City of Boulder 300 – Bedrooms + 1 = Unrelated People Allowed

The proponents of “Bedrooms are for People” attempted unsuccessfully to get a similar measure on the ballot last year. Some problems in the 2020 language were fixed – specifically, this new version is a statutory change rather than a more inflexible charter amendment, and this new version no longer allows 4 unrelated people in a 1-bedroom unit.

Currently, the maximum number of unrelated people who can live in a Boulder dwelling unit is either 3 or 4, depending on the zoning, with registered co-ops being a notable exception. When the co-ops, which are deed restricted as permanently affordable, request more than the allowed number of occupants (typically 12), the planning board “shall consider the potential impacts on the surrounding community, the number of residents proposed, the proposed habitable square feet per person, the available off-street parking, and the mission of the cooperative.”

Question 300 would allow any unit to be inhabited by as many unrelated people as the number of bedrooms + 1. No provisions for zoning or neighborhood impact are part of this ballot measure. However, Section 9-8-5 of the Boulder Revised Code would include a new part -- the definition of a bedroom. Salient features include a minimum of 70 square feet of floor space, 2 points of egress, a window, and a source of heat. The sole living room in a dwelling unit can’t be turned into a bedroom.

Recommendation: no/against

The opponents are not complaining about 6 unrelated people living in a 5-bedroom house built in the 1970s. Nor are there complaints about an owner renting out bedrooms in their own house.

Rather, opponents complain that the one-size-fits-all approach isn’t appropriate for Boulder and cannot be remedied by city council due to the city charter’s Section 54 prohibition on altering or modifying “the basic intent” of a ballot measure approved by the voters. Proponents believe that council can modify the measure, stating on their website that their “position is that the basic intent is to enact significantly more reasonable occupancy limits than the arbitrary fixed caps currently in place, so as to bring residents into legal status and better use the housing stock that already exists in Boulder.”

When depicting the future if this measure passes, the opponents predict build-up of new housing stock rather than only using existing empty housing stock. They point to single-family homes which have been subdivided into duplexes or triplexes, particularly on the Hill near CU.

“Slumlords” rarely live in the buildings that they rent out, don’t care very much about the state of the property, and are primarily concerned with making a profit. (Read Evicted by Matthew Desmond to learn more about this industry. Boulder took a step against bad eviction practices by passing Ballot Issue 2B in 2020.)

Short-term renters, especially if they are illegally over-occupying a dwelling, may be more willing to live with substandard conditions. Apartment buildings typically have better property managers, provide adequate parking and have fewer noise complaints than the subdivided single-family homes. Perhaps some of the bedrooms in the currently subdivided houses wouldn’t qualify as bedrooms under this new rule and occupancy in some houses would drop – that is, if the city can adequately enforce the new bedroom definition and if the current bedrooms are not grandfathered in like more than 1,200 properties were in 1998 when Boulder adopted the current occupancy limits.

Enforcement is a crux of this issue. Opponents of Question 300 say that there isn’t adequate enforcement of the current occupancy limits, noise ordinances, etc. Proponents say that enforcement or the threat of enforcement force people to either live far from where they spend much of their time in Boulder or worry about their legal residency status while over-occupying a dwelling.

Opponents argue that subdividing houses or scraping existing houses and building new houses with many bedrooms will make real estate more valuable and price out many people looking to buy a starter home. They point to a 2014 article about “stealth dorms” in Austin, Texas, and the negative impacts on house affordability and school enrollment. Both sides do agree that Boulder is not very affordable. The two sides disagree on whether Question 300 is a solution.

Opponents point out that no affordability requirements are written in the proposed code language. (One negative name for this measure is Bedrooms are for Landlords.) The question of affordability is driven to some extent by market supply and demand, but college students provide a curious case. College is a time when students are already experiencing a large outflow of cash to pay for tuition so the cost of housing may affect students less than the general population. When students are no longer required to live on campus after freshman year, some students take their combo student ID–bus pass and choose to live more affordably farther from CU. Many students, however, still live near CU, particularly on the Hill.

Boulder houses are inherently expensive because they are lower density than apartments and include expensive land called a yard. If there were a way to make sure that landlords kept a house and its grounds in good condition and rented to responsible tenants, I would be more in favor of this measure. I’d like to see more affordable apartments for students rather than increase the number of affordable houses for students.

The debate might be very different if the Hill were exempt from Question 300. The Hill residents would continue to be unhappy with lack of enforcement, but they would probably be less resistant to this measure. Unfortunately, the current debate is also warped because of a social media attack on the No on Bedrooms group as alleged in the District Court complaint, Rosenblum v Budd, et al.

Let’s defeat this measure and start the initiative process over. Both sides are in favor of affordable housing. Get the proponents and opponents together face-to-face to craft a measure that increases affordable housing without creating the scenarios that the opponents fear. Get everyone’s buy-in and go for a win-win situation.

Website for the Yes side – Bedrooms are for People
https://www.bedroomsareforpeople.com/

Website for the No side – No on Bedroom$ and People for Real Housing Affordability
https://noonbedrooms.org/


Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 300

Shall the City of Boulder expand access to housing by allowing all housing units to be occupied by a number of people equal to the number of legal bedrooms, plus one additional person per home, provided that relevant health and safety codes are met?

YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____

Ordinance No. 8475 to put Question 300 to the voters
Ordinance 8475 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates