At the heart of opposition to CU’s south campus expansion is the regard and stewardship of Boulder’s public good. Both the city and the university have adopted business plans that emphasize constant growth over refinement and quality of life. Capitalizing on its tax-exempt status, the university has transformed itself from an institution of higher learning into essentially a corporate rental empire with an ever-increasing administrative overhead. There is nothing in its south campus plan that will improve the quality of education offered nor make it any more affordable. What it will do is add more traffic and stress on the city’s infrastructure and carbon footprint. Historically, the site was a natural wetland. Gravel mining further lowered its elevation and left three ponds fed by groundwater. By no means pristine, it presents a clear example of the natural world healing itself from human scarring and, by definition, is still a wetland that will require drainage and massive infill before construction can begin. As it stands now, with vistas in all directions, it has value beyond any future income for the university. Paving and building over it would be a loss for us all.
0 Comments
There are viable options to consider other than the controversial development of CU South. Why not cap the enrollment of CU, so that additional housing, classrooms, and playing fields are not necessary?
There are lots of discussions and arguments surrounding the CU Boulder South plan, but there is a larger issue often overlooked by City Council and city residents: Do the future goals of the university align with the goals of the city?
Despite concerns from the community about flood concerns, the city of Boulder seems to be moving forward with annexation of the CU South property as described in the article published Jan. 27. With no publicly available master plan for CU’s intended development, it is unacceptable to move forward with annexation. Building in a flood plain with several known aquifers as well as endangered and threatened species is not a sustainable or wise choice for CU or the city. One of many concerns local residents have about annexation is that this property suffers from poor access and currently has only one access point: a congested area at the intersection of U.S. 36 and Table Mesa.
In his Feb. 20 column in the Daily Camera, “Full annexation makes sense at CU South,” Jim Martin, former University of Colorado regent, argues that annexation of the CU South property would be beneficial for all stakeholders, including the city, the county, local residents and the university. I respectfully disagree.
Mr. Martin writes that the city would benefit from full annexation because it could then work with CU to provide badly needed flood mitigation for downstream residents. Implicit in this idea is that the university bears no responsibility for flood mitigation on its own property and that the moral and financial burden for such should fall entirely upon the city and its taxpayers. What’s more, CU appears to be using the city and county’s rightful desire to protect their citizens from catastrophic flooding as leverage in its quest to eventually develop the land. This prioritizing of CU’s interests over the well-being of nearby residents is not new. |
Search Save South Boulder News by Topic
All
Save South Boulder News Archives
October 2023
|