Thanks for clarifying.

I agree that it's still challenging for bikes going straight and drivers turning right - however, in my experience that's been true on every street in Boulder with a right-turn lane, not just right-sized ones. I'd really like to see the city pursue what's called a Dutch intersection in which the bike lane always remains to the right of the car lanes and there is a small curb in the street to force drivers to make a true 90 degree turn rather than slicing through the bike lane.

It's actually less safe to have a two-way multi-use path on one side of the street. It goes against CDOT's road design guide. It's much harder for drivers to see cyclists coming from the opposite direction than they expect when they are turning.

Then I demand to vote on every pothole that gets fixed in this town.

I won't be hiring a lawyer to interpret these initiatives, but if they pass, the city will be requiring the services of high priced lawyers arguing over their interpretation, so as a taxpayer I guess I'll be paying for it either way. Implementing 301 is going to be a lot more complicated than a divorce, so I don't think we'll be able to get through it without lawyers. Another waste of taxpayer dollars...

I agree that a diploma doesn't automatically equal expertise, but some fields are more relevant than others. A diploma in engineering gives me less confidence in one's legal expertise that a law degree, for instance.

These are all fair questions. We absolutely have to consider the stopping point. Personally, what I'd like to see is a dramatic change in the zoning which currently allows for new construction to result in a remarkable number of new jobs and almost no new housing. We already have a terrible imbalance of jobs and housing. It's time to change the zoning so that we use what land is left for development/redevelopment for housing. I will never support lifting the height restrictions. I think we have to maintain some flexibility so that Boulder-based businesses have a chance to grow and expand, but I really think that the focus for development should be housing, not jobs. I'm not asking Boulder to change its rules to accommodate me; I'm asking Boulder to change its rules to accommodate its past poor decisions (to create so many jobs relative to housing).

As for the vitriol directed toward "hipster hives": what do you care what size home other people live in? No one is trying to force you to live in one. People should have freedom of choice for what kind of home they want to live in (and who they want to live with). Some people really like the lower maintenance requirements of a condo. Some people would rather be in a smaller home closer to work than a huge home that requires a 40 minute commute. Some people want smaller homes because they require less energy to heat and cool. Some people want smaller homes because they spend every spare minute in the mountains and only sleep at home on weeknights. Small homes are not inherently a bad thing; why does your side always mock them?

I have lived in a big city (London) and I have no desire to put Boulder on such a growth path. I don't think we have to worry about Boulder becoming London, Manhattan, or even Denver. Boulder would have to add about 8,500,000 people to be the size of London. Not too worried.

Or they leverage their existing equity to purchase an investment property that they'll rent out, making homeownership that much further out of reach for younger people who didn't have the ability to buy into the Boulder real estate market in the 80's and 90's.

Oh, I'm not trying to shame you for making a wise investment at all! I'm a homeowner, too, and I considered all the same things you did when I made my investment. There is no intention to shame anyone. I don't consider being affluent or a homeowner shameful in the slightest.

House rich/cash poor = still rich. With hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity in a home, if you had a catastrophic event such as a job layoff or a major illness, you would not go bankrupt. The net worth categories I laid out include home equity. Why is it offensive to point out that someone with a home worth $500,000 is doing substantially better than the average American? I really don't get it.

"This is an attempt to ensure that Boulder becomes a retirement community for the rich."

He did not say that Boulder is already that - he is saying (accurately) that we are on a path to becoming that. At the comp plan kickoff meeting, they had some good stats on how Boulder is aging. If the population is getting older, and if property values continue to increase at the rates they have, we ARE on a path toward becoming a retirement community for the rich. Sometimes the rich retire very early, I've noticed...

As for lawyers - the reason I bring it up is because we are talking about laws - laws that will change the very charter that governs our city. If we were talking about electrical wiring or something like that, I'd want an engineer's opinion. Lawyers are the ones who are going to be fighting over how to interpret these laws in terms of development fees, in particular, so I'd like to see a lawyer's analysis of where the weaknesses and loopholes might be. I don't think engineers have much to offer in terms of predicting what the unintended consequences of laws might be.

Also, I seem to remember Steve Pomerance disagreeing vehemently with Tom Carr's interpretation of the initiatives, and was quite angry that he couldn't speak more about it at the city council meeting in which they were voting on the wording of the ballot measures. I don't know what his disagreement was, but the fact that he was so angry about whatever Tom said makes me think that while Tom Carr may not agree with Cowles', he's not exactly squarely in the 300/301 camp, either.

I don't want to live in Manhattan or Denver. I have never, ever supported lifting the height restriction. I just happen to think that those surface parking lots, strip malls, and old used car lots in east Boulder are ugly and that land would be better used with townhomes and condos. I also think that it's absurd to outlaw 6 people living in a 6 bedroom home. If that equates to "wanting to live in Manhattan", umm, I have to ask, have you been to Manhattan?

I'm already a Boulder homeowner, so I do live where I can afford to live, but thanks for the advice.

Everyone knows how much the Martin Acres homes have appreciated over the past 10-15 years. People who gain $100,000-$300,000 in equity in a decade or so, through pure appreciation, have a substantial amount of wealth.

The median net worth in the U.S. for people age 45-54 is about $84,000. Anyone with a home worth $400-500k, as most homes in Martin Acres are, who has been paying it off for 10-15 years, is massively wealthy relative to most Americans.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/05/17/...

There are worse things in the world than being accused of being affluent.