5 ms·

No, it doesn't. Much of the area to the east is protected under open-space laws. Also, there have been limits imposed on the vertical height of buildings inte

No, it doesn't. Much of the area to the east is protected under open-space laws. Also, there have been limits imposed on the vertical height of buildings intended to control the atmosphere of the town.

TulliusCicero 12y ago
What's more important, the atmosphere of the town, or the affordability of the town?
- Kalium 12y ago
  I imagine that if you live and own property there, the atmosphere is more important. Everyone likes it when their property values rise.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    Nope, not when property taxes are tied to property values. If you intend to stay where you are for the long term, you want your property value to stay exactly where it is. If your valuation rises, you might be forced to move by taxes. If it drops, you lose services and the place starts to get grubby.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      I don't know how property taxation works in Colorado. I do know that the quirks of property taxation in California have contributed greatly to gentrification in the Bay.
    - dubfan 12y ago
      > If your valuation rises, you might be forced to move by taxes. If it drops, you lose services and the place starts to get grubby. Or, if you live in SF, Seattle or Portland, your taxes go up but you still get poor quality services and everything is still grubby.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        Not SF. In California, property isn't re-assessed like it is most places.
        fallinghawks 12y ago
        I beg to differ. I get re-assessed every year.
        dllthomas 12y ago
        It's reassessed, but the increase is capped.
    - alistairSH 12y ago
      This is true in Virginia. Property values are reassessed annually and taxes are pegged to value. If I knew for sure that I'd retire elsewhere, I'd love for values to skyrocket. But, more than likely, I'll stay in the area, so vales going up doesn't do me much good.
    - trhway 12y ago
      >If you intend to stay where you are for the long term, you want your property value to stay exactly where it is. If your valuation rises, you might be forced to move by taxes. Hail the direct democracy of CA in general and Prop 13 in particular!
    - YokoZar 12y ago
      Unless the marginal property tax rate is over 100%, It's almost always going to be worthwhile for the property value to go up. At the very worst you could borrow against the extra equity, pay off the tax, and recoup when you do finally sell. Or die.
      - logfromblammo 12y ago
        Think for a moment about the justice of a tax that requires someone to secure a loan in order to pay it.
        Kalium 12y ago
        In the case of property taxes, that's a strong hint that your property is badly underutilized. That isn't an injustice. What YokoZar was describing wasn't that, though. YokoZar was describing a way to turn a profit on increasing property values.
    - michaelochurch 12y ago
      Nope, not when property taxes are tied to property values. NIMBY fascists whine about property taxes because they want things both ways (see: Prop 13). That said, they usually benefit when property prices go up. Let's say that you bought a $300k house and it went up to $500k, and that your property tax rate is 1.25% (that's fairly high for the US). You're up $200k in home equity, but paying $2500 more annually in taxes. Even though interest rates are low now, you can get 2% on a 5-year CD, and possibly much higher rates in bonds or stocks. So, you come out ahead. Obviously, NIMBYs don't like to publicize the fact that they're actually making bank, because people would hate them more than they already do. A valuation drop, on the other hand, is unambiguously painful for an owner. Many of the foreclosures in 2008-10 came from people realizing that they owed more on a house than the thing was worth, so they walked away.
- ca3dmon 12y ago
  Unfortunately, the upper class of the town think the former. I know a prominent member of the local government personally, and we've discussed this problem at some length. The fundamental trouble- and hypocrisy IMO- is that many of the people in the town bitch and moan when prices go up and interesting local businesses/artists/features have to leave. But these same people refuse to allow greater density and constantly try to also push the students out. I'm fine with Google moving in to town if we can get smaller, more affordable units in greater number. However, due to the planning decisions being pushed by various groups, there aren't any studio sized apartments being allow to develop in the city, and the affordable neighborhoods are often 'historic', turning into student ghettos. Most of my friends are high payed tech folk and don't have trouble with rent. But many others, like myself, are designers, photographers, writers and so forth. We don't have the money to rent a 2 bedroom apartment for ourselves, or buy a condo to sublet. The only other option at this point is to live with 3-5 roommates in a house, for 600+ a month. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to have an reasonable, clean, modern 1 bedroom studio like I had in Copenhagen. But that just doesn't exist in Boulder, and most attempts to make such things are blocked. In the end, I think Boulder could address the housing and cultural concerns while still preserving the Open Space around the town. But we'll HAVE to accept greater density, better transit (which needs density) and the fact that sometimes in a city you'll see things you dislike. Without change on these fronts, I suspect we'll quickly go the unfortunate way of Silicon Valley...
  - wiseleyb 12y ago
    I remember living in Boulder (now in SF) in the late 80's. They had laws banning more than 2 unrelated people living together - making roommates kind of impossible.
- alistairSH 12y ago
  Affordability is possibly a key component of atmosphere, so I'm not sure you can answer one way or the other. If a place to too affordable, it likely suffers from major issues that make it undesirable (lack of employment, pollution, etc). But, assuming you value some level of diversity, a certain level of affordability is required to maintain that diversity.
davidw 12y ago
This is my neighborhood: http://goo.gl/maps/uXydu http://goo.gl/maps/uXydu It's walkable and affordable because it makes decent use of vertical space.

TulliusCicero 12y ago

What's more important, the atmosphere of the town, or the affordability of the town?

Kalium 12y ago
I imagine that if you live and own property there, the atmosphere is more important. Everyone likes it when their property values rise.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  Nope, not when property taxes are tied to property values. If you intend to stay where you are for the long term, you want your property value to stay exactly where it is. If your valuation rises, you might be forced to move by taxes. If it drops, you lose services and the place starts to get grubby.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    I don't know how property taxation works in Colorado. I do know that the quirks of property taxation in California have contributed greatly to gentrification in the Bay.
  - dubfan 12y ago
    > If your valuation rises, you might be forced to move by taxes. If it drops, you lose services and the place starts to get grubby. Or, if you live in SF, Seattle or Portland, your taxes go up but you still get poor quality services and everything is still grubby.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Not SF. In California, property isn't re-assessed like it is most places.
      - fallinghawks 12y ago
        I beg to differ. I get re-assessed every year.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        It's reassessed, but the increase is capped.
  - alistairSH 12y ago
    This is true in Virginia. Property values are reassessed annually and taxes are pegged to value. If I knew for sure that I'd retire elsewhere, I'd love for values to skyrocket. But, more than likely, I'll stay in the area, so vales going up doesn't do me much good.
  - trhway 12y ago
    >If you intend to stay where you are for the long term, you want your property value to stay exactly where it is. If your valuation rises, you might be forced to move by taxes. Hail the direct democracy of CA in general and Prop 13 in particular!
  - YokoZar 12y ago
    Unless the marginal property tax rate is over 100%, It's almost always going to be worthwhile for the property value to go up. At the very worst you could borrow against the extra equity, pay off the tax, and recoup when you do finally sell. Or die.
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      Think for a moment about the justice of a tax that requires someone to secure a loan in order to pay it.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        In the case of property taxes, that's a strong hint that your property is badly underutilized. That isn't an injustice. What YokoZar was describing wasn't that, though. YokoZar was describing a way to turn a profit on increasing property values.
  - michaelochurch 12y ago
    Nope, not when property taxes are tied to property values. NIMBY fascists whine about property taxes because they want things both ways (see: Prop 13). That said, they usually benefit when property prices go up. Let's say that you bought a $300k house and it went up to $500k, and that your property tax rate is 1.25% (that's fairly high for the US). You're up $200k in home equity, but paying $2500 more annually in taxes. Even though interest rates are low now, you can get 2% on a 5-year CD, and possibly much higher rates in bonds or stocks. So, you come out ahead. Obviously, NIMBYs don't like to publicize the fact that they're actually making bank, because people would hate them more than they already do. A valuation drop, on the other hand, is unambiguously painful for an owner. Many of the foreclosures in 2008-10 came from people realizing that they owed more on a house than the thing was worth, so they walked away.
ca3dmon 12y ago
Unfortunately, the upper class of the town think the former. I know a prominent member of the local government personally, and we've discussed this problem at some length. The fundamental trouble- and hypocrisy IMO- is that many of the people in the town bitch and moan when prices go up and interesting local businesses/artists/features have to leave. But these same people refuse to allow greater density and constantly try to also push the students out. I'm fine with Google moving in to town if we can get smaller, more affordable units in greater number. However, due to the planning decisions being pushed by various groups, there aren't any studio sized apartments being allow to develop in the city, and the affordable neighborhoods are often 'historic', turning into student ghettos. Most of my friends are high payed tech folk and don't have trouble with rent. But many others, like myself, are designers, photographers, writers and so forth. We don't have the money to rent a 2 bedroom apartment for ourselves, or buy a condo to sublet. The only other option at this point is to live with 3-5 roommates in a house, for 600+ a month. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to have an reasonable, clean, modern 1 bedroom studio like I had in Copenhagen. But that just doesn't exist in Boulder, and most attempts to make such things are blocked. In the end, I think Boulder could address the housing and cultural concerns while still preserving the Open Space around the town. But we'll HAVE to accept greater density, better transit (which needs density) and the fact that sometimes in a city you'll see things you dislike. Without change on these fronts, I suspect we'll quickly go the unfortunate way of Silicon Valley...
- wiseleyb 12y ago
  I remember living in Boulder (now in SF) in the late 80's. They had laws banning more than 2 unrelated people living together - making roommates kind of impossible.
alistairSH 12y ago
Affordability is possibly a key component of atmosphere, so I'm not sure you can answer one way or the other. If a place to too affordable, it likely suffers from major issues that make it undesirable (lack of employment, pollution, etc). But, assuming you value some level of diversity, a certain level of affordability is required to maintain that diversity.

davidw 12y ago

This is my neighborhood: http://goo.gl/maps/uXydu http://goo.gl/maps/uXydu It's walkable and affordable because it makes decent use of vertical space.