In a piece printed in The Denver Post’s YourHub on January 24th, Richard Yale attempts to associate me with a plan in Boulder that has constrained growth there and — by Yale’s version of events — depressed housing prices in Longmont. There is almost a twisted and blinkered sort of logic buried in there, and I’ll try to tease it out. But the upshot is that Yale tries to tie me, and the New-in-November members of Council, to a failed policy of decade-long existence. In fact quite the opposite is true; the Intelligent Growth policies of the New-in-November Council members and me (should I be elected) are a hope of salvation from the depressed condition of the Longmont real estate market.
Here’s the short version of the back story. Limitations on growth in Boulder caused shortages and raised house prices. They had the additional effect of moving growth to outlying communities like Longmont. Yale tars me with a brush that should be applied to those earlier Longmont City Councils who had a development philosophy that was recognized and roundly repudiated by the voters in November. Longmont has been overly development-friendly for years, with the consequence that we have overbuilt, have half of all house foreclosures in Boulder County, and have seen serious decline in housing values. This did not happen between November and now, and yet in his article Yale tries to tie me to that situation.
You can find my opinions expressed at greater length elsewhere on this website, but in short I think that our growth should be managed with respect to what resources we have remaining, that new growth should pay its own way rather than burden existing citizens, that the City should aim for long-term dynamic sustainability (NB: that’s not the same as stasis), and that the City’s economic vitality must be encouraged so as to support those goals. And yet Yale ascribes exactly contrary positions and policies to me.
I am taking the trouble to respond to Yale’s piece because I received the following note from a puzzled voter. She had been confused by reading Yale’s piece.
Dear Richard (I am adding that pro forma but outside the quotation marks): “I am all for primary jobs in Longmont. Every time I go into Boulder, I wonder why we can’t get even a fraction of the growth, $$s, and respect. It seems that Longmont is hell bent on becoming the poor side of the tracks. I bought my home four years ago. It has lost 20% of its value. Boulder’s values continue to climb. The Thistle project is a nightmare to Longmont’s values. I understand this is something you have supported. What goes?”
I called her to discuss the matter. She agreed that the decline in her house value had occurred over a period of years rather than just since November. She understood that Longmont’s overbuilding and high foreclosure rate had occurred under previous philosophies of City administration. She liked the idea of managing growth within resource limitations rather than just permit sprawl. Altogether, she understood that Yale has seriously incorrectly attributed the failed policy to the New-In-November members of Council and to me.
I have heard complaints on both sides of the issue of falling house prices. There are those who espouse cheap houses so that anyone can buy a house, and there are those who would like to see the value of their house be maintained and stable. I think it’s far better for the community to bring in the primary jobs, and to do growth intelligently, so that house prices fall as little as possible during the existing home loan crisis and impending recession. I have also heard that “the house prices in Boulder are artificially high!” But think on that for a moment — if a willing seller and a willing buyer settle on a higher price in Boulder than the same house would sell for in Longmont, I kinda think that’s not artificial! And I’d certainly rather have my house price stay up rather than be on a plunging path.
Posted in News : January 24th, 2008 10:50 PM PST
Comments Off