I thought it was a risk worth taking. My brethren disagreed.
In addition, until 2040, we would have to find the money to properly maintain the airport with no support from federal funds. And here is where my second set of problems arises. I am convinced that we did not properly analyze how much money we actually needed without federal funds or how we could minimize that amount, and that we never really looked at other sources of money that could be used to fund the airport’s needs beyond federal grants. I asked: How about a land loan against the property? How about a certificate of participation (a fancy mortgage)? How about issuing a very small bond? How about using a very small portion of our infrastructure tax funds (also known as CCRS funds)? I never got an answer.
The point is that we never went to any great lengths to analyze these possibilities. It is simply easier to take federal funds and abandon any hope of ever recapturing the use of the airport land. And we did precisely that.
I have no interest in trying to relitigate the decision made by my colleagues. It is done, it is over, and the matter is now closed. But I simply could not treat what we did as business as usual, just another vote that I lost during my almost seven years on the council. And trust me, I have lost plenty of votes in those years. But I believe that this one was qualitatively different in terms of what we have given up, and given up permanently.
In the last five years, we have barely constructed any units of standalone, middle-income starter homes: That product does not exist in Boulder. Where is it going to come from now? The Planning Reserve, which is largely privately owned and will require between $600 million and $1 billion of new infrastructure to bring online? Who will build a 1,300-square-foot starter home to keep young families in Boulder?
I am afraid it will be no one, and the Aspenization of Boulder will continue unimpeded. And that is why I resigned my seat on the council. That is why I did what I did. And I stand by my decision.
To me it’s not just about the funding, but also that it’s so arbitrary to redevelop the airport. Why not develop some of the 45k acres of OSMP land? Or bulldoze some parks and build there? What about the Flatirons Golf Course? Or the rec centers? Are those the next affordable housing targets?
Really Jeremiah? Take away amenities available to ALL residents to protect a single amenity used by about 100 people?
The airport is open to everybody. There are flying classes, gliding, etc.
I don’t personally golf or use the rec centers, but that doesn’t mean I want them shut down and developed.
Jeremiah, it’s not just you. The redevelopment of the airport would signal that any lands are now up for grabs if you can contrive a “best use and greatest good” argument despite its existing function.
I’m sad to see Mark go as he was more level headed than most on the council; he makes a clear and excellent point here which is all of the infill and developments we currently see are not moving the needle on affordability.
But what do you think will happen if the airport is developed? It certainly won’t be housing for low income or IDD folks. It’ll be luxury housing with a few low income spots. And yes, let’s open up some OSMP land. Look at the Poor Farm. That building and land has sat empty for years, not being utilized, and disintegrating before our eyes. Or how about the huge chunks of land on Jay road between Spine and 63rd?
Mark’s point is: the City would own the land….and in doing so, developers’ costs are limited to development plus a profit margin that can be determined by the landowner – the CITY. Unlike private land in Boulder that starts development costs at $800K to $1 million for a single plot -and that’s before a single shovel of dirt has been moved.
Best and greatest use — that’s exactly the argument being used to spending tons on planning reserve and on Jeremiah’s idea to confiscate Open Space land or rec centers.
This was an ill-considered act. Boulder will never be able to build its way to “affordable” housing. It’s like trying to bailout the ocean with a sand pail. Wallach should know very well that for the majority of people already living here, quality of life is the most important issue. Trying to build to “affordability'” will make developer crowd and the folk seen in Boulder Lifestyle magazine even wealthier, but will only degrade living conditions for us, the less glamorous. Most people in Boulder about 30 years ago figured out that development doesn’t pay its way and just makes living conditions less desirable and congested for existing residents. Council lost one of its more intelligent members and the constructive contributions he could have made for an ultimately ineffectual gesture.
Mark, as always you point out real failure of staff and the city apparatus to be more effective policymakers. To do more critical thinking, deeper cost-benefit analysis, and real creative looking-around-the-corner policy exploration. For a city that thinks of itself as cutting edge, we are mired in very tired ways of thinking. And, your point that in the past 5 years most development has been student housing and high priced rentals is so on point. The development processes put developers in charge…they’ve already gotten clearance from staff for most items even before they come to planning board. The whole thing is a farce…because we aren’t willing to make decisions that ACTUALLY move us towards addressing housing affordability and access. Mark, thank you for your service. Please keep sharing your thoughts and holding the city to account.
Everyone is missing the elephant in the room. Nobody that currently lives and own homes in Boulder wants 2000 more houses in our city. So Boulder isn’t affordable, neither is aspen. That’s because so many people love where they live, because of the quality of life here which will be forever degraded with massive amounts of new houses. I guarantee if you hold a referendum about whether the residents want increased density, it will be voted down in a landslide. Will the council allow that vote to take place? I’m doubtful.
2000 isn’t a massive number of new homes. Plenty of homeowners (me included) want at least 2000 new homes in Boulder, so please don’t assume that you can speak for all homeowners.
Furthermore, homeowners are NOT the only voices that should matter to the city government. Over 50% of our residents are renters and they deserve just as much of an opinion as anyone else.
Lastly, we have had several density-limiting referendums on the ballot over the past ~8-10 years and they all got voted DOWN.
Planning board should have more leverage than they do since, as you point out, so much is approved behind the scenes before developers even make it to Planning Board. As Mayor Brockett said, things happen slowly in Boulder. No kidding! City Council, for the most part, embraces this lack of change from status quo. They are fine with allowing staff to control meeting agendas that keeps city council off balance because they are getting important information (often biased) at the last minute, then expected to make decisions with long-term impact. I’m so tired of this, I can almost predict what will happen now.
Informed community pressure consistently applied might help stop this mindless cycle of loose decision making. The derogatory public comment that passes for citizen engagement on NextDoor is so counterproductive and laughable, yet somehow that’s just about all we get (other than the one-sided public comment during city council meetings). Another valid forum for public discussion is needed! It would probably also be a good idea if city council members were elected by district. Then we might be able to discuss actual issues in depth, and candidates would need to connect with their constituents in meaningful ways as opposed to the vapid, generic talking points they all trot out at election time that have little bearing on their actual work as council members.
Mark failed to mention that the attorney hired by the City to battle the FAA estimated up to ten years and $10M for that 2040 legal fight with the FAA, with slim possibility of winning.
Mark stated the $600M to $1B in infrastructure for the planning reserve, as if that same amount would not apply to the airport property, which it would.
Although, affordable housing is emotionally compelling, few residents would be happy with the 7,000 to 8,000 additional vehicle trips on Valmont every day, from an airport housing development as Mark envisions.
As was said for many years affordable housing has been the buzz word. Developers don’t like it so they say yes at first then claim it can’t be done. Please contact the committee members who are finalizing the Comp Plan. Ask for low density mid level houses with parks and nature surrounding them. We have an abundance of vacancies in high density condos and apartments. Enough is Enough.
I wasn’t sure about the best way to proceed with the airport, but I appreciate Mark’s explanation of his reasoning and am very sorry to see him leave City Council. His intelligent, sincere and informed analysis of the complex issues facing Boulder has been much needed–albeit not always heeded–at a time when so many things are changing here in our beloved city. We need more people of his caliber in city government.
How is keeping the airport open in keeping with “Aspenization”? If we look outside the Boulder bubble, it’s a bit ironic that there are parallel sagas around trying to close small airports in mostly wealthy, progressive cities — Santa Monica being the best example, but also Palo Alto, San Jose, Toronto, etc. Concerns include typical NIMBYism (noise, traffic, etc), environmental/safety concerns, and affordable housing. And small airports serve as an easy scapegoat for politicians.
My starting point is that the airport has been around for almost 100 years and has been/continues to be an important part of the community and Boulder’s history. It has some legitimate utility. I feel we should be careful about rushing to conclusions and shutting it down. And like Jeremiah notes, why are other potential sites not being considered first?
Just following up further with some more thoughts of mine. It’s difficult to understand the organizing strategy of the airport opponents. Compared to the other cities I mentioned, Boulder’s airport is still located relatively distant from the city center. The vast majority of the city is insulated/barely aware of the noise. The Boulder airport is also quite small, with a short 4k ft runway, and isn’t suitable for loud and disruptive private jets. Daily operations are fairly low, and they’re mostly small propeller planes. So, advocating for closing it solely based on noise or traffic isn’t going to resonate with enough people to form a political base.
Then there are the environmental concerns. According to research I’ve read, I’m not convinced they’re material. I can understand that some within the community who have particular concerns or views, especially those located close to the airport. But again, I don’t think it’s a hot button topic enough to get people fired up.
Then there’s the affordable housing issue. Of course, this is an issue of major importance, one of the most important of our time. It resonates with many, many people. But again, if we actually look at the timeline and cost of building on the airport and consider alternative available sites, it doesn’t really make a lot of sense why the airport in particular is being targeted.
In the end, my strong suspicion is that a relatively small group of people who live close to the airport and are primarily motivated by noise/traffic are strategically amplifying the environmental issues and affordable housing to advance their own self-interests. Maybe this is too conspiratorial. But something does not add up here.
I agree that we should be careful about rushing to conclusions about shutting it down. I also believe that we should be careful about rushing to conclusions that we need to take actions that result in us being required to run the airport FOREVER. That’s what council did, and that’s why Mark resigned, and I respect him for it.
I deeply regret hearing the news of the FAA airport funding fiasco. Our community needs housing. Rezoning of city owned land is the only way that larger cities can make housing affordable. What a let down.
My gratitude to Mark Wallach for his effort to secure housing for the future of young families, middle income families, communities that reflect diversity.
How many people does the airport serve? Certainly not thousands of potential home owners who likely work, pay taxes and support the local schools.
What a huge missed opportunity to have Boulder serve diversity and affordabililty, a future that Boulder would have been in charge of, not the Feds.
Wallach doesn’t want the Aspenization of Boulder. Would he prefer the San Francisco-ization (i.e. 750,000 residents and still some of the most expensive housing in the country)? I’ve heard the battle cry “We need 8,000 more units in Boulder” as if that will solve all of our problems. I’d like to see the data behind that number, because I believe the demand for reasonably priced houses in Boulder is so high its virtually unlimited for modeling purposes. I think our money would be better spent on a great transportation system to bring people (workers and students) in from areas with more reasonably priced housing, rather than to continually try to accommodate a never-ending influx of people.
John, I agree. As long as land in Boulder is limited and there is significant demand, there will never be enough affordable housing. Unfortunately, many people never learned basic economics.
The more housing push is like adding lanes to ameliorate traffic – it doesn’t work.
Suing the federal government is another losing strategy. It’s laughable that Wallach is estimating costs – put it out for bid – see how many investors want to have that land for the legal costs, the clean up, and the development costs against the probability of winning. Only a government official spending other people’s money can get wound up about things like this.
Thank you Mark Wallach for your service and thoughtfulness.
I don’t typically agree with Mark’s exact conclusions, but I appreciated his thoughtfulness, long term thinking, independence and willingness to try things that aren’t easy or popular.
One of the main issue for me is this: “I am convinced that we did not properly analyze how much money we actually needed without federal funds or how we could minimize that amount, and that we never really looked at other sources of money that could be used to fund the airport’s needs beyond federal grants. ”
Anyone who’s followed this issue and the reporting here can see that the process was deeply biased and flawed. Many options weren’t even considered (e..g, landing fees). I also believe that local control is critical aspect of good governance. If we actually agree to the FAA terms to keep the airport open in perpetuity, I am confident we’ll look back on this as a huge mistake.
Lastly, for me this is not over, and the matter is not closed. This issue is a great example of how dysfunctional, rudderless and feckless our local government has become. I think we still have opportunities to fight back.
Affordable housing is a joke. Boulder is a desirable place to live, people want to live here, and will pay the premium to do so. The city has made it incredibly expensive to remodel, develop or build new housing in this town. Thus, construction and permitting costs are twice our neighboring towns. And honestly, I think a lot of people in this city like it that way. Nobody wants us to start looking like Broomfield or Westminster, right? But we keep talking and talking and talking about affordable housing, as if a couple of subsidized houses and BMR apartments is actually ever going to make a difference. It’s nauseating, actually. And it’s repeating itself at every desirable city and town in America. It’s time to just be honest about what it actually possible and what we want.
Our first home in Martin Acres in 1989 was 960 sf. Now my daughter and her husband and child live in it.
We moved to a 1200 sf in Martin Acres with a basement by the park. It’s too big for us now but we can’t leave our neighbors or the easy walk for groceries, bank, restaurants, and bus to the airport. I love Martin Acres and most people don’t want or need big homes.
The community does, in fact, need housing. It also needs housing to be in places that have adequate utilities and access, and are not food deserts, services deserts, transit deserts, school deserts, built not in places with limited road access, that are easily walkable or accessible for the elderly or disabled, and certainly not built on land rendered toxic from a century of leaded fuel use.
I’m a neighbor in this neighborhood, and I find it fascinating that the people pushing hardest for this live in much fancier digs far from this place, where they won’t have to deal with the results, don’t understand the neighbors or the neighborhood, and seem hell bent on pushing this through, consequences be damned.
I don’t see people clamoring to build housing on Valmont Butte. Sure, it’s a sacred site to indigenous Colorado tribes that was turned into a waste dump in the early 20th century, but it’s only moderately radioactive and it’s got those killer views of the mountains!
Sure, though…let’s build low income housing in a polluted, hard to access office park directly across the street from the jail and the inpatient mental health center. That sounds pretty equitable for our lower income residents. I’m sure the folks who love this idea will love it even more when their kids have to wait for the one bus an hour that comes past Valmont and Airport to get to school with the people who have been released from those facilities in the morning. My kids and I have already experienced that, and I promise you, it isn’t fun or nice.
If “demolish the airport” is the extent of your thought process for where to build housing in the city, then you should just admit to yourself that, like Ned Flanders, you’ve done nothing and are all out of ideas. The airport is a potential transit hub and community gathering center. The fact the city has allowed it to fester and not be developed for the 21st century should be a source of deep shame. It’s a travesty to imagine its future potential wasted just to build a stack of low-quality Kleenex-box condo buildings.
Sorry to see Mark go, but on this matter I believe he was gravely wrong. The cost to maintain and develop the airport (in 15 years, if ever!) far exceeds the value of a few thousand housing units. It’s nearly an entire generation away from ever being shovel ready – in the most optimistic scenario! And, what would our spending on this for the next bit of time take away from? There are other opportunities for infill and development. There are other avenues that we can take first, as a city and a state, to reduce the costs to live here and the costs to build. There are better uses of our tax dollars.
The former Fruehauf furniture store site at 33rd and Arapahoe has been vacant for nearly 10 years. The city has owned it for several years as a result of a swap for commitments made by the developer of the old hospital site.
Point is, why is it still vacant, gathering nothing but weeds and trash? Granted, it is not a huge plot of land like the airport, but a decent size apartment complex for low income or seniors could be built on it. Every little bit helps. And it is an excellent location. Come on powers that be, make it happen! No good excuse why it can’t. Here is an opportunity, run with it.
So sorry to lose Mark. One of the few council member who really seemed to study the issues and come up with well-reasoned opinions. And sad that no one else cares about the Aspenization of Boulder.
Mark hit the nail on the head – more starter homes. All city council has been doing for years is creating more renters and more transient residents and lining the pockets of developers and landlords. Their plan is to take the “affordable” parts of the city and make it high density leaving the city with Millionaires on the West side of Broadway ruling the renters on the East side of Broadway. They keep preaching affordable housing while raising property taxes all the while being extremely hostile to businesses. My mortgage went up 10% this year while the value of my home dropped 15%. The fact there are more empty commercial spaces than any other city is ridiculous for a town like Boulder. The population goes up and the sales tax revenue is dropping? This is such a poorly run town. The BPP just does whatever they do in Denver/Portland/Seattle without any care that Boulder is nothing like any of those cities. They keep building commercials spaces without parking and wonder why no new businesses open up. Want affordable clothes without going to Target/Marshalls – you have to leave town <– that in a nutshell is the problem with this city
I was undecided about the airport, as I too had questions that first needed to be answered. But I am sure about some of the misconceptions in the comments that can be clarified – – –
1) Whether the City develops a property (as proposed for the airport) or private interests (as is usual elsewhere), the cost would be the same. The City would simply let out bids to development companies, whose profit margin remains the same. The plumbers get paid the same no matter who owns the project. Actually, municipal owned projects invariably cost far more than developer-owned, due to the political involvement and resulting increased process and changes, all of which take much more time and therefore cost more money.
2) The big positive for the City developing the airport is certainly not cost savings, it is as Mark and others have said, the City could get exactly what it wants. Which presumably would be low-middle income housing, which would mean high density (you can’t have one w/o the other). I personally think that would be great, and every city planner in every country in the world knows this is normal and necessary, but like all privileged communities Boulder has a very tough NIMBY contingent, so this would be a big political fight.
3) The word “developer” is weirdly being used a an epithet; decades ago some people infamously went on “communist” witch hunts, then anyone the US government didn’t like were labeled “terrorists”, and now old school liberals who want nothing to change rail against “developers”. This is extremely odd, because no one reading this built their own house, a “developer” built your house, so wouldn’t it be reasonable if a developer built the next persons house also? They need a place to live too.
4) More affordable housing is good for the entire community. The surveys and votes clearly indicate most Boulderites agree this is a crises that has created problems for everyone, and would like something done. The City has made good efforts while has not taken the bigger harder steps. There is no chance we’re going back to a 3BR 1.5Ba house in Table Mesa costing $28,000 brand new (that’s an actual number btw), but like we do in rest of our lives, let’s not make “perfect” the enemy of “good”. It is worth it to do the best we can.