Regulating against big homes
Rocky Mountain News
Published May 3, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Boulder County is an attractive place to live, as much hard evidence confirms: high incomes, high home prices, high test scores at local schools, a diversified economy with lots of cutting-edge jobs.
Alas, the county is also home to some people who are offended by signs of prosperity around them - the sprawling houses, the heated pools, the three- or four-car garages.
Why on earth does anyone need to consume in that fashion, they wonder.
They are not alone in asking such questions, of course, but most of us with smaller homes and no pools tend to leave matters at that. The disapproving critics in Boulder have gone further, unfortunately. They have imposed their values on their neighbors.
This week a remarkable set of regulations known as the BuildSmart program went into effect in Boulder County, with serious implications for the future housing market there. The new code piles progressively stricter energy standards on new homes; the larger the home, the more energy efficient it must be, until structures larger than 5,000 square feet must essentially be energy neutral, or "net zero."
That means the home must produce as much energy as it consumes, through on-site solar, wind or other systems. Any exterior energy use, such as an outdoor pool or spa, must also be net zero.
Needless to say, these rules will hike the cost of housing - even for structures larger than 3,000 or 4,000 square feet. Meanwhile, one pool builder believes the new standards will double pool costs alone. "It makes it almost impossible for anyone in the county to build a pool," he told the Rocky.
Well, not quite. The truly rich will still be able to afford a pool, just as they'll absorb the cost of the new efficiency standards for a new home. But he's generally right about how the program will work as a disincentive to construction - which may be part of its point.
County officials usually deny that they're trying to discourage large homes or pools, insisting instead that they're merely boosting "sustainable development" and the responsible use of energy. And no doubt on one level that's true. But several remarks over the past 18 months confirm that their motives also are rooted in aesthetic and ethical beliefs that they seek to legislate.
At one point last year, for example, the senior planner for land use, Peter Fogg, revealingly declared, "It's clear in our view that this ever upward trend in consumption, consumption, consumption is not sustainable, and we don't think it's unreasonable to put some checks and balances in place."
The net zero requirement for houses over 5,000 square feet is another clue. According to the Boulder Daily Camera, the median new house size in unincorporated Boulder County grew from 2,881 square feet in 1990, to 4,470 in 2000, to 6,290 in 2006. In other words, the county is set to load significant costs not only onto genuine mansions but new homes smaller than the median size that were being built.
We have nothing against a stringent building code, but this one is over the top. It will have no measurable effect on total greenhouse gas emissions while it distorts housing costs in an already rarefied market. Meanwhile, however, it represents a form of lifestyle management by government for which there is no logical limit. And that should have everyone worried.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Denver turns 150
Read about the city's history, look at old photos and see a list of influential Denverites.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's pregame rant on the Raiders.
-
Season To Share
The Post-News Season To Share campaign provides grants to area nonprofits.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
The Rocky was there when Colorado became a state in 1876. Read our coverage.
-
A Dozen on Denver
And the winner is... Robert Ziegler! See the whole fiction series by clicking here.
May 3, 2008
4:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rangerjoe1 writes:
Now did all these regulations come after the commercial Building boom in Earthyville. I know the city coucil was all for the corporate builders for some reason. Boulder has always been a servant society, where Boulder braggs about there energy efficency requirments done by servants that must commute from neighboring town because of the high cost of living. (Kinda like Aspen.)I've always wondered if Boulder ever counted the pollution of commuting construction workers in their equations. I get a kick out of people that rant,"Consumption,Consumption, Consumption" in a town where their residents are famous for their consumptions. But since Boulder is a sanctuary city, the illegals low wages will keep the illusions of "Earthyville" alive and well
May 3, 2008
6:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
How about a state law that says all laws in the state must be reasonable and take into account the rights of people first? Then the residents of Boulder will move to California?
May 3, 2008
7:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
ashanab writes:
Ok, Boulder has it's quirks. But no one is required to live there, so if you don't like the way it's governed or the smell of hippies, go live elsewhere
May 3, 2008
8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
rwmorrisonjr writes:
This is just like the Feds mandating the use of CFLs, its an eggregeous misuse of governmental power to impose the will of a few on the masses. I thought our system was supposed to prevent that, but then I guess this just shows that those currently in power went to the Castro School of Government. Glad I don't live in Boulder.
May 3, 2008
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
socrates writes:
I applaud Boulder County for taking the lead in establishing sustainable building practices. However, I have to say, the Rocky Editorial is very interesting. Boulder is chastised for rooting policies in "ethical beliefs they seek to legislate" - I have to ask: what policy isn't?
I think the policy adopted allows those with means to address the energy impacts of their lifestyle - as clearly the impacts of that lifestyle will be thrust upon the rest of society. It does that simultaneously while allowing those who aren't subscribing to a profligate lifestyle to avoid a "one-size fits all" policy and the costs associated with a lifestyle to which they don't subscribe.
About half of our greenhouse gases are derived from the built environment. Boulder has recognized that and ushered in a new generation of building that recognizes the ongoing impact a poorly constructed home will have on society and the environment. Good for them.
May 3, 2008
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Elwood writes:
I bet the Boulder county comissioners would have a cow if I tried to build a 1000 sq ft house (totally energy neutral) and a 5000 sq ft garage (unheated so no energy drain) on 5 acres. It wouldn't fit the image Boulder wants to project.
I wouldn't care except that the boulderites running boulder county affect more than just the city/planet of Boulder. Their feel good rules and regulations affect a lot of others that don't feel the same way. Just wait until the population outside the city is greater than inside and us outlying cities rule the county.
May 3, 2008
9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
I have an answer: Don't live in Boulder. That is one of great things about living in a country as large and diverse as the USA, you can move to a place that suits you.
I am against the Boulder collectivism as well as NYC rent control and many other unfree regulations, but I appreciate that they do those things because it provides daily proof to other areas that heavy handed collectivism is a real threat.
May 3, 2008
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
"Ok, Boulder has it's quirks. But no one is required to live there, so if you don't like the way it's governed or the smell of hippies, go live elsewhere"
I did. 22 years ago. best decision (or close to it) I ever made.
May 3, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITES OF ALL; BOULDER!
May 3, 2008
11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
socialobserver writes:
And why do you think they refer to themselves as the People's Republic of Boulder? Because they’re all in their little own la-la land.
There was a time when Boulder was a charming town, occupied by the leftover hippies from the sixties. I used to thoroughly enjoy visiting Boulder through the 70’s and 80’s, and enjoyed engaging its residents in conversation. Now Boulder’s been overtaken by all the wannabes....and they're just as obnoxious and arrogant as can be! They put on airs they're just plain better than the rest of us, when in fact…they’re just plain obnoxious and arrogant.
I say what happens in Boulder, stays in Boulder. If Boulder wants to impose building regulations that may or may not serve the environment better, so be it. That’s one of the beautiful things about living in the United States. None of us will ever be forced to live in Boulder. In the meantime, I suggest the People’s Republic request secession from the rest of the Republic so they can have their own hippy-dippy little country. They operate under that pretense now by calling themselves the People's Republic of Boulder, so what would be the difference?
And after that? Will Boulder follow the form of a recent Boston Legal episode, and petition the courts for their own nuclear weapon to protect themselves? I certainly wouldn’t put it past them!
May 3, 2008
5:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
pak writes:
All while China built 150 coal plants since 2005 and installed 186,000 mw of coal power in 2006 and 2007 alone. This political correctness by the watermelon socialists will accomplish nothing but make the socialists feel good at the expense of property owners. Wake up Colorado comrades to run-away socialism knocking at the door by the socialist Democrat legislature, Governor and Boulder acolytes.
May 3, 2008
6:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
American100 writes:
When I was a little kid I used to beg my Mom to drive around "Hippy Hill" in Boulder. Gheeze I miss that Boulder.
May 4, 2008
8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
RainbowWarrior writes:
Boulder is just slightly ahead of the curve. The rest of the world has also realized that resources and energy capacity are not unlimited. How else can you direct the way people live with out the use of incentives and disincentives to control their behavior?
Only an idiot that is in total denial of the negative consequences of our past and current behavior could be against making the people who can afford to make the changes needed take a leadership role and lead the way into a better future.
Boulder is still an intellectual center that we should be proud to have in Colorado.
If you can not understand why new rules are needed, go back to school and learn with an open mind.
Colorado is leading the nation in renewable and sustainable initatives that will set the pace and be an excellent example for the rest of the country.
If you don't like that, go back to where ever you came from and live in the failed past you cling to with such passion!
May 4, 2008
8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
RainbowWarrior; I suppose you think you are the example of an open mind?
"How else can you direct the way people live with out the use of incentives and disincentives to control their behavior?"
Thats open minded? What we are talking about in Boulder is more than incentives/disincentives.
May 4, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
If Boulder is going to walk the talk, it should also regulate espresso machines so that the largest machines produce "net zero" emissions. That means you, too, Starbucks!
May 4, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
rainbowarrior says "Colorado is leading the nation in renewable and sustainable initiatives that will set the pace and be an excellent example for the rest of the country."
Your wording is appropriately narrow to say initiatives instead of results. Texas leads the nation in wind power generation. Colorado has initiatives, but when the multi-billion bill comes home to roost, I suspect voters will regret the depth of their feel good initiatives.
P.S. I took the liberty of correcting your spelling.
May 5, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
What happens in Boulder unfortunately doesn’t stay in Boulder. Ritter likes to take ideas from both Boulder and California. Be very afraid.
May 5, 2008
3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Coco writes:
Much ado about nothing, methinks, to all of you raging about & criticizing Boulder. This is not new; ever hear of zoning laws, neighborhood covenants? Most communities have regulated the kind and size of structures all along. Go for it, Boulder!