As Democratic Gov. Jared Polis and the Legislature move to outlaw growth caps, it is hard to blame them on a basis of intent.

The motive behind a statewide ban on growth caps has virtue. The problem is the state’s inconsistent overreach into affairs belonging to cities, counties and towns. Let Mayberry be what Mayberry wants. Polis agrees. If Mayberry wants massive setbacks for oil and gas rigs, it has the right to impose them. Polis signed it into law.

On merit alone, House Bill 1255 is good. It highlights the pitfalls of a planning strategy started by Boulder in 1976, when the city outlawed building permits for housing if proposed homes exceeded 2% of existing stock.

Stay up to speed: Sign-up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

In 1988, the Los Angeles Times published a story titled “population cap keeps sprawl from Boulder.” The article explained how Southern California looked to Boulder for planning ideas.

In 1995, Boulder lowered the growth cap to 1%. That same year, Golden passed a 1% cap. Lakewood passed a cap in 2019. No-growth advocates petitioned in 2019 for a ballot measure to impose growth caps along the Front Range.

Nowhere does anyone hear more about the poor and minorities than among Boulder’s politicians and social justice activists. For decades, Boulder’s city, county and legislative politicians supported the growth cap while talking a blue streak about “affordable housing” and the need for ethnic diversity.

Among liberal Democrats, “diversity” serves as the first commandment. In the last presidential election, 77.2% of Boulder County, voters voted Democrat while 20.6% voted Republican. In the city proper, the Democratic majority rises above 80%.

The community has achieved neither affordable housing nor diversity.

Last month, the listing price of Boulder homes averaged $1.2 million – an average that includes mobile homes, city planned “affordable housing,” manufactured homes, two-bedroom bungalows and almost nothing resembling a mansion.

As for diversity, Blacks comprise 1.07% of Boulder’s population; whites make up more than 96%. Colorado Springs has no growth caps. Yet, as the country’s “most desirable” city, homes averaged 445,000 last month. Blacks make up 6.3% of the population and whites 77%.

A 2016 New York Times article, with dateline “Boulder,” featured the headline “How Anti-growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality.” The article said, “many of the people who already live in Boulder would prefer that the newcomers settle somewhere else …” And, “Anti-growth sentiment … is a major factor in creating a stagnant and less equal American economy … It has even to some extent changed how Americans of different incomes view opportunity.”

We cannot use laws to obstruct homes and talk honestly about the need for “affordable housing” and the diversity it might bring. Nearly all efforts to establish low-cost housing by government fiat fail. The market will deliver competitively priced housing if allowed to produce a surplus of homes. We can’t escape death and taxes or the forces of supply and demand.

Despite the proven problems with growth controls, Boulder politicians insisted the growth cap – like the city’s greenbelt – saved the environment. From humans. It says so in the growth caps’ statement of legislative intent:

“Provide for a rate of growth in the city that will assure the preservation of its unique environment and its high quality of life …” and, “avoid degradation in air and water quality.”

If enacted to rescue air and water, growth caps say “we care” – despite all harm to middle- and low-income workers who keep the city moving. Boulder’s growth cap causes nearly all firefighters, cops, teachers, nurses, and service workers to commute long distances. If it saves Mother Earth, so be it.

Establishment Democrats finally understand the hypocrisy of fretting about the poor while saving the environment from humanity. It took too long.

Polis is a lifelong Boulder resident. Will Toor, director of the Colorado Energy Office, served as mayor of Boulder for six years after the city lowered the growth cap. Today, they each support the demise of growth controls.

Let’s hope Colorado Democrats – especially Polis and Toor – soon understand how growth caps are not much different from their environmental anti-energy controls. Like obstruction of housing, hurdles to energy crush the middle class and poor. They lead to utility shutoffs, empty cupboards, evictions and foreclosures.

The intent behind House Bill 1255 makes sense. The problem concerns jurisdictional preeminence and consistent respect for local control. No jurisdiction should enact growth caps while espousing concern for the working class and poor. Nevertheless, they should remain the purview of cities, counties and towns.

Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board