[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Housing Strategy Study Session

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Colleagues – Since I won’t be at the study session on our “vision” for housing on the 12th, I thought I’d offer a few thoughts in advance.  Obviously I can’t tell how relevant these will be during the discussion, but I’ll try to keep it pretty general:        
I’d keep the basic inclusionary zoning/housing program, although as we’ve discussed a number of times there are some modifications/fixes that should be considered.  In particular, moving units off-site is fine with me (and likely preferred in many cases), but just how that is done, the choice of locations/sizes/housing types, rental vs. ownership, and the fee-in-lieu still need work.
     
I’d also pretty much keep the basic 10% goal and the range of target populations, as well as the “moderate” income housing we sometimes get via annexations.

I remain concerned (as usual) about some of our statistical analysis, particularly relating to households that are rent/housing-cost-burdened.  I’m not sure that concept – which probably hasn’t been updated in decades – measures
 quite the right thing in many cases, is accurate in a city like ours, or takes into account the many “non-traditional” households we have.

I’d also be very cautious about focusing on, say, housing for families, given how hard it is to predict who will actually inhabit housing here (particularly market-rate housing), my general concern about prioritizing one segment
 of the population over another, the huge changes in demographics and households that are occurring, etc.

And I continue to believe that the concept of trying to target employees is simply doomed to fail in an age when multiple household members work and change jobs regularly, and in a city that attracts people who can live just about anywhere.

I also remain concerned about the potential (likely?) loss over time of much of the existing housing stock that currently serves low-middle and upper-lower (whatever those terms mean) income people.  These are presumably mostly
 rental units, although I don’t know if we have any useful stats.  I assume that over time – due both to market forces and also the fact that many of these units would seem to be reaching the end of their economic lives – these will redevelop in some way; this could be a good thing, except that rents/values will of course go up, perhaps significantly, and we’ll lose a good chunk of this type of housing and the people they serve.

And I continue to want us to work on market-rate “middle-income” (whatever that means) housing units.  Let me first note that this is not because of the mythical (and irrelevant; the real long-term issue is transportation) jobs/housing
 balance, but simply because I strongly believe that a community with a diversity of housing types and costs, and a diversity of residents (and workers) with a wide range of socioeconomic characteristics makes for a more livable, sustainable, and resilient
 place.

I assume that zoning is our most potent tool for helping create the potential for middle-income housing, but we’d need to very carefully select locations – perhaps some residential area(s) that are relatively lower-priced, mostly
 rental, etc., and perhaps some industrial locations where redevelopment could provide not only as much/more needed commercial space but also housing.  This will almost certainly not be popular, might not work, etc. – perhaps a pilot project(s) should be tried?  And this can’t only be done in places that aren’t near anybody; there are very few of those left, regardless.  Finally, if any sort of rezoning adds value, the city needs to “recapture” a good chunk of it in various ways to help ensure we’re getting what we want – although in the end the market may set values higher than we’d like no matter what we do (see NOBO).

OAU/ADUs keep being mentioned as having good potential to deal with some of these middle-income issues.  While it’s worth examining—and we’re getting a report on this soon, I believe – I’d be very cautious here.  First, it’s just
 not clear what population would actually live in these in Boulder (I don’t consider, for example, Seattle’s results necessarily relevant).  Second, allowing these might well delay/prevent other, better types of approaches, such as duplexes in certain areas.  Third, as an email we got today reiterated, in a student-heavy town these types of units can/will be easily “misused” (I’d add that I’ve raised the same issue regarding student “owned” units in regard to our rental licensing program).
 
--Matt