The Danish Plan, or How Boulder Capped Growth but Created New Problems

In 1976, Boulder adopted what's generally called the Danish Plan, named after Boulder anti-growth activist and politician Paul Danish. It limited housing growth to 2% a year, with an exemption for affordable housing projects funded by the Boulder Housing Authority. Adopted by voters, it had a sunset clause that kicked in after 5 years, after which the Boulder city council adopted its own ordinance limiting housing growth to 1% a year. The stated goal was to preserved Boulder's quality of life and unique character.

The Danish Plan (and its successor ordinance) did indeed put a brake on the development of new housing in Boulder. It also caused home prices, property taxes, and rents to skyrocket, and today affordable housing simply doesn't exist anywhere in the city. The Danish Plan increased traffic exponentially and made parking difficult as more and more workers and students were forced to drive in and out of Boulder each day from the surrounding municipalities where they lived. Indeed, the exclusivity of Boulder housing actually accelerated the changes to Boulder's character.

Today, Boulder is in many ways a playground of the rich, divorced from the rest of the metro area. It's a wonderful place to visit, but I could never afford to live there. When I do visit, I often remark to myself on how different it is from the Boulder I knew in the 1980's, when I was a college student. The goal of Paul Danish may have been to preserve the funky, hippie-friendly town he loved, but change is inevitable, and the Boulder of the 1970's and 80s is long gone.

Starting in about 2013, the Boulder city council reversed course and began to allow more housing growth, channeling it into transit oriented developments in old industrial zones that allow people to live and work closer together. This is the kind of growth that I favor-- growth that allows for the development of urban centers where people can shop and socialize without needing their cars. It's managed growth that preserves established neighborhoods but redevelops old and unneeded commercial strips. The metro area has way too much commercial real estate and not anywhere near enough housing-- especially affordable housing. Smart growth is about repurposing vacant or underutilized land to meet current needs. I'm absolutely against developers plopping three-story townhouses next to 1950's ranches in the middle of Green Mountain Heights or around Morse Park, but I'm also against leaving Colfax blighted.

Anti-growth measures like the Danish Plan are anti-smart growth just as much as they are anti-sprawl. At the same time, they do nothing to preserve the existing character of a city or limit traffic congestion. Instead they're a false promise to put time in a bottle.

Anti-Growth Ballot Measure Threatens Belmar and Downtown Lakewood

An ballot measure that would threaten the future of downtown Lakewood and prohibit innovative redevelopments like Belmar may be in the hands of city voters this fall. I'll have a lot more to say about this misguided proposal going forward, but Lakewood Mayor Adam Paul is out today with an op-ed in the Denver Post warning citizens of the harm that could be done if this ordinance were to pass.

In it, he warns correctly that the initiative could put a stop to the redevelopment of blighted sections of Colfax Ave, increase traffic congestion by forcing workers to live further from their jobs, and make  innovative developments like Belmar impossible-- all while driving up property taxes and rents.

Yes, I want to see growth managed, and no, I don't like the idea construction that's out of scale with an existing neighborhood, but it's possible to have smart growth without trapping Lakewood permanently in the 1950's. A blanket limit on all growth is just the wrong approach.