In the library district ballot measure, I note that the district’s property tax revenues have no limits on how much they can increase. And the rather opaque water deal apparently exchanges CU’s untreated, seasonal ditch rights for the city’s highly reliable year-round treated water. (To grasp how small this is, compare your own housing and workspace.) So we can reasonably expect that the on-site students, faculty and staff will fill up all the available housing and then spill over, creating more pressure on prices elsewhere. The housing to be built on CU South, other than 10% of the units, is not required to be affordable, versus the city’s required 25% permanently affordable units for all other development. Thus, measures such as floodproofing buildings and installing sewer lining and backflow preventers should be done irrespective.Ĭorrecting some other misconceptions: CU is not giving the city all of the open space land CU is selling the majority of it for $37,500 per acre. Also, remember that a significant portion of the 2013 floodwater came from the Viele Lake area to the north, and will completely bypass whatever detention pond is built. And when the next big flood occurs, as climate change ensures it will, CU’s land will likely be high and dry while the neighbors’ land may be under water. So Boulder neighbors to the north only get a “100-year” pond for protection. (By the way, I have been unable to extract from the city the details of these alleged regulations.)Īdequate land is not available because CU wants 129 acres with “500-year” protection for its own development. 36 bridge and flooding more land immediately downstream when the water starts to flow back into the creek as the creek’s flood flow drops. A shallow pond could avoid increasing the flow rate under the U.S. The statement that a “500-year” detention pond is “not feasible” is really a statement about CU’s unwillingness to provide enough land to build a proper “500-year” pond that is not too deep. Steve PomeranceFor the CameraĪ few issues emerged in the debate that I thought deserve some quick comments. The council should acknowledge having put a confusing title on the ballot and publicly clarify what the ballot measure means at their meetings. I thought that this was incredibly thoughtful of the Rotary Club. The announcer cleared up the confusion resulting from this oblique wording by explaining to the audience that a “yes” vote supported repealing the annexation itself, and not some peripheral issue. The first thing on the screen, before the debate even started, was the ballot title, “Shall Ordinance 8483, regarding the annexation of CU South, be repealed?”
The Boulder Rotary Club sponsored it at their regular meeting at the Jewish Community Commons. Last Friday, I participated in a debate with former Mayor Sam Weaver about the CU South annexation referendum ballot measure.
0 kommentar(er)
