In the lead-up to the Nov. 4, 2025, election, Boulder Reporting Lab asked each of the 11 city council candidates to answer our questionnaire. Their answers are presented in a random order, but you can jump to each candidate’s responses (listed alphabetically by last name): Matt Benjamin, Lauren Folkerts, Rachel Rose Isaacson, Rob Kaplan, Max Lord, Montserrat Palacios Rodarte, Jenny Robins, Nicole Speer, Rob Smoke, Aaron Stone and Mark Wallach.
Read all the responses as they’re published here. Check out the BRL Election Guide here.
Since 2022, the Boulder City Council has approved a series of ordinances aimed at boosting the city’s housing supply. It has loosened rules to make it easier to build accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, duplexes and triplexes in neighborhoods where they were once banned. It also eliminated minimum parking requirements, which can drive up construction costs, and repealed limits on how many unrelated people can live together.
Most candidates running for city council said the next council should go further. Their ideas include changing the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan to allow denser housing, particularly near bus stops; streamlining permitting to speed up construction; and asking voters to approve a vacancy tax on empty homes to discourage people from letting their homes sit empty.
Some candidates are skeptical of simply adding more housing. They argue demand will remain high regardless and that Boulder already has too many expensive homes. One suggested capping new development altogether.
A more common stance is that Boulder needs more housing affordable to middle-income families. Ideas include revising the city’s Inclusionary Housing policy to encourage more middle-income units. Because land costs are a major obstacle, candidates suggested land banking, land leasing and investing in community land trusts to lower the price of land. One also supports building on city-owned property, such as the Boulder Municipal Airport.
Question: Boulder needs thousands of new homes by 2032 to meet demand and keep rents and home prices from rising further out of reach. Yet projects often face cost overruns, community pushback or zoning hurdles. What specific steps would you take to address the city’s housing shortage?
Matt Benjamin
Boulder must take bold but practical steps to address our housing shortage if we want to remain an inclusive and vibrant community.
First, I will continue the work of this council to streamline and modernize our planning and permitting process. Every month of delay adds costs that get passed on to renters and buyers. Simplifying reviews, reducing redundancies, and setting clear timelines will make housing more attainable without compromising community values.
Second, we must reform our land use code to allow more diverse housing types, ADUs, duplexes, townhomes, and cottage courts, especially near transit corridors. These “missing middle” homes provide attainable options for families and workers currently priced out of Boulder. I am proud to help lead Council in this direction with the update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Finally, I support revising our Inclusionary Housing ordinance so it better incentivizes middle-income housing. Paired with state tools like the Middle-Income Housing Tax Credit, this can finally produce housing for working families, teachers, nurses, and first responders.
We need to act with urgency, cutting red tape and aligning incentives so Boulder can build the homes we need, while protecting affordability, equity, and resilience.
Max Lord
I think we are going to need to accept the fact that Boulder is changing. The whole world is getting a little more crowded, and we can’t simply pull the ladder up behind us if we have lived here longer. That means changing land-use policy to allow more housing at the peripheries of the city, apartment complexes within, and duplexes and triplexes in some of our tough-to-build-in neighborhoods. We need to keep a tight eye on contractors who are hired by the city (once again, this is a good insight I think I would bring to the council) so we aren’t wasting money on city projects, and also confirm that they follow the guidelines we require for equitable housing. This only begins to address housing supply though, and we need to help renters with the existing housing by creating greater protections.
Rachel Rose Isaacson
Boulder’s housing shortage is one of the most urgent issues we face, and meeting the thousands of new homes needed by 2032 requires both decisive action and thoughtful collaboration. First, we must streamline approval processes for projects that meet our community’s affordability and sustainability goals. Delays and cost overruns not only discourage builders but also make housing more expensive. By improving efficiency while maintaining accountability, we can lower costs and get homes built faster.
Second, Boulder’s zoning needs to evolve. Allowing more diverse housing types, such as townhouses, triplexes, and accessory dwelling units, particularly along transit corridors and in walkable neighborhoods, can help us expand housing options while reducing sprawl and advancing our climate commitments.
Third, we need stronger affordability strategies. This includes expanding land banking, investing in community land trusts, and creating public-private-philanthropic partnerships to ensure new homes remain accessible for generations. Pairing these strategies with incentives for nonprofit and mission-driven developers can keep affordability at the center of our efforts.
Finally, community-oriented strategies are key. In my neighborhood near North Boulder Park, residents, housing activists, and developers worked together to integrate mixed housing types. The result is a vibrant, intergenerational community that shows how gentle, community-driven density can strengthen neighborhoods and support our local economy.
Montserrat Palacios Rodarte
First, we have to be realistic that there is always going to be a shortage of housing in a city like Boulder as it has national and international demand. We must have clear priorities and then legislate around them. As an example, we should avoid sprawl, we must protect our green-belt and maintain strict regulations on height restrictions because we all want to enjoy and be energized by the foothills. We can and should increase density (smartly) by allowing projects that provide much needed homes for families and middle-income service personnel (teachers, health care, city workers, professors, etc.). We have a fair amount of homes in large lots, if the city does not allow duplexes, triplexes or more-than-one single-family-home per lot, investors will continue to build ultra-luxury extra-large-homes to be able to recoup their investment. A community of smaller homes, like ‘Holiday’ in North Boulder, can host more families in the same area, which leads to higher school enrollment and a significant boost to the local economy (restaurants, stores, after-school classes, churches, charities, retail, etc).
Rob Kaplan
Yes, I support the goal of 1,000 permanently affordable middle-income units by 2030, but with only 150 expected to be completed, we must be realistic where we stand. The target was well-intentioned, but it didn’t fully account for today’s escalating costs of land, construction materials, and labor that we’re facing today. To make meaningful progress, we need to reassess and focus on policies that will actually result in more housing built rather than setting goals that sound good but aren’t grounded in reality. That said, we can’t afford to give up, we need innovative, practical strategies to close the gap.
First, increase supply through smart zoning by allowing targeted density along transit corridors and near employment centers.
Second, leverage innovative financing tools like land-lease models, down payment assistance, and Private Public Partnerships.
Third, cut red tape by streamlining our permitting process to reduce costs and timelines. At the same time, we must build flexibility into our policies so when innovation or a unique opportunity presents itself, the city can move quickly.
Finally, we must acknowledge reality: even with aggressive housing efforts, many workers will continue commuting into Boulder by expanding Park-and-Ride facilities, partnering with local businesses to operate van shuttles, and improving regional bus services.
Mark Wallach
I believe the premise of the question is not entirely correct. More than 90% of the housing Boulder currently produces is market rate stacked flat rental apartments. There is no shortage at the high end; the shortage exists for middle-income housing (a mere 800 units, or less than 2% of our entire housing stock) and affordable housing (Boulder Housing Partners has 2,070 units in its portfolio and growing, but the need is greater).
Affordable housing takes advantage of federal tax subsidies; middle-income housing has no such subsidies, which is why we have produced only 45 for-sale, deed-restricted middle-income units in the past 10 years. These shortages will not be cured by zoning changes, streamlining regulations, or eliminating community participation in the approval process.
With 60,000 in-commuters, and a unique and beautiful community, it is highly unlikely that we can build our way out of these problems; demand is virtually limitless. Littering our community with a vast number of expensive, market-rate rental buildings will not serve any of our community goals, or address the problem of too many people chasing too few units. It has gotten so bad that our 2016 goal of creating 15% affordable and middle-income units is now referred to by staff as relating only to the creation of affordable housing. And the term “missing middle” has been defined to relate only to housing typology, with no reference to the price of those housing units. Middle-income housing is nowhere to be found in the concept of the “missing middle.”
However, we are not without recourse. As anyone who has followed my prior campaigns would know, I have been a consistent advocate for repurposing the municipal airport to create the middle-income and family housing that the market cannot create due to the high cost of land.
Aaron Stone
I disagree with the premise of the question. If Boulder constructs thousands of new homes it will no longer be Boulder. We might as well change our name to San Jose. In the discussion of affordable housing the question I haven’t seen anyone on city council ask is, “How many people do we want to live in Boulder?” Currently we have a little over 100,000. Do we want 150,000, 200,000, more? I think we need to face that question head on before we continue what we’re currently doing: building housing willy nilly, wherever a developer can find a building or two to demolish. In all my time in Boulder I’ve never seen such intense development. And let’s face it, the demand for housing will never abate until Boulder is so built out, dense, heavily trafficked, and ugly that no new people want to move here. I’d like to cap development to a fixed number of housing units before we allow the revolution of newcomers to determine what that number is, because then it’s too late. We need to be smart about how we develop. What I propose is a radical reprioritization. Let’s increase the percentage of affordable units developers have to build.
Jenny Robins
Boulder has done a good job supporting affordable housing, and we have no shortage of high-end, market-rate homes, but what’s missing is the middle. Our middle income earners often can’t find housing here, even though they’re the backbone of our community. We need to make it easier and more attractive for developers and builders to create homes that middle earners actually want to live in. That means streamlining the process and providing the right incentives so that “missing middle” housing duplexes, townhomes, smaller condos can actually get built in Boulder. I would explore the option of reducing impact fees for developers that want to build for this population. Part of the solution also means looking ahead and exploring the Area III Planning Reserve in a thoughtful, deliberate way. If we plan carefully, we could use that land to create truly livable, mixed-income neighborhoods that include middle-income housing and the services that support it. We need to approach it with balance and intention, so we’re building for the community.
Nicole Speer
Boulder’s housing challenges don’t exist in isolation and neither do the solutions. Through my work with the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), I helped advance the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, which found that most homes needed by 2032 will be for low- and middle-income households. New construction alone will not meet that demand. DRCOG is now working to develop the Denver Metro region’s first Regional Housing Strategy to identify solutions to these shortages.
Locally, we’ve made progress expanding occupancy limits, eliminating parking minimums, and reforming zoning to allow more diverse housing types. Additional efforts have focused on simplifying permitting, reducing unpredictability, and supporting small-scale infill near transit and services to expand options. These strategies slow the increase in housing costs.
Affordability is about more than housing. That’s why I’ve worked to support and expand childcare access, fare-free transit, and climate-adapted infrastructure, especially for middle-income families who often do not qualify for assistance. Scaling up subsidies and shared equity tools, such as rental assistance, down payment support, and community land trusts, is also essential.
Our housing shortage is a regional challenge requiring comprehensive policies that reflect the complexity of affordability and ensure Boulder remains accessible to residents across income levels.
Rob Smoke
I grew up in one of tens of thousands of apartments built by legislation supporting co-operative low- to middle-income housing. The legislation, passed in 1955, created a very clear formula for collaboration between governmental agencies and NGOs interested in creating affordable housing. I would like to see the city generate at least one pilot project to gain an understanding of the “equity framework” and whether or not the program can be expanded.
Lauren Folkerts
Boulder needs to take bold but practical steps to address our housing shortage. I would focus on three priorities:
1. Update our comprehensive plan. We must allow more flexibility in land use, particularly around housing density. That means making it easier to build duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and cottage courts in more places so we create a wider variety of housing choices.
2. Streamline process and reduce fees. We’ve already made progress reducing red tape, but we need to go further. A clearer, more predictable process lowers costs, speeds up construction, and helps small-scale and affordable housing projects succeed, especially when we reduce fees for projects that deliver on our affordability goals.
3. Ensure homes are used as homes. A vacancy tax would discourage leaving units empty or using them only as investments, while generating revenue for affordable housing.
By combining more flexible planning, streamlined rules, and stronger accountability, we can add the thousands of homes Boulder needs while ensuring that Boulder remains not just beautiful, but vibrant and welcoming.
Update: Some of these responses have been edited for brevity.
No one here has talked about the actual projections for Boulder over the next decade. As with most of the US, Boulder will largely be aging in place. Fewer children will be born and our population’s median age will continue to increase.
There will be some population increase over the next decade (maybe 6-10%) but we will need more units than that as household sizes continue to shrink; same number of people need more units.
With that as the macro trend it suggests that we need more, smaller, more dense and more connected/walkable units for single people who will mostly be retired. Some of that has been mentioned in these replies but I think the rationale for that is important to recognize so that the right units are built in the right places.
We are not, as a few of these candidates suggest, going to see a massive increase in population. And maybe the priority shouldn’t be to focus as heavily on income being the highest priority for future planning. Enabling ‘property rich’ people to downsize comfortably, supported by the appropriate services located within walking distance, freeing up larger properties for families to move/expand into.
Those are the demographic changes we are seeing and the type of demand we know we will need to respond to with our land use and planning. And yet not one of these candidates mentioned it. They all fell back on what has driven our population growth in the past.
Income does need to be a priority when looking at housing policy. Why should wealthy retirees wanting to downsize out of their mcmansions be the focus of housing policy? I’m not surprised no one mentioned it. Those folks are beyond lucky to have that major housing asset and could sell it for a small fortune, or just stay put in their big beautiful house. Since they likely paid off their home long ago, or have a relatively low mortgage payment, property taxes shouldn’t be difficult to manage for them. Small price to pay many would say. When middle and lower income residents are struggling to find an affordable place to buy or tent, the plight of the ‘property rich’ sounds really insignificant by comparison. (And I speak as an old person.) Boulder seems to have focused on maintaining the comfort of wealthy boomers for way too long. At this rate, we will be nothing more than an enormous retirement community kept afloat by the emerging high tech entrepreneur culture. Where’s everyone else supposed to go?
The data tells a slightly different story. Seniors in Colorado (65+) have a median income well below the 25-44 and 45-64 groups. Yes, they may have a big house but, in general, they are not flush with cash.
And yes I agree with you that they could sell their house. But that is the point I am trying to make. Many would like to move within Boulder but there are not the types of houses that they want/need. And unless we spend time including that in the planning we are in danger of enabling the wrong eyes of units in the wrong places without the necessary other services nearby.
Of course affordability is a problem. And although I do not ever see that being ‘solved’ because the town cannot physically expand its boundaries, I do think that is also something planners and councilors should keep on the priority list.
But, my point remains. The demographic changes mean we need plans that are different to those necessary over the last 25 years. And unless we recognize that we will actually end up with all the ‘big beautiful houses’ owned by single pensioners that would rather move somewhere else in their home town, and still not have made any progress on enabling families to move here and thrive here.
Mark, the main problem I see with your analysis is that when those property rich seniors sell their large homes, they will naturally not be affordable for anyone else to purchase. No middle class families can afford multi-million dollar homes. So, those homes will be snapped up by investors paying cash and intending to rent them out to wealthy people moving here from more expensive locales, or those wealthy people from across the country will buy them themselves. Meanwhile, you would have those local seniors who sell their expensive homes trying to move into smaller less expensive homes — the few more “affordable” homes that should be for the middle income families that we need to be able to keep and attract if we are to be a viable community long term. We simply can’t survive as a community if all the house rich seniors displace middle income and low income residents who work and live here because they want to have that nice next egg from selling their large home and moving into an “affordable” small home.
The over-arching take-away here is how the housing conversation has totally shifted! NIMBYism was the winning policy here for 20 years, and now the question posed already presumes an answer: “What specific steps you would take to address the city’s housing shortage?” It’s not “if” it’s “how”? Only two candidates pushed back on the new starting point that we do need more places for people to live.
Great! Gov Polis has been terrific, going over the top of local restrictionists statewide, and I’m very pleased Boulder has finally become progressive, actually walking it’s talk.
Regarding proposals, my personal view is simply throwing out the crazy restrictions that were put in place 60 years ago, that were specifically intended to keep some people out and to support the car culture, would go a long way to ease us toward normalcy. I’m shy of the all-to-common (here) solution of more taxes going toward subsidies, because that feeds more money into the market thus actually increasing prices.
We can’t exactly plan what Boulder will look like – even though we always attempt it – so just relaxing some regulations (parking requirements are ridiculous) along with our attitudes will be helpful.
In spite of their claims, none of the current CC members – including those running for reelection – have lifted a finger to make the permitting and approval processes ‘streamlined’. In fact, they’ve made it more difficult and expensive via the latest energy codes, which add layers of new mandates and expenses to build, add, or remodel. Permit reviews are more cumbersome, not less, with up to 9 reviewers having a go at plans for a house, for example, prior to approval. (This is how byzantine our codes are – 9 professional staffers are needed to sort it out for approval). And fees and taxes have increased – in fact the current CC and some of these candidates are about to vote on a tax on remodels and additions – as low as 500sf – with a fee to fund the city’s housing arm on the backs of middle income residents. Something to consider when voting, if you believe in the value of affordable housing.
“Affordable” housing in Boulder is a pipe dream given decisions made by the citizens of this community for the last 60 years. The bottom line is that those of us who have lived here for many years accept the fact and that it’s expensive and exclusive. We enjoy our neighborhoods and are not interested in high density options or turning ball fields and airports facilities into housing projects. Sorry but this is a reality. Moreover, not everyone who commutes into Boulder wants to live here given the fact that their dollars buys less here than elsewhere. Why don’t we recognize this fact and work on improving the transportation issues within and outside the community. Why do we put up with the existing RTD strategy which has never delivered on promised services. I think the City council should be focused on three things – infrastructure (how bad are the streets and intersections today), safety (crime and homelessness is out of hand), and fire mitigation (far more serious that potential flooding).
Thanks to Mark Wallach for finally calling BS on the constant mantra of city council about how to manage the affordable housing crisis: “Affordable housing takes advantage of federal tax subsidies; middle-income housing has no such subsidies, which is why we have produced only 45 for-sale, deed-restricted middle-income units in the past 10 years. THESE SHORTAGES WILL NOT BE CURED BY ZONING CHANGES, STREAMLINING REGULATIONS, OR ELIMINATING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS.”
Unfortunately, that’s the end of the wisdom he has to offer here. Focusing on Area III or the airport is decades in the future at best. What we need now is innovative equity models that have been proven to work. As Rob Smoke says, lets at least do a pilot project. That is unlikely to every happen in Boulder, though. With a city council that is so completely deferential to staff processes and preferences, no one on council is seriously suggesting anything different than what we have already done for years. Even if someone is bold enough to try to push for innovation, the pragmatic incrementalists on council (in lock step with staff) who are intent on avoiding any meaningful change will ensure nothing new ever happens. Half-hearted lip service is not advocating for real change, folks. What have you strongly advocated for during your time on council?
So, when all is said and done, we will just have more of the same. It’s impossible to push against the juggernaut of the city bureaucracy and this council doesn’t even try. They are content with the minor changes they have made and will make in the future.