6 ms·

> When Kominek approached Boulder County regulators about putting up solar panels, they initially told him no, his land was designated as historic farmland. Th

> When Kominek approached Boulder County regulators about putting up solar panels, they initially told him no, his land was designated as historic farmland. That's Boulder for you, they're super progressive right up until progress forces something to change

missinfo 5y ago
Bill Maher had a segment on this recently about progressives that don't acknowledge progress and are afraid of it in practice. A kind of willful blindness. Steven Pinker calls it Progressophobia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB9KVYAdYwg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB9KVYAdYwg
- tuatoru 5y ago
  Also, Liberal Hypocrisy is Fueling American Inequality. Here’s How.--NYT Opinion[1] Has a focus on housing, but it's the same underlying issue. People love to signal their virtue, but their true values are revealed by what they do. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNDgcjVGHIw&t=670s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNDgcjVGHIw&t=670s
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- kilna 5y ago
  That's rich coming from Maher.
monocasa 5y ago
Yeah, Boulder considers it's green belt to be the fence of their little gated community. They're terrified of the idea of development around Boulder. The city even owns a bunch of land in surrounding counties so the perpetually undeveloped land is some one else's tax burden.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  I agree that NIMBYism is bad, but I don't see how undeveloped land incurs a tax burden.
  - Scoundreller 5y ago
    Those neighbouring counties don't raise as much property taxes because there's nothing on the land. You could argue that the land doesn't cost those neighbouring counties anything, so it's a wash.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    The city of Boulder needs to pay property taxes on that land to the other counties, and that money comes from the local taxes that Boulder residents have to pay.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    It's sort of backwards when you're talking about municipalities competing for property tax revenue. Boulder city wants property tax revenue, so they allow development in specific places where they reap that. Therefore the city owns land that isn't land within the city so they can maximize property tax revenue, but still have a undeveloped belt. The surrounding counties aren't a big fan of this relationship, but can't do much about it.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - sagarm 5y ago
      Yes they can: tax land, not property.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        They've got their own reasons for not going all georgist on it, as much as I'd personally love to see it happen.
Melting_Harps 5y ago
> That's Boulder for you, they're super progressive right up until progress forces something to change It's mainly window dressing, it's really is like most tech hubs: a police state protecting the wealthy elite. It's a literal fiefdom, and no surprise most of the the real-estate is owned by one firm (TEBO). Being on Pearl Street past midnight pre-pandemic, or any time afterward with the amount of homelessness made it seem so much like the Bay Area! I realized whatever Boulder offered me for 6 years was going to have to be enough, because it's hard to see how things aren't getting worse. Also, I'm sure that vacant Walmart on 28th and Iris next to the 24 hour fitness, where the lights were still on until 2019, could have sold their building as they were effectively run out of town for being not being in 'Boulder's image' a few years back. Honestly, Boulder was fun from 2015-2018 if you were in the fintech scene but things degraded fast after that and it's MegaCorp face became all to obvious to justify living there any longer. I'm just glad I got to live the experience and live to tell the story--I used to go to the King Soopers when I visited my friends in Table Mesa where the shooting happened.
- paulcole 5y ago
  Just curious what years you lived in Boulder and (roughly) what age you are? I tend to find that most places were at their peak when we were in our mid-to-late-20s and started to get less-cool as we entered our early-30s and beyond.
aaron695 5y ago
> his land was designated as historic farmland. England does this and it's beautiful. Should he be allowed to put up billboards using public money? Obviously this is not a financially viable scheme without the public money put into it. The problem with progressives is they want to do this everywhere. Millions of people can't live downtown in cities, the most environmental friendly thing you can do, because looks, that's a problem. If you are a little organic labour intensive farms, that not about producing food, that's looks and culture. The consumer wants a story, including what they see when they drive past. Solar panels should not be put in beautiful places. There's enough shitty roofs and desert(Again shitty desert, not next to a scenic road) to still be filled.
vidarh 5y ago
Well, they did end up allowing the change. He had to actually engage with them. If anything the description of how things were handled seemed quite reasonable: He had to present a case for why he should be allowed to make what was a very substantial change in use that changed the character of the area, and in the end was allowed to when they updated their building code to allow for it. Now, the article doesn't give much detail on whether it really happened that reasonably. E.g. it doesn't give a timeline, or say anything about whether it was a lengthy and difficult fight, so it might still be they were unreasonable and difficult, but I don't think that single line is enough to judge them.

missinfo 5y ago

Bill Maher had a segment on this recently about progressives that don't acknowledge progress and are afraid of it in practice. A kind of willful blindness. Steven Pinker calls it Progressophobia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB9KVYAdYwg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB9KVYAdYwg

tuatoru 5y ago
Also, Liberal Hypocrisy is Fueling American Inequality. Here’s How.--NYT Opinion[1] Has a focus on housing, but it's the same underlying issue. People love to signal their virtue, but their true values are revealed by what they do. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNDgcjVGHIw&t=670s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNDgcjVGHIw&t=670s
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
kilna 5y ago
That's rich coming from Maher.

monocasa 5y ago

Yeah, Boulder considers it's green belt to be the fence of their little gated community. They're terrified of the idea of development around Boulder. The city even owns a bunch of land in surrounding counties so the perpetually undeveloped land is some one else's tax burden.

bpodgursky 5y ago
I agree that NIMBYism is bad, but I don't see how undeveloped land incurs a tax burden.
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  Those neighbouring counties don't raise as much property taxes because there's nothing on the land. You could argue that the land doesn't cost those neighbouring counties anything, so it's a wash.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  The city of Boulder needs to pay property taxes on that land to the other counties, and that money comes from the local taxes that Boulder residents have to pay.
- monocasa 5y ago
  It's sort of backwards when you're talking about municipalities competing for property tax revenue. Boulder city wants property tax revenue, so they allow development in specific places where they reap that. Therefore the city owns land that isn't land within the city so they can maximize property tax revenue, but still have a undeveloped belt. The surrounding counties aren't a big fan of this relationship, but can't do much about it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - sagarm 5y ago
    Yes they can: tax land, not property.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      They've got their own reasons for not going all georgist on it, as much as I'd personally love to see it happen.

Melting_Harps 5y ago

> That's Boulder for you, they're super progressive right up until progress forces something to change It's mainly window dressing, it's really is like most tech hubs: a police state protecting the wealthy elite. It's a literal fiefdom, and no surprise most of the the real-estate is owned by one firm (TEBO). Being on Pearl Street past midnight pre-pandemic, or any time afterward with the amount of homelessness made it seem so much like the Bay Area! I realized whatever Boulder offered me for 6 years was going to have to be enough, because it's hard to see how things aren't getting worse. Also, I'm sure that vacant Walmart on 28th and Iris next to the 24 hour fitness, where the lights were still on until 2019, could have sold their building as they were effectively run out of town for being not being in 'Boulder's image' a few years back. Honestly, Boulder was fun from 2015-2018 if you were in the fintech scene but things degraded fast after that and it's MegaCorp face became all to obvious to justify living there any longer. I'm just glad I got to live the experience and live to tell the story--I used to go to the King Soopers when I visited my friends in Table Mesa where the shooting happened.

paulcole 5y ago
Just curious what years you lived in Boulder and (roughly) what age you are? I tend to find that most places were at their peak when we were in our mid-to-late-20s and started to get less-cool as we entered our early-30s and beyond.

aaron695 5y ago

> his land was designated as historic farmland. England does this and it's beautiful. Should he be allowed to put up billboards using public money? Obviously this is not a financially viable scheme without the public money put into it. The problem with progressives is they want to do this everywhere. Millions of people can't live downtown in cities, the most environmental friendly thing you can do, because looks, that's a problem. If you are a little organic labour intensive farms, that not about producing food, that's looks and culture. The consumer wants a story, including what they see when they drive past. Solar panels should not be put in beautiful places. There's enough shitty roofs and desert(Again shitty desert, not next to a scenic road) to still be filled.

vidarh 5y ago

Well, they did end up allowing the change. He had to actually engage with them. If anything the description of how things were handled seemed quite reasonable: He had to present a case for why he should be allowed to make what was a very substantial change in use that changed the character of the area, and in the end was allowed to when they updated their building code to allow for it. Now, the article doesn't give much detail on whether it really happened that reasonably. E.g. it doesn't give a timeline, or say anything about whether it was a lengthy and difficult fight, so it might still be they were unreasonable and difficult, but I don't think that single line is enough to judge them.