Boulder Speaks Out - The Survey Against

Boulder Speaks Out >> Annexation by Vote >> The Survey Against

The following notes were taken during an interview on August 18, 2006. Interviews were being conducted on August 18, 19 and possibly other days. These notes are not verbatim, but are close to what was asked.

In our editorial comments on the questions, shown clearly in [bracketed green text], Boulder Speaks Out provides an analysis of the accuracy of some of the survey questions.

The Survey

Do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or independent?
What is the most important issue facing Boulder?
What is your level of confidence in the City Council?
Specifically related to growth and development, what is the effectiveness of the City Council and Boulder government?
Again regarding growth and development, how often does the Council make the right decision?
Which statement do you agree with more?

"Boulder is big enough; do everything to stop growth both inside and at the edges"
"Manage growth, allow some more, have a balanced approach between the environment and the economy." [This is somewhat of a “push” question, using the word “balanced” against “stop growth”.]

Which statement do you agree with more?
"With respect to growth and development, citizens should be able to vote on growth and development; don’t trust City Council, it favors special interests"
"Land development is best left to the Council and the professional planning staff who have the training and access to information and can hold public hearings." [This is also a “push” question. The crucial questions are ones of values, not ones of technical detail. The information is available to all citizens, and the planning staff has no monopoly on skills.]
What is your opinion about the following public persons?

Crystal Gray
Will Toor
Mark Ruzzin
Shaun McGrath
Leslie Durgin
Richard Polk
Chamber of Commerce
Jack Stoakes
Bob Greenlee
Lisa Morzel
Boulder Tomorrow
Robin Bohannan
Andy Schultheiss
Tom Eldridge
PLAN Boulder
Steve Pomerance
CU
Gordon Riggle
Naropa Institute

How familiar are you with the Annexation by Vote Initiative?
What is your overall impression of this initiative?
Would this be a reason to support or oppose the Initiative?

Six members of the current council, including the current mayor, 2 former mayors, and a current county commissioner and former mayor are opposed. [This question may be out of the order in which it was actually asked.]

Annexation by vote would require any annexation over 5 acres to go to a vote. Do you support it? [This question is factually inaccurate as there are many exceptions in the Initiative to the requirement that an annexation must go to the ballot. In fact, many annexations of parcels larger than 5 acres will not go to a vote, but the biggest ones will require a vote.]
Here are some statements about Annexation By Vote. Irrespective of your opinion about ABV, how strong is each of these arguments against it?

This issue is really about stopping development on 3 parcels: Hogan-Pancost, CU and Palmos. [This statement fails to reflect that, for example, the whole 493 acres of the Planning Reserve, which is north of Jay Road and east of US 36, can be annexed and developed and thus is of much more significance than the 23 acre part that Palmos owns. Although the City currently owns about 190 acres of this as a park site, the Council could try to sell that off to a private entity for more development.]
Additional affordable housing would be lost. [This is true only if the City persists in putting affordable housing where there no transit or services are available, as a recent Council did with the 2004 annexations out on Jay Road and 47th Street and on Kalmia east of 28th Street. Given the amount of housing development already being proposed within the City limits, it is also unnecessary.]
It’s a solution in search of a problem; it’s not needed. [This statement is contradicted by the 2004 decision to annex properties on Jay and Kalmia. This was the only annexation in the last five years where there were any real choices to be made. These properties were annexed at medium density, allowing for multi unit housing, where there is no transit and no services. And, in fact, this was done by a previous City Council over the objections of former County Commissioners. There are also numerous examples of recent bad land use decisions by the Council other than annexations, including the 2004 purchase of the Pollard property, which was bought for 50% over market, with no place to put the train platform, and with a $3,000,000 incentive for Pollard to stay on the site for at least 10 more years.]
It’s not necessary; annexations have to go through the Planning Board, County Commissioners, County Planning Commission and City Council. [The statement is factually inaccurate.
“Four body review”, as such an approval process is called, is not required for annexations such as CU South/Flatirons and Hogan Pancost.
However, it is currently required under the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan to move land into the Service Area, where annexations may be considered, and thus would be required prior to consideration of annexations from the Planning Reserve, including Palmos. But since in May, 2006, the Council decided to ignore the requirements for service area expansions occurring only every 5 years and the Commissioners thus far have been unwilling to hold the Council accountable, it’s likely that other aspects of the BVCP, such as 4 body review, will be ignored in the future, or become irrelevant if the Commissioners simply approve whatever the Council wants.
It’s also important to point out that there is no requirement that the City Council annex and zone property in a manner consistent with the land use designation that it was given under the 4-body review.]
It’s about politics; former leaders are out of power and are offended by the actions of the current Council. [This statement is misleading. The issue is about letting the citizens decide whether they are for the type of development proposed, whether they support paying the additional costs for the necessary additional infrastructure or accept the inevitable degradation of current services and associated impacts, and whether they are willing to lose additional rural land to development. We ask citizens on other taxes if they approve; why not let them say yes or no to annexations, which can have the effect of an implicit tax?]
Representative government is better; if you don’t like what happens, elect new leaders. [In fact, direct democracy is the reason why Boulder is as great as it is. Boulder has a long history of direct citizen involvement in land use decisions. The Blue Line, the 55’ Height Limit, and the Danish Growth Management Plan were all the result of citizen initiatives, and the Open Space program resulted from citizen, not council, activism .
Annexations are irreversible, and the effects are forever, far beyond a term on City Council. Once the city limits are expanded and the Council makes a bad annexation decision on a large parcel, it’s too late to change leaders.]
It will hurt our economy. [There is no plan for business use of any of the proposed annexations that would go to a vote, at least at this point. And Boulder hardly needs more land for business – according to work done during the Jobs-Pop Project of a few years ago, the City already has space for 100,000+ more jobs within the existing city limits. With respect to Naropa Institute, a number of City planners say that it should be inside the City, not at the edge, so that services are available for the students and faculty. And if there is a business proposal that the citizens agree should be allowed on currently rural land, they will vote for it.]
Most voters don’t know much about land use; it’s a poor way to govern. [But the voters have successfully dealt with Open Space funding and purchases, and with height limits and the “blue line” as well as voted on exceptions to these. Even Bob Greenlee says, “Boulder voters are smart and intelligent people…” Daily Camera, June 4, 2006.]
The referendum process is always available; so we don’t need to vote on every annexation. [This statement is a red herring. The referendum process is so burdensome and difficult and time constrained that it is not a realistic option.]
It’s opposed by the Daily Camera and the Colorado Daily.
It’s a NIMBY issue; it’s complaining by the anti-growthers. [Annexing and developing nearly half a square mile, like CU South/Flatirons, could gridlock much of the south half of town – that’s hardly a NIMBY issue. And, if CU can get more development rights from the City on the East Campus, there’s no guarantee that they won’t sell this property to a private developer, possibly leading to even more development than CU would propose. And the Planning Reserve, at the north end of town, is even bigger at over 3/4 of a square mile; the current road infrastructure will not handle significantly more traffic, given Broadway, 19th,Folsom, and 28th Street are primarily 2-lane roads in that part of town.]

Here are some statements in support of ABV. Irrespective of your opinion about ABV, how strong is each of these arguments in support of it?

Annexations create traffic increases, require costly expansions of water and sewer systems and infrastructure, and strain services, so voters should have a say.
Boulder has a long history of voting on big issues, and Boulder voters can be trusted.
These former City Council members are leaders of the community and proponents of the environment and growth control.
The City Council wants to keep control over annexations so it can annex for a “big box”.

How would you vote on the issue if it were on the ballot today?
What is your education level?
Do you live east or west of US 36?
Do you live north or south of Arapahoe?
Do you attend religious services, if so, how frequently?
How many years have you lived in Boulder?
What is your first name, so I can show my supervisor that I really did the survey?