Google "land assembly". Yes on 300 and 301. Sparn likes the Academy on the Hill. I STILL don't. Elite housing. Don't want it in my neighborhood either, where there are works for a twin "Academy" at the Mapleton Rehabilitation Hospital site. Such an abomination at this historic site!
Matt Appelbaum is a little confused.
"The answers lie in genuinely analyzing and understanding the impacts of our community decisions and honestly creating solutions to the problems. Real answers to real problems. That is how we do things in Boulder."
This is why we are FOR 300 and 301!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess he got that mixed up.

Uber.

I disagree Steve. If only my father knew of your stand on muni, he would be so upset! I will do everything I can to progress towards carbon stabilization and offloading archaic investor owned utilities. Join the '2000's and the path to secure low cost long term energy solutions. Or be left in the dust.

Yeah John, answer Hawk.

Sales tax is a regressive tax that hurts lower income people more than upper income ones.

:)

Small Appliance Repair
Boulder Projector 303-449-6230 2003 Arapahoe 9A-1P Tue. thru Fri.
Don't know if they still exist!
Lynn Segal 303-447-3216

"And we realize it gives Xcel Energy, the utility trying to stop the muni, a tactical advantage because it can discuss everything in secret. But the fact is: It always had the tactical advantage, including the funds to fight Boulder".

So is Erica's (or "we" the editorial board's) logical conclusion that Boulder shouldn't compensate for Xcel's tactical advantage by taking back some of their own?

I don't understand, are you saying I was not intellectually honest? And what about?

Will Toor: ""I don't think it will dial back on the redevelopment that is coming, but it will make it better development that will do more to address the needs of lower- and middle-income people".

Yes I agree with Will that redevelopment will address the needs of lower and middle income people but it will also create many more low income jobs to service those new people. That will result in a greater proportion of lower income service workers, and consequent demand for housing for them. The more you play catch-up to the job projections in Boulder by providing housing for them, the more you have to create more housing for the attendant service industry jobs resulting from the demand from the people in the housing. You also have to determine ways to incentivize service workers to come here only to work, then go back to their communities. Likewise you have to incentivize those commuting to Denver to live in this dense transit development and I doubt they are going to want to give up the low density spaces in which they reside. It's like expecting the police to live in the community in which they work but housing costs are so high that the lower level officers can't afford to live there. Basically you would have to have some way of increasing the pay of service workers, because it doesn't appear to be as hard as lowering the expense of housing. The expense of the lowest cost housing is still probably 70% of a service workers income. Add to that that Boulder is so desirable that wages are lower here.
My question to Will is-- what constitutes "better" development in your eyes? This ultimately speaks to what the Boulder population should be fixed at, as well as how dense that should be-- how much square footage of space should each person take up? This is related to income disparity because unless you can force someone of high income to use less space, you can't maximize density. The newer population's living spaces, the dense housing, provides smaller and smaller square footages/person. There comes a limit on how small (and how many stories high) but not so on the higher income square footages/person, which seems to grow and grow. By providing more lower and middle income housing and generating low paying service jobs that go with it you are perpetuating the very problem you are trying to solve.