To put this post into context you may wish to read:
http://livablecranbrook.blogspot.com/2011/06/opening-discussion-on-land-tax.html
and resulting comments.
The example set in Boulder was actually achieved by a sales tax and indeed is public money. It was and is used to puchase and or to pay farmers to maintain the land. The result has not been without problems – the price of housing for example. There are many more examples of sites where interesting information is available around this topic (see previous articles) but this one gives the history of Boulder’s tax.
http://www.agoregon.org/page61.htm
The discussion topic here is really about the need to protect our land base in whatever ways might be appropriate. It is not about choosing between a hot breakfast program for children or an economic development tax or any self-interest group mentioned by ‘anonymous’. It is about much more. It is not about Mr. Stetski’s proposed tax for it is not 'his' although it may be his wish to see something like this tax considered as it has been in other forward looking communities.
Our very existence and everything that comes with our lives including a breakfast program for children is dependant on a healthy land base. There are countries in the world buying land in nations other than their own, just for food production. Madagascar is an example. The UK apparently determined it would need a land base five times its own size if it had to be responsible for all its own food production. At a recent Forum on this topic Richard Bullock from the Agricultural Land Commission admitted there is not enough staff to do the job for which they have been appointed. ‘Not enough staff’ is a common cry, while probably true, becomes an excuse for us, the stewards of the land, to do nothing. Do we sit back and look at this fast changing and very populated world and cling to past practises? Or do we look at alternatives and plan for a healthy future?
The decision to not rush into more development close to Wasa is refreshing and gives a ray of hope that more consideration is being given by some to these very serious issues.
http://www.dailytownsman.com/article/20110615/CRANBROOK0101/306159993/-1/CRANBROOK/wasa-development-canned
We welcome and look forward to ongoing comment.
good reporting
ReplyDeleteThis link that you refer to (http://www.agoregon.org/page61.htm) was from a book written in 1998.
ReplyDeleteThe following was posted online by a Boulder resident in 2010:
Do you remember when the most heinous crime you could commit in Boulder was taking yourself too seriously? When people were so proud of Boulder’s domestic policies that we developed foreign policies as well? Does it now seem to you that we have lost our sense of humor along with our community’s political nerve? What’s up with that?
Well, to begin with, some of the domestic policies have come back to haunt us. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) wasn’t “comprehensive” at all because it did not include Longmont, Niwot, Lafayette, Louisville, Superior and Broomfield. Folks hoped the BVCP would prevent hub and spoke development (e.g., Houston and Los Angeles), but we can now see that a 5-10 mile “De-militarized” zone wasn’t nearly wide enough.
Residential growth limits in Boulder seemed like a good idea at the time, but disgruntled developers simply turned their eyes (and their marketing budgets) eastward and Boulder County’s regional jobs/housing imbalance was off and running. Now, we have hub-and-spoke development by default without having the regional infrastructure needed to accommodate it. The result: runaway sprawl and a congested transportation system.
The only good news is that the communities around Boulder are rapidly developing their own retail, office and technology centers, so the jobs/housing mix, at least on paper, may become more balanced. However, the “brain drain” factor is troubling. As a general rule, the new jobs are out east and the old ones are closer to the mountains. The new employers creating high-quality jobs are recruiting talented mid-level managers and executives out of existing Boulder County businesses. The “raided” companies are then left fending for themselves in a labor market being stretched from Denver to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Executives can afford Boulder’s housing prices, but most other employees can’t. Everyone seems to commute one way or the other, so the transportation system may be taking another hit.
Our local and regional land use patterns probably couldn’t be more dysfunctional that they are today — the houses in one place, the stores in another, the jobs somewhere else, and your’e in the car, fighting traffic, to do almost everything. Our 50-year experiment with exclusionary (single-use) zoning has not stood the test of time, and we are now paying the price. Our quality of life is suffering, not to mention our hope for the future.
Is it any wonder people are so angry and depressed? Well, yes, it is. Look around you. Is life in Boulder County really so bad? There is work left to do, but the answers aren’t beyond our grasp.
Perhaps Boulder is not the shining example that the CLC would like it to be. The original growth management initiatives had nothing to do with riparian areas or protection of natural habitats. It was spurred by a fear of uncontrolled population growth, which according to our Growth Management Study is not likely to occur in Cranbrook. The following is an excerpt from a case study of Boulder's history of growth management strategies:
ReplyDeleteBoulder has a long history of growth management and open space preservation. These policies effectively limit the supply of land for future residential development. The ability to provide housing in Boulder is impacted by existing polices, regulations and programs, including the residential growth management system, the Open Space Program and the Comprehensive Plan. . . . There is a serious concern that Boulder’s population diversity may be at risk. We see this in statistics about the cost of home sales in Boulder as well as in the change in income ranges of the population. . . .
It is important to provide housing to Boulder’s lower and middle wage employees who are critical to the community’s functions. These include the school teachers, firemen, policemen, car mechanics, retail clerks, nurses, restaurant cooks and servers, to name just a few. In order to maintain our high quality of life, we must continue to provide all the elements critical to the functioning of a vital community as well as a diversity of citizens.
Thus, as Boulder approaches its self-imposed build-out boundaries, it confronts a series of new challenges. Employers are starting to express concerns about their ability to attract workers. Local university students, faculty members and other university employees increasingly are forced to look beyond Boulder’s borders for housing. There is a wide-spread anxiety that children growing up in Boulder may not be able to afford to live in the community when they become adults.
While Boulder has been successful in painting a ring of green around its borders, it now faces the challenge of finding places for working people to live within the ring. Boulder has limited its outward sprawl, but it now faces the challenge of finding infill and redevelopment opportunities within which to retain some demographic balance. Boulder has effectively controlled densities to preserve some of its small town heritage. Now it faces the challenge of making sure that the City’s zoning does not lead to social elitism and other unintended changes in the quality of life in Boulder.
Anonymous did not quote their source so we provide it for you. http://betterboulder.com/
ReplyDeleteThis blog has a number of interesting opinions about Boulder and it's issues. Let’s learn from these experiences. The discussion is great and we thank the contributors. The debate is not about where Boulder planned its use for protected areas however but about the fact that it did take steps to protect land.
Our articles have not suggested a land tax should be used in the way Boulder used theirs. However Boulder did raise money to protect land upon which food is produced, plenty of green space is available to assist in air and water purification and space is available for recreation. Boulder has also become a highly desirable city in which to live as a result of it’s planning. This in itself has caused some problems as we pointed out.
Our focus is aimed towards food security and the necessity to maintain a healthy sustaining land base which in some cases requires protecting riparian zones, in some cases protecting food production and in some cases areas of natural uniqueness. Without that we are not sustainable. If this is important and we are suggesting it is, how best should it be accomplished?
Boulder shmoulder, who cares. The point being made originally has been lost on Anonymous. Anyone paying attention to global issues would know that setting aside lands for their agricultural or eco-system value is what many cities are scrambling to do in order to prepare for the future in a sustainable way. Sustainable here meaning supporting life with healthy food, clean water and air.
ReplyDelete