The need for regional management of growth: Boulder, Colorado, as a case study

Urban Lawyer

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 299-322

  Jackson, Katharine J ^a  

^a LLP   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; REGIONAL PLANNING;

BOULDER; COLORADO; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 21544466974     PISSN: 00420905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (234)

1. Barbara Hey, Way Out There in Boulder, My Generation 45, 46 (Jan.-Feb. 2003).
2. In 1990, the U.S. Census Bureau reported a Colorado population of 3,294,394. By the 2000 Census, the state population had increased to 4,301,261. U.S. Census Bureau, General Population and Housing Characteristics: Colorado (1990), available at http:// factfinder.census.gov;
3. U.S. Census Bureau, General Population and Housing Characteristics: Colorado (2000), available at http://factfinder.census.gov. The population for the City of Boulder rose from 83,312 to 94,673 from 1990 to 2000.
4. U.S. Census Bureau, General Population and Housing Characteristics: Boulder city, Colorado (1990), available at http:// factfinder.census.gov;
5. U.S. Census Bureau, General Population and Housing Characteristics: Boulder city, Colorado (2000), available at http:// factfinder.census.gov.
6. Steven Hayward, The Suburbanization of America, in A Guide to Smart Growth: Shattering Myths, Providing Solutions 2 (Jane S. Shaw & Ronald D. Utt eds., 2000).
7. Robert W. Burchell & Naveed A. Shad, The Evolution of the Sprawl Debate in the United States, 5 Hastings W.-Nw. J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 137 (1999). In one survey, 80% of Americans responded that the ideal home is a single-family residence with a yard.
8. Id. at 149.
9. Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9 (1974).
10. Richard Briffault, Smart Growth and American Land Use Law, 21 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 253, 253 (2002).
11. Euclidian zoning is generally single-use layer zoning, separating individual land uses into individual, defined areas. See Black's Law Dictionary 1613 (7th ed. 1999).
12. Briffault, supra note 6, at 269.
13. Home rule is the autonomy of local government to act in its own self-interest, granted to the local government by state constitutional or legislative provision. A city's home rule powers are outlined in its city charter, which acts as the city's constitution. Black's Law Dictionary 1178 (7th ed. 1999);
14. Clayton P. Gillette & Lynn A. Baker, Local Government Law: Cases & Materials 319 (2d ed. 1999).
15. For discussion, see Part V, infra.
16. Nicole Stelle Garnett, Trouble Preserving Paradise?, 87 Cornell L. Rev. 158, 159 (2001) (footnote omitted).
17. Robert H. Freilich, From Sprawl to Smart Growth 28 (1999) (footnote omitted).
18. Id. at 28-29 (footnote omitted).
19. Id. at 29.
20. I b i d.
21. Oliver A. Pollard III, Smart Growth and Sustainable Transportation: Can We Get There from Here?, 29 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1529 (2002).
22. Garnett, supra note 10, at 161-62.
23. Garnett, supra note 10, at 161.
24. Water quality and quantity suffer when the watershed area is covered with pavement. Also, overloaded sewer systems may spew into the river, harming fish and making the water unsafe. Molly O'Meara Sheeham, City Limits: Putting the Brakes on Sprawl 25 (2001).
25. See also Real Estate Research Corporation, The Costs of Sprawl: Detailed Cost Analysis, in 2 Management and Control of Growth 582 (Randall W. Scott et al. eds., 1975).
26. Freilich, supra note 11, at 28;
27. Pollard, supra note 15, at 1529.
28. Pollard, supra note 15, at 1529.
29. Garnett, supra note 10, at 162.
30. See also Michael Lewyn, Suburban Sprawl: Not Just an Environmental Issue, 84 Marq. L. Rev. 301, 353-58 (2000).
31. Henry R. Richmond, Sprawl and Its Enemies: Why the Enemies Are Losing, 34 Conn. L. Rev. 539, 568-69 (2002).
32. Garnett, supra note 10, at 162;
33. Hayward, supra note 3, at 2.
34. Lewyn, supra note 20, at 302.
35. Id at 301.
36. Garnett, supra note 10, at 162;
37. see also Lewyn, supra note 20, at 353-58.
38. Hayward, supra note 3, at 3.
39. Ronald D. Utt, The Relationship of Cities and Suburbs, in A Guide to Smart Growth: Shattering Myths, Providing Solutions 87-90 (Jane S. Shaw & Ronald D. Utt eds., 2000).
40. Judith Havemann, Gore Calls for "Smart" Growth; Sprawl's Threat to Farmland Cited, Wash. Post, Sept. 3, 1998, at A17.
41. Lewyn, supra note 20, at 323.
42. Id. at 324 (quoting Reed v. Rhodes, 1 F. Supp. 2d 705, 739 (N.D. Ohio 1998)).
43. Hayward, supra note 3, at 3.
44. Garnett, supra note 10, at 162.
45. Florence Wagman Roisman, Opening the Suburbs to Racial Integration: Lessons for the 21st Century, 23 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 65, 65 (2001);
46. see also Sheehan, supra note 17, at 19.
47. Garnett, supra note 10, at 162-63.
48. Id. at 162;
49. Freilich, supra note 11, at 28;
50. Wendell Cox, Coping with Traffic Congestion, in A Guide to Smart Growth: Shattering Myths, Providing Solutions 44 (Jane S. Shaw & Ronald D. Utt eds., 2000).
51. Edward J. Sullivan, Comprehensive Planning and Smart Growth, in Trends in Land Use Law from A to Z 177-78 (Patricia E. Salkin, ed. 2001).
52. Pollard, supra note 15, at 1529.
53. Funder's Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities, Health and Smart Growth: Building Health, Promoting Active Communities 1 (2003), available at www.fundersnetwork.org/usr_doc/ Health_and_Smart_Growth.pdf (last visited Mar. 5, 2005) [hereinafter Funder's Network].
54. Freilich, supra note 11, at 28.
55. Funder's Network, supra note 37, at 1.
56. I b i d.
57. I b i d.
58. Sheehan, supra note 17, at 21.
59. See also Wendy Collins Perdue et al., The Built Environment and Its Relationship to the Public's Health: The Legal Framework, 92 Am. J. Pub. Health 1390, 1390-94 (2003).
60. Funder's Network, supra note 37, at 4.
61. Id. at 4-5.
62. Id. at 5.
63. I b i d.
64. I b i d.
65. Rutherford H. Platt, Land Use Control 160 (1991).
66. Gerald E. Frug, Local Government Law: Geography, Law and Public Policy 651 (1988).
67. Id. at 650.
68. Id. Police power is government's power to make "laws necessary and proper to preserve the public security, order, health, morality, and justice." Black's Law Dictionary 1178 (7th ed. 1999). Eminent domain is government's power "to take privately owned property ... and convert it to public use, subject to reasonable compensation." Black's Law Dictionary 541 (7th ed. 1999).
69. Frug, supra note 49, at 228-29.
70. See Barbara A. Ramsay, Utility Extensions: Timing & Location Control, reprinted in 2 Management & Control of Growth 42-47 (Randall W. Scott et al. eds., 1975);
71. Mike E. Miles et al., Real Estate Development: Principles and Process 255 (3d ed. 2000);
72. see also Michael A. Agelasto II, No-Growth and the Poor: Equity Considerations in Controlled Growth Policies, reprinted in 1 Management & Control of Growth 430-31 (Randall W. Scott et al. eds., 1975).
73. Miles et al., supra note 53, at 255.
74. I b i d.
75. I b i d.
76. Steve Carter et al., Local Government Techniques for Managing Growth, reprinted in 2 Management & Control of Growth 342 (Randall W. Scott et al. eds., 1975).
77. Miles et al., supra note 53, at 255.
78. See also Carter et al., supra note 57, at 342-47.
79. Miles et al., supra note 53, at 255. Local government frequently uses its power of eminent domain to re-develop established areas, replacing older homes and smaller businesses with large-scale development. This exercise of eminent domain power- taking land for the "public use" of private commercial development - is being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005.
80. See Kelo v. City of New London, 843 A.2d 500 (Conn. 2004), cert. granted, 125 S. Ct. 27 (U.S. Sept. 28, 2004) (No. 04-108).
81. Carter et al., supra note 57, at 345.
82. Miles et al., supra note 53, at 255.
83. I b i d.
84. Robert H. Freilich, Development Timing, Moratoria, and Controlling Growth: Preliminary Report, reprinted in 2 Management & Control of Growth 361-63 (Randall W. Scott et al. eds., 1975),
85. see also Carter et al., supra note 57, at 342.
86. Freilich, Development Timing, supra note 63, at 364;
87. see also Carter et al., supra note 57, at 342.
88. Freilich, Development Timing, supra note 63, at 362-64;
89. Carter et al., supra note 57, at 342.
90. 535 U.S. 302 (2002).
91. Id. at 306.
92. Id. at 312-13.
93. Id. at 321-22.
94. 438 U.S. 104 (1978).
95. Tahoe-Sierra, 535 U.S. at 321-22.
96. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617 (2001).
97. Miles et al., supra note 53, at 255.
98. I b i d.
99. Pollard, supra note 15, at 1539.
100. See Smart Growth Network, Getting to Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation i (2002), available at http:// www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/gettosg.pdf (last visited Mar. 5, 2005);
101. see also Pollard, supra note 15, at 1530.
102. Smart Growth Network, supra note 76, at ii.
103. Hayward, supra note 3, at 5.
104. Pollard, supra note 15, at 1550.
105. This section does not address the effects of smart growth development: instead it focuses on the effects of the more common and traditional growth control techniques.
106. see Part I, supra.
107. Garnett, supra note 10, at 178.
108. See id.
109. See id. at 164.
110. I b i d.
111. See Robert H. Nelson, Zoning and Property Rights 161-62 (1977).
112. Garnett, supra note 10, at 164.
113. This is true even if the homeowner earned the same premium on the sale of the home. The only way to take advantage of the premium is to purchase outside of the area where the premium arose. Id. at 177.
114. Id. at 180.
115. Nelson, supra note 87, at 162.
116. See Part I, supra.
117. Garnett, supra note 10, at 163.
118. I b i d.
119. City of Boulder, History, available at http:// www.ci.boulder.co.us/comm/history.
120. F. Kaid Benfield et al., Solving Sprawl: Models of Smart Growth in Communities Across America 149 (2001).
121. I b i d.
122. City of Boulder, Open Space and Mountain Parks Department, available at http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/openspace/about/osdept.htm (last visited Feb. 20, 2005). To date, the sales tax program, along with private donations, bond issues, and development donations, has raised more than $150 million to preserve and protect more than 41,000 acres of land.
123. I b i d.
124. See generally Earl Finkler & David L. Peterson, Nongrowth Planning Strategies: The Developing Power of Towns, Cities, and Regions 30 (1974).
125. The City of Boulder is a home rule municipality located within Boulder County. At the time of the Study, Boulder was the most prominent city in the county in terms of population, tourism, and economy. The City of Boulder and Boulder County are independent self-regulating governmental entities.
126. Finkler & Peterson, supra note 99, at 34.
127. City of Boulder, History, supra note 95.
128. Finkler & Peterson, supra note 99, at 27.
129. City of Boulder, History, supra note 95.
130. A census was taken in 2002, and included resident students of the University of Colorado. City of Boulder, Colorado, Summary of Information 2.1 (2002), available at http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/ demography/pdf/demography02.pdf.
131. Boulder, Colo., Rev. Code § 9-6-1 to 9-6-12 (2002), available at http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/caolbrc/9-6.html (last visited Mar. 5, 2005).
132. Colo. Const. art. XX, § 6, available at http:// www.sos.state.co.us/publs/elections/2001_const.pdf (last visited Feb. 20, 2005);
133. Boulder, Colo., Charter art. I, §§ 74-84, available at http://www3.ci.boulder.co.us/cao/brc/charter.html (last visited Feb. 20, 2005).
134. Boulder, Colo., Rev. Code § 9-6- 1 (c)-(e).
135. Id. § 9-6-1(b).
136. Id. § 9-6- 1(a).
137. I b i d.
138. Id. § 9-6-3(c).
139. Boulder, Colo., Rev. Code § 9-6-9 (a)(1)-(5).
140. Id. § 9-6-12(c).
141. Benfield et al., supra note 96, at 148-51.
142. U.S. Census Bureau, General Population and Housing Characteristics: Boulder City, Colo. (1990),
143. available at http://factfinder.census.gov (last visited Feb. 20, 2005).
144. U.S. Census Bureau, General Population and Housing Characteristics: Boulder City, Colo. (2000),
145. available at http://factfinder.census.gov (last visited Feb. 20, 2005).
146. I b i d.
147. I b i d.
148. Steve Raabe, Boulder Business Exodus? Growth Limit Seen Driving Firms Out, Denver Post, Sept. 21, 1995, at C1.
149. Kevin McCullen, Some Firms Becoming Wary of Boulder, Rocky Mountain News, Sept. 3, 1995, at 84A.
150. See also Raabe, supra note 120.
151. U.S. Census Bureau, General Population and Housing Characteristics: Superior Town, Colo. (1990),
152. available at http://factfinder.census.gov (last visited Feb. 20, 2005).
153. U.S. Census Bureau, General Population and Housing Characteristics: Superior Town, Colo. (2000),
154. available at http://factfinder.census.gov (last visited Feb. 20, 2005).
155. Compare U.S. Census Bureau, General Population and Housing Characteristics: (1990),
156. with U.S. Census Bureau, General Population and Housing Characteristics: (2000).
157. Id. In 1990, the population of the State of Colorado was 3,294,394; in 2000, the population had grown to 4,301,261.
158. Nelson, supra note 87, at 162 (quoting 1 Boulder Area Growth Study Commission, Exploring Options for the Future: A Study of Growth in Boulder County 80 (1973) (Commission's final report)).
159. Long-time Boulder natural food companies moved to Broomfield, Colorado, a few miles outside of the Boulder city limits. Alicia Wallace, Horizon, White Wave Moving, Broomfield Enter., Dec. 8, 2004. GE Access moved its 510 Pearl Street workers from Boulder to nearby Westminster, Colorado, in October 2002.
160. Erika Stutzman, Access May Be Mulling Move, Daily Camera, Sept. 24, 2002, at BO;
161. Associated Press, Boulder's Largest Downtown Employer Announces Job Moves, Oct. 23, 2002.
162. Associated Press, Boulder Looks at Potential Budget Cuts, April 26, 2003.
163. Ryan Morgan, City Finalizes 2005 Spending, Daily Camera, Dec. 1, 2004, available at http://www.dailycamera.com (last visited Feb. 20, 2005).
164. Ryan Morgan, Hopefuls Zero in on City's Economy, Daily Camera, Jan. 28, 2005, available at http://www.dailycamera.com (last visited Feb. 20, 2005).
165. John Sanko, Cities Sweat Sales Tax Pinch; Declining Revenues Have Governments Planning Budget Cuts, Rocky Mountain News, May 13, 2002, at 4A. Broomfield is a consolidated form of government of the City of Broomfield and the County of Broomfield.
166. Susan Glairon, Most Wonderful Time of Year Not So Wonderful for Boulder, Colo., Mall, Daily Camera, Dec. 19, 2000, at BO.
167. Sales Tax Revenues, Daily Camera, Jan. 23, 2005, at BO.
168. City of Boulder, Sales/Use Tax Revenue Report (Nov. 2004),
169. available at http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/finance/sales_tax/ revenue_reports/2004/11-2004.pdf (last visited Feb. 20, 2005).
170. I b i d.
171. I b i d.
172. See also Greg Avery, Tech Sales Drag, Daily Camera, Jan. 24, 2005.
173. City of Boulder, supra note 134. The Highway 36 Corridor is the main highway between Boulder and Denver, with exits to Superior, Lafayette, Louisville, and Broomfield, many of the cities whose growth and economies have benefited from Boulder's slow-growth position.
174. Avery, supra note 136.
175. See Benfield et al., supra note 96, at 150.
176. Briffault, supra note 6, at 254.
177. See also Ralph E. Boyer et al., The Law of Proerty: An Introductory Survey 430 (4th ed. 1991).
178. Ira M. Heyman, Legal Assaults - On Municipal Regulation, in 1 Management and Control of Growth 189-92 (Randall W. Scott et al. eds., 1975).
179. See also Boyer et al., supra note 140, at 430.
180. These states include Vermont, Oregon, California, Florida, Colorado, Rhode Island, North Carolina, and Hawaii. Miles et al., supra note 53, at 256.
181. Id. See also Nelson, supra note 87, at 154.
182. Miles et al., supra note 53, at 256.
183. I b i d.
184. Peter Buchsbaum, Neither Home Rule Nor State Mandate: A Third Way to Growth Management, in Trends in Land Use Law from A to Z 235 (Patricia E. Salkin ed., 2001).
185. For example, Maryland has a statewide "Smart Growth" plan, and encourages regional cooperation by requiring cities and counties to adopt comprehensive plans that contain certain elements, including a land-use element. American Planning Association, Planning Communities for the 21st Century 26-27 (1999).
186. New Jersey has two state-mandated regional planning agencies, which oversee land use in two sensitive areas. Id. at 39.
187. Oregon is known for its successful statewide, comprehensive approach to land-use, and has established a state commission to review and approve the land-use ordinances of cities and counties. Oregon also boasts the nation's only elected regional government, Metro, which regulates land-use and transportation among twenty-four cities, including Portland. Id. at 49-50. and approve the land-use ordinances of cities and counties. Oregon also boasts the nation's only elected regional government, Metro, which regulates land-use and transportation among twenty-four cities, including Portland.
188. Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington also have established regional measures to oversee growth. Id. at 59-77.
189. Buchsbaum, supra note 146, at 235.
190. Id. at 236.
191. Garnett, supra note 10, at 163.
192. Id. at 176.
193. See Part IV, Section B, supra;
194. see also Benfield, et al., supra note 96, at 151.
195. Clayton P. Gillitte & Lynn A. Baker, Local Government Law 15 (2d ed. 1999)
196. (quoting John Stuart Mill, Considerations on Representative Government (Currin V. Shields ed., 1958)).
197. Id. at 14-15.
198. Briffault, supra note 6, at 265.
199. Id. at 265.
200. Garnett, supra note 10, at 181.
201. Gillitte & Baker, supra note 152, at 16-20
202. (quoting Hannah Arendt, On Revolution 234-59 (1965)).
203. Janice C. Griffith, Smart Governance for Smart Growth: The Need for Regional Governments, 17 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 1019, 1031 (2001).
204. See id. at 1031-34.
205. Peter W. Salsich, Jr., Thinking Regionally About Affordable Housing and Neighborhood Development, 28 Stetson L. Rev. 577, 601 (1999).
206. Douglas R. Porter, Reinventing Growth Management for the 21st Century, 23 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 705, 730 (1999).
207. I b i d.
208. Id. at 724.
209. Sheehan, supra note 17, at 53.
210. Garnett, supra note 10, at 165-81. Notably, the City of Boulder joined with Boulder County in 1996 to develop the cooperative Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan ("the Plan"). The Plan is currently undergoing its five-year major update. It provides "shared land use decision-making in the Boulder Valley. The plan sets a course for future growth and development within the city and the lands just outside [the] city boundaries." The plan is a policy-based planning approach, and individual communities still enact their own land-use and zoning ordinances. Although the plan purports to be a regional scheme, it covers a very limited area just beyond Boulder's boundaries so it is not considered in this section.
211. City of Boulder, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, available at http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/planning/BVCP2000/bpbvcp2000.htm.
212. Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly, An Analysis of the 2000 Statewide Ballot Proposals, Research Pub. No. 475-0, at 13-14 (2000).
213. I b i d.
214. Id. at 16.
215. I b i d.
216. Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly, supra note 166, at 17.
217. I b i d.
218. The final vote was 511,885 for the amendment and 1,188,138 against the amendment. Ballot History, Colorado Secretary of State, available at http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/2000ElectionResults.html (last visited Feb. 20, 2005).
219. For more information on the opposition, see American Planning Association, Planning for Smart Growth: 2002 State of States 43 (2002).
220. H.B. 01S2-1006, 63rd Gen. Assem., 2d Extraordinary Sess., 2001 Colo. Sess. Laws 5.
221. American Planning Association, supra note 172, at 41.
222. Colo. Const. art. XX, § 6.
223. See City & County of Denver v. State, 788 P.2d 764 (Colo. 1990).
224. Id. at 767.
225. I b i d.
226. Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30, 37 (Colo 2000).
227. Telluride, 3 P.3d at 37;
228. Denver, 788 P.2d at 767.
229. Telluride, 3 P.3d at 37.
230. City and County of Denver v. Qwest, 18 P.3d 748, 754 (Colo. 2001).
231. I b i d.
232. Service Oil Co. v. Rhodus, 500 P.2d 807 (Colo. 1972) (overruled on other grounds in Hartley v. Colorado Springs, 764 P.2d 1216, 1225 (Colo. 1988));
233. Veterans of Foreign Wars v. City of Steamboat Springs, 575 P.2d 835 (Colo. 1978).
234. See Parts I & III, supra.