So the growth issue is being debated within the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) and today's Camera describes four counties — Arapahoe, Douglas, Jefferson and Adams — are pushing to expand the growth boundary.
In Boulder County the various Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) currently in place limit the growth boundaries and annexation efforts of neighboring communities. This allows each community to drop the worry about losing an annexation battle and instead they can focus on who they can attract and incent to develop within their boundaries. They can put some sort of scope onto their Comprehensive Plans and argue ofer the final design they want their town to look like.
The most interesting thing about the IGAs is the way they springboard your brain into the not-so-distant future to imagine each community at build-out. Between now and then, each community needs to shore up long-term financing options for town services. That's why absolutist anti-growth sentiments are flawed. A well funded open space program, for example, needs funding sources. I don't think DRCOG can legally deny any county's expansion of self-imposed boundaries, and for readers of this blog, know that Weld County isn't a member of DRCOG - they have their own agendas out east of EastBoCo.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is THE source for insight, opinions and all kinds of information on the growth and political issues impacting Eastern Boulder County, Colorado. Come here to see the latest from those in the know in Louisville, Lafayette, Superior, Erie and Longmont.
NOTE: This Blog will no longer be updated as of December 4, 2007.
Lijit Search of this Blog
Local News Sources:
Visitors since 1/10/07:
Links to Other Items of Interest
Subscribe To EastBoCo in Your Reader
Favorite Blogs and Websites
Labels
- Lafayette (116)
- Boulder County (89)
- Louisville (65)
- Longmont (57)
- Erie (47)
- Superior (32)
- updates (30)
- WalMart (13)
- 2C (7)
- BVSD (6)
- Colorado (5)
- national issues (5)
- 2B (3)
- Broomfield (3)
- Weld County (3)
- election (3)
- 2A (2)
- 3A (2)
- St Vrain Valley School District (2)
- Beauprez (1)
- Centaurus High School (1)
- Coroner (1)
- Daveco (1)
- FasTracks (1)
- Frederick (1)
- Larkridge (1)
- Niwot (1)
- November 2007 election (1)
- RTD (1)
- health care (1)
- internet (1)
- random news (1)
6 comments:
I suspect that if one would actually examine the long term debt situation of these cities, you would find they have already committed to long term debt to finance current projects. So the question becomes whether future revenues will be needed to support the current debt structure and then also support critical city services.
Broomfield is stuck with their money losing arena. Lafayette committed to a bond issue back in 1990 has been paying the price now. That's one of the reasons the council is being asked to do the same for road repaving now.
(The city city update contain a notice to voters about the road repair bond. However, the council has yet to see the actual ballot language. Also the city admin has yet to produce a budget that supports the repayment plan.)
Cart before the horse. Again.
Any wonder why cities want to push growth. Otherwise the debt service turns into a boat anchor.
Ah, growth, the neverending story. Funny, I never hear growth restrictions discussed in places where people are begging for jobs. And, didn't hear much about it here until the newcomers outnumbered the natives.
Uncontrolled growth is not good, don't get me wrong. But, each jurisdiction has so many controls and restrictions in place now, uncontrolled growth doesn't happen much along the Front Range.
Some would argue Weld County is an example of uncontrolled growth. But, that's from a Boulder County perspective. Weld County and it's towns are OK with their growth plans.
Every time Boulder County land is taken out of the free market and turned into Open Space we feed the growth in Weld.
Growth occurs when 1 of 2 things happen. People move here, or the people here have more than 2 kids per family (exceeding the replacement rate). If you're in either one of those groups you can't yell too loudly about growth, you're it.
The 200 square miles of available land that Toor talks about is too expensive to be used for reasonably priced homes. And, if he had his way, that land would be turned into Open Space anyway.
If we ratchet up government interference in land use, the entire Front Range will be like Boulder. The only way you'll be able to afford to live here is if you got in early, or you're a trust fund baby.
Face it, growth happens. Unless we want to stop job growth, or somehow impose limits on family size (where are your kids going to live), we're going to have growth. Controls are in place via zoning to keep it under control.
I seriously doubt finance is the reason four county governments are lobbying for a change to the DRCOG plan. The article says property rights are the reason, and it wouldn't surprise me if counties are wanting to give themselves a little more leverage in annexation debates (maybe for the benefit of specific developers who would prefer to work in unincorporated areas, maybe for other reasons).
The editor of the Rocky Mountain News today wrote his second editorial challenging the "myth of urban sprawl."
It could prompt a major topic here. This is the link to yesterday's opinion:
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/onpoint/archives/2007/07/carroll_a_new_look_at_sprawl.html
Today's:
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/onpoint/archives/2007/08/carroll_more_fables_of_sprawl.html#more
Perhaps a reason residential development has slowed in the city is that buyers don't like what is being built??
Thanks for the links.
I'd keep in mind that Vince Carroll's piece is well-crafted, but an opinion just the same. No doubt the term "sprawl" is hackneyed in many contexts, I won't disagree with that. But I would submit that the opinion piece leaves out that there is reasonable argument, not just political rhetoric, that supports land conservation, higher densities, and other practices that may very well have negative trade-offs. If one of the trade-offs is to better capture externalities, so that the price of housing reflects costs that were previously hidden or passed on to the taxpayer or taken out of environmental capital, I'm inclined to say so be it.
There's much doubt that the slow down in real estate is part of the natural cycle and the bigger economic picture. Much more so than trying to pin it on products available, there's plenty of inventory out there to suit any buyer prefrences.
Make that NOT much doubt...
Post a Comment