By JAN BURTON | [email protected] | For the Camera
 | UPDATED: 

As a contribution to constructive political discourse, I’d like to propose an alternative point-of-view to the recent column by Opinion Page Editor Julie Marshall regarding criticism of PLAN-Boulder County. (“Is development the best path toward diversity? I don’t think so.” Feb. 13)

I fully agree that PLAN-Boulder County has accomplished great things. Through its advocacy in the 1960s for green space surrounding Boulder, the city and its residents agreed to tax themselves to acquire their surrounding open space. Further protecting our cherished mountain views, PLAN-Boulder’s leadership developed the Blue Line policy that prevented building structures above a certain line.

While PLAN-Boulder should be applauded for their leadership in open space preservation, they have had many collaborators along the way. They include recreational enthusiasts, housing advocates, alternative transportation promoters, business leaders, unaffiliated residents, and even developers. It’s disappointing then that, in praising PLAN-Boulder, the Camera’s opinion editor takes the opportunity for a swipe at those very collaborators with this line: “PLAN-Boulder County has somehow become public enemy No. 1 for a developer-backed coalition of new and engaged citizens that wants to build more housing and add more density in the name of diversity.”

Here’s a different perspective: Over the past 30 years, PLAN-Boulder County and their elected City Council representatives doubled-down on anti-growth measures with the Danish Plan (limiting the annual growth in housing units), height limits, occupancy limits, and restrictive zoning. Over time, PLAN-Boulder County- backed councils further lowered building height limits from 55 feet to 35 feet and added costly development fees.

The City of Boulder’s own Racial Equity Plan explicitly ties such anti-growth measures, along with other development constraints, to the high cost of housing in Boulder. The result is an economic barrier to attainable housing that directly undermines our social equity and inclusion goals.

In November, 2021, the City of Boulder hosted a Housing Equity Forum, which covered the history of race, class, and housing in Boulder. Introduced by Congressman Joe Neguse, it featured presentations from city officials and a panel of local and national experts. The Forum helped raise awareness and understanding of Boulder’s history related to race and class, while also commencing a community dialogue regarding specific actions we can take to address longstanding inequities. (I highly recommend watching the recording of this forum).

While the City of Boulder is taking steps to expose the impacts of its development policies on social equity and diversity, it is unfortunate that PLAN-Boulder County continues to advocate for policies that perpetuate exclusion.

If it’s the environment you’re concerned about, then it’s also fair to turn a critical eye to those same PLAN-Boulder County anti-growth policies. Our Earth is burning up and climate-heating greenhouse gases are to blame. While paying lip-service to the problem or advocating for far-fetched green energy plans that wasted millions of dollars and valuable time, PLAN-Boulder County majority councils failed to accept the opportunity most in their control — thoughtful infill development.

It also was PLAN-Boulder County-backed City Council candidates who disregarded a study by the respected environmental groups CoPIRG and SWEEP, “Growing Greener: The Environmental Benefits of a Compact and Connected Boulder.” The report found that “Boulder’s positive contributions to the environment are undermined by housing policies that contribute to regional sprawl and increase global warming pollution.”

In recent years, groups of Boulder voters, including younger voters, have formed to advocate for pro-housing and social equity policies. They have been joined by the very same coalition of recreational enthusiasts, housing advocates, alternative transportation promoters, business leaders, unaffiliated residents, and even the developers that are targeted in Marshall’s column. Fortunately, through the strength of this broad-based Coalition, of which I was a part, the two most recent City Council elections resulted in the election of councilmembers who have more pro-housing, pro-environment and pro-equity policy objectives.

It’s no surprise that organizations and individuals who have long espoused anti-development and anti-change policies, are feeling anxious. Our new City Council majority is pursuing broadly sweeping priorities for housing, land use, and transportation which have the potential to make a real dent in addressing social equity and climate protection goals. And as indicated in a survey I helped to commission, the broader community supports these policies.

Maybe, rather than worshipping an organization for their achievements 60 years ago, we should be applauding a broad-based coalition for helping us realize our shared values!

Jan Burton is a former Boulder City Council member and a current board member for Open Boulder and Better Boulder. Email: [email protected].