Drastic Ballot Box Zoning Measure Under Consideration in Boulder

Kriston Capps reports on a looming vote in Boulder, which he describes in no uncertain terms as "mega-NIMBYism at work."

In effect, the proposed charter amendment, before voters as issue #300, would give the power to change and enforce land use regulations to neighborhood-scale votes. Here's how Capps summarizes the current development approval process compared to the ballot box zoning program that would be enacted by the ordinance:

"At present, when the city council approves a zoning change, it triggers a 30-day cooling-off period during which voters can take action. If 10 percent of Boulder’s voting population sign a petition against a zoning change, then the council is required to reconsider it. The ordinance can be put up for a direct referendum. Through its elected representatives and oversight process, the city decides zoning changes for itself.

But if the proposed charter amendment passes, then the locus of the action will shift from the city to the neighborhood. The amendment serves to define 66 residential neighborhoods and invest them with petition authority. So when the council passes a zoning change that affects Chautauqua, it will only require 10 percent of the voters living in Chautauqua to successfully move a petition. And when a petition is successful and if the ordinance is put up for a vote, only voters living in Chautauqua may weigh in on the measure."

Capps also notes that another, complementary measure up for consideration in November—ballot issue #301. Development Shall Pay Its Own Way, as #301 it is also called, "would require the city to reject any new development that does not 'fully pay for or otherwise provide additional facilities and services to fully offset the additional burdens imposed by the new development.'"

Capps devotes much of the remainder of the article's word count to lambasting the consequences should voters approve the two measures. In effect, according to Capps, the city would be voting to approve a large dome to be placed over the city.

For some local commentary on the vote, Jessica Yates, a local attorney, penned an op-ed questions whether the laws would be considered constitutional under state law.