DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by ams5280

Because no other city that size has the same political influence.

Can’t afford to build a train to Boulder with projected low ridership and a cost that could hamstring regional transit for decades? The Governor will bully your agency publicly and the Legislature will withhold state funding.

The unbuilt LRT extension to Highlands Ranch hasn’t elicited the same response. But Highlands Ranch is also not a great comparison.

I would venture to say that a good number of Boulder’s permanent residents are living illegally. You think only 3 or fewer college students can afford a 5-bedroom ranch in Martin Acres going for $4,000 a month?

Perhaps Boulder could withdraw from RTD (taking the RTD taxes it pays with it) and then transit could progress more to your liking.

Given CU's always-increasing tuition (for out-of-state students it's eyewatering), yes, 3 college students could afford $1333 each monthly rent.

[gopokes21]

I see that my favorite subject has boomeranged back here.

Here's my compromise proposal for Gov Polis and AlSmithee:

$2 billion for rail to Boulder, and $3 billion for rail specifically IN Denver city limits. Is it an even/fair deal for Denver? No, but it breaks the dam and allows for progress.

Oh and both ends of the deal are contingent upon each city maximizing TOD/density around every station area. No restrictions at least (looking mainly at Boulder). It's time to tie infrastructure to the housing crisis and actually make progress on both.

_____

Also re: your post that Boulder can take its ball and go home. That would actually be great. We can and should maintain a minimum level of regional service through RTD, but RTD absolutely should be scaled down and local transit shifted over to municipalities. If Boulder or Thornton want a local route, they should pay for it. If Denver wants something for itself, obviously it is going to have to cover that cost. Douglas County especially needs to cover the cost of its commuter and paratransit services, which are bleeding RTD dry. We're all getting screwed over the most by Douglas County, and second-most by Boulder.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

'Boulder is as dense as sprawling suburbs!' You nailed the problem better than I could.

No other city in Colorado over 100,000 is denser besides Denver.

Boulder is singled out because it causes sprawl (highlands ranch is the result, not the cause) and because 60,000 people don't drive to work in Highlands Ranch.

Highlands Ranch also doesn't offer some illusion of being a sustainable-minded, forward-thinking city. I think I might go easier on Boulder if they came out and said 'we are exclusionary elitists that are deliberately driving climate change and ozone pollution along the front range'. At least that would be honest.

CU's faculty, staff and students total roughly 40% of Boulder's population. That's a big gorilla which Boulder can't do anything about.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

Given CU's always-increasing tuition (for out-of-state students it's eyewatering), yes, 3 college students could afford $1333 each monthly rent.

Let me get this straight...because they're spending a ton of money on tuition, they must be able to spend a lot on housing too? WTF?

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by mhays

Let me get this straight...because they're spending a ton of money on tuition, they must be able to spend a lot on housing too? WTF?

https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/edu/126614/university-of-colorado-boulder/tuition

The 2021 tuition & fees of University of Colorado Boulder (CU Boulder) are $12,466 for Colorado residents and $36,668 for out-of-state students

Yes, they can afford Boulder rent.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

...It's time to tie infrastructure to the housing crisis and actually make progress on both...

Obama studied this extensively and came up with fantastic recommendations for reform mechanisms, Trump blurted what Obama studied out in his baby tantrum ways and got listed a racist for mentioning it. Maybe Biden and all the clowns can tie these infrastructure dollars to local/state zoning reform, but my guess is they can't because they won't.

It's a fantastic idea in theory, but some places just can't be swayed by federal dollars. Now, if state transportation and federal transportation ganged up on local zoning codes and withheld real dollars and people started crashing their cars as a result, we would absolutely see positive zoning reforms. Again, the people in charge won't chose that course of action. Careerists aren't disruptors, they are status quo maintainers and that's where 99% of our governmental problems exist (IMO).

We can do this, we just won't, not yet at least.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/edu/126614/university-of-colorado-boulder/tuition

The 2021 tuition & fees of University of Colorado Boulder (CU Boulder) are $12,466 for Colorado residents and $36,668 for out-of-state students

Yes, they can afford Boulder rent.

That's what I thought. It's an emotion-based idea...you assume that anyone who can do an expensive thing MUST be impossibly wealthy. It's emotional because you can't afford the same thing.

A rational understanding would be that a lot of people go way into hock for college (because costs are high and they're not actually wealthy), including and sometimes especially those out-of-state students, and high rent is a serious problem.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's what I thought. It's an emotion-based idea...you assume that anyone who can do an expensive thing MUST be impossibly wealthy. It's emotional because you can't afford the same thing.

A rational understanding would be that a lot of people go way into hock for college (because costs are high and they're not actually wealthy), including and sometimes especially those out-of-state students, and high rent is a serious problem.

CU Boulder has attracted lots of out-of-state students for decades, and the tuition reflects that. If CU can't charge astronomical tuition and fees for out-of-state students, then in-state tuition will have to go up, which is a disservice to Colorado taxpayers.

Ever-increasing tuition and enrollment has a huge impact on Boulder.

[mhays]

Did you mean to respond to my points?

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by mhays

Did you mean to respond to my points?

There are more than enough wealthy out-of-state students to push up prices for housing.

It was almost 50/50 back in 2019

https://coloradosun.com/2019/02/25/colorado-universities-out-of-state-enrollment

And that's because Colorado has dropped state funding to a dribble. The money has to come from somewhere.

[mhays]

That's quite a tangent you're on. Yes there's an influx of new temporary residents every school year, like any college town.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was enough housing that they didn't drive prices up?

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by mhays

Let me get this straight...because they're spending a ton of money on tuition, they must be able to spend a lot on housing too? WTF?

That's called Boulder logic. Don't question it, just nod and smile.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

Fair enough. That still makes Boulder about the same density as Highlands Ranch and still more dense that any other city in the metro area over 100,000. Why single out Boulder for low density when it's not really that low?

I don't obsess over density as much as my other friends here. Obviously much of Boulder's (relative) density results from CU's student population.

IMO, it's about land, the cost of land which mhays speaks to plus local "Impact fees" is what keeps housing expensive.

With Boulder it's the fact that they built a wall around the city that virtually forced new residents to live in some other part of the county.

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

Perhaps Boulder could withdraw from RTD (taking the RTD taxes it pays with it) and then transit could progress more to your liking.

Given CU's always-increasing tuition (for out-of-state students it's eyewatering), yes, 3 college students could afford $1333 each monthly rent.

When FasTracks was passed all counties that were a part of that vote are committed to the RTD tax until all the bonding is paid off. While the FasTracks tax was four-tenths percent the vote by extension applies to the whole 1% RTD tax until FasTracks bonds are paid for. That's why Parker CO has already started the process to leave RTD in like 2050.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Obama studied this extensively and came up with fantastic recommendations for reform mechanisms, Trump blurted what Obama studied out in his baby tantrum ways and got listed a racist for mentioning it. Maybe Biden and all the clowns can tie these infrastructure dollars to local/state zoning reform, but my guess is they can't because they won't.

It's a fantastic idea in theory, but some places just can't be swayed by federal dollars. Now, if state transportation and federal transportation ganged up on local zoning codes and withheld real dollars and people started crashing their cars as a result, we would absolutely see positive zoning reforms. Again, the people in charge won't chose that course of action. Careerists aren't disruptors, they are status quo maintainers and that's where 99% of our governmental problems exist (IMO).

We'll always disagree on this since IMO, let Blue states do whatever their liberal hearts desire but don't impose your silliness on Red states. Down here in the desert we have too many poor people such that it's critical to make our tax $'s go farther which they clearly do and to prevent needless red tape.

In any case there are some liberal designated $'s in the new Trillion $ infrastructure bill which should warm a few cockles. But generally the Nannyism was not wanted and not allowed. In other words to each his own. One of the better sources that points out some of your goodies is from Time

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

Boulder isn't static.

This is delusion. Boulder is as static as any place can be.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Maybe Biden and all the clowns can tie these infrastructure dollars to local/state zoning reform, but my guess is they can't because they won't.

This would also disproportionately harm blue places, and given that many localities would simply do nothing, likely result in a flow of dollars from blue places to red places (some of those blue places would also be happy to forgo the new infrastructure in the process).

I disagree this is something the feds need to address. There is nothing other than political will preventing, say, the State of California, from accomplishing the same thing, and tying infrastructure investment to zoning reform. They don't because they won't. The notion that we should, therefore, distort a national infrastructure spending bill - spending that will still largely be steered by states and MPOs - to address very localized problems is the wrong answer.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's quite a tangent you're on. Yes there's an influx of new temporary residents every school year, like any college town.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was enough housing that they didn't drive prices up?

Boulder has no existence other than as supplier of housing for CU’s ever-increasing ever-more-out-of-state enrollment?

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This is delusion. Boulder is as static as any place can be.

Now I know you’re not a serious person.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I don't obsess over density as much as my other friends here. Obviously much of Boulder's (relative) density results from CU's student population.

IMO, it's about land, the cost of land which mhays speaks to plus local "Impact fees" is what keeps housing expensive.

With Boulder it's the fact that they built a wall around the city that virtually forced new residents to live in some other part of the county.

Boulder’s population increased about 10% between 2010 and 2020. This “wall” isn’t very effective. Perhaps it’s not quite a “wall”.

When FasTracks was passed all counties that were a part of that vote are committed to the RTD tax until all the bonding is paid off. While the FasTracks tax was four-tenths percent the vote by extension applies to the whole 1% RTD tax until FasTracks bonds are paid for. That's why Parker CO has already started the process to leave RTD in like 2050.

So, Boulder’s role in metro transit is to supply the revenue and get nothing in return. And don’t complain.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Also re: your post that Boulder can take its ball and go home. That would actually be great. We can and should maintain a minimum level of regional service through RTD, but RTD absolutely should be scaled down and local transit shifted over to municipalities. If Boulder or Thornton want a local route, they should pay for it. If Denver wants something for itself, obviously it is going to have to cover that cost. Douglas County especially needs to cover the cost of its commuter and paratransit services, which are bleeding RTD dry. We're all getting screwed over the most by Douglas County, and second-most by Boulder.

Who knew that rockribbed red DougCo would be more of a problem than true blue Boulder?

At least DougCo is getting something. From what I can tell around here, Boulder’s sole job is to provide revenue for RTD, but otherwise, shush.