In the simplest possible sense, Bedrooms Are For People (BAFP) would increase the City of Boulder’s existing occupancy limits for unrelated persons to the number of legal bedrooms, plus one additional person per dwelling unit. For example, a four-bedroom home – located in a zone where only three unrelated people are allowed now – could have up to five unrelated people if BAFP passes.

This year’s version of BAFP would amend the Boulder Revised Code (BRC), unlike last year’s proposal that would have amended the City Charter.

But the ballot title you’ll see on the ballot in 2021 won’t give you the text of what will change in BRC, or the context behind the measure. See the box at right for the code language, and read on for context.

THE BASIC CONFLICT

Screen-shot this next sentence if you have certain prejudices about me: “It’s tough for many people to find affordable housing in Boulder.” The BAFP ballot measure seeks to potentially increase the supply of legally available bedrooms in town, therefore providing more housing supply for people no matter their demographic. It is possible for people who violate current occupancy limits to get evicted, even if they simply don’t make a lot of money and need to share space or expenses, and it’s just not healthy to experience eviction or live in fear of eviction. In theory, more centrally-located bedrooms should allow some people to live closer to work and school, possibly decreasing traffic congestion and pollution/carbon emissions from driving.

However, Boulder is a college town, and many college-aged adults party, stay out late, come home late, and make noise while they’re up. Neighborhoods that are typically student-heavy, notably University Hill and Martin Acres, are also the home to other people who might not want to live with excessive noise or late-night activity. Certain opponents to BAFP believe it could lead to property owners converting properties into higher-occupancy units for increased rental income. Also, some opponents believe BAFP could make areas like the Hill very attractive to investors, and new pricing – whether based on additional units or desires for return on investment – could price out families from certain homes that a group of students might be able to afford.

FINER POINTS

Why are there occupancy limits in the first place? Are Boulder’s current laws unique? Could there be unintended consequences? Is BAFP the only way to address occupancy limits? Please read on.

Boulder city staff prepared an 18-page memo dated July 20, 2021, with a whole bunch of information about occupancy limits and how they might be addressed. It’s worth reading the memo in full, but some of the excerpts listed below can help answer some questions.

Are Boulder’s Laws Unique?

  • No and yes. The memo included occupancy information from six “peer cities,” all college towns in the U.S., and all six had some form of regulation, though they were all different from Boulder’s.
  • For example, our friends in Fort Collins have limits saying: “One family and not more than one additional person OR one adult and their dependents (if any), a second adult and their dependents (if any) and not more than one additional person.”
  • In Madison, Wisconsin: “For owner occupied dwellings, allowed occupancy can be a family AND max of four unrelated roomers OR a max of five unrelated individuals.”
  • Anecdotally, some number of other U.S. college towns beyond the six listed in the city memo also have occupancy limits. Do your own research, but here’s Bloomington, Indiana’s: “Typically in residential single-family zones, the maximum allowable occupancy is 1) a single family, or 2) three unrelated adults.”
  • This link, even though it’s from 2017, provides a list of occupancy limits in other Colorado cities and additional U.S. college towns: https://urbanfortcollins.com/occupancy-ordinances/
  • The college town of Bowling Green, Ohio, actually had its occupancy law struck down in 2019. While many occupancy laws across the nation remain on the books, the following link is worth reading and other legal challenges could certainly happen into the future: https://bgindependentmedia.org/court-strikes-down-citys-efforts-to-limit-renters-per-unit/

BEDROOMS ARE FOR PEOPLE CODE LANGUAGE

SECTION 1. In the Boulder Revised Code, amend Section 9-8-5 (a) of Chapter 8 of Title 9 as follows:

(a) General Occupancy Restrictions: Subject to the provisions of Chapter 10-2, “Property Maintenance Code,” B.R.C. 1981, no persons except the following persons shall occupy a dwelling unit:
(1) Members of a family plus up to two additional persons; or
(2) Up to three persons in P, A, RR, RE, and RL zones; or
(3) Up to four persons in MU, RM, RMX, RH, BT, BC, BMS, BR, DT, IS, IG, IM, and IMS zones; or
(4) Two persons and any of their children by blood, marriage, guardianship, including foster children, or adoption; or
(5) Up to the number of persons equal to the number of legal bedrooms, plus one additional person per dwelling unit.

For the purposes of this subsection, unless the context is otherwise required, “Bedroom” must meet all requirements defined in the Title 10 Chapter 5.5 – Residential Building Code including but not limited to the following:

i. Must have 70 square feet of floor space;
ii. Must have a minimum of 7 feet in at least one direction;
iii. Must have its own access to a hallway or communal space;
iv. Must have two points of egress;
v. Must have at least one window;
vi. Must have a source of heat;
vii. Garages, kitchens, bathrooms, and one living room per dwelling unit are deemed not to be bedrooms for the purposes of this definition.

Why Are There Occupancy Limits In The First Place?

Here are a bunch of points directly from the city memo:

  • Regulating the number of unrelated adults in a household is a method of indirectly regulating the effects produced by high-occupancy properties.
  • Generally in Boulder, areas with higher occupancy levels may be correlated to higher nuisance violations.
  • Some members of these populations seek to enjoy freedoms new to them as recently developed adults, conducting themselves as they choose in their own dwelling, away from parental supervision.
  • These lifestyle preferences may conflict with the preferences of longer-term residents who may have work schedules, child care and a higher preference for a quiet living environment rather than a highly social, active environment.
  • But In Fairness: Nuisances such as parties, noise and other quality of life concerns may also be attributed to other factors such as visitors to a property or public areas in the vicinity of a property, rather than being solely attributable to high property occupancy.

Would BAFP Create New Challenges For City Staff?

Yes, almost undeniably, especially when it comes to enforcement and administration. But again, here are points directly from the city memo:

  • Of the six (peer) communities it appears only one, Fort Collins, has dedicated a team specifically for occupancy enforcement, and Boulder doesn’t have such a team either.
  • The City of Boulder has never tracked or recorded the number of bedrooms in a dwelling.
  • Other records of bedroom count, such as assessor’s office records, contain inaccurate and unverified information, rendering them unusable for regulatory purposes.
  • The potential exists for landlords to attempt to add additional unpermitted bedrooms, thus increasing the occupancy of a dwelling for maximum profit.
  • Should BAFP pass, staff will need to work with property owners to determine each rental dwelling’s legal bedroom count so that occupancy may be established. This will be a significant task, with 23,189 long-term rental units currently existing in the City of Boulder. As there is no existing record of bedrooms, staff will also need to perform individual physical inspections of every dwelling.

Didn’t BAFP Get The Shaft In 2020?

Yes and no. City staff very definitely gave the BAFP campaign incorrect advice on necessary numbers of petition signatures and petition deadlines in 2020. The city was taken to court in August 2020 for that reason, and even the judge in the case acknowledged that the city screwed up – but he still ruled against the lawsuit. BAFP didn’t get anywhere by appealing to the Colorado Supreme Court, either.

Meanwhile, information about those city staff mistakes was available in at least the early spring of 2020, months before the lawsuit. According to local attorney Valerie Yates in a Daily Camera guest opinion, “The city staff also appears to have forgotten that even years are special elections, which require charter amendment petitioners to gather more than 8,000 signatures rather than 4,000 required in regular election years…In early spring, (former Council member) Steve Pomerance noted the errors made by staff and warned the City Attorney’s Office and petitioners of the risks of legal challenge.”

By law, City Council could have still put BAFP on the ballot even without sufficient signatures, but there was no reason they had to do so. Much bitterness ensued, which was to be expected, but BAFP made the ballot this year by collecting a much lower number of signatures for the 2021 odd-year election than they needed in the special election year of 2020.

PRO ON 300

  • It will increase legal availability of bedrooms in Boulder, whether it’s in student rentals or other shared living arrangements regardless of demographics.
  • More people who might be illegally living above occupancy limits today could gain legal protections other renters enjoy, plus possibly peace of mind.
  • More people might be able to live in places where they could use alternative modes of transportation to get to work or school.
  • Having more people in a house might mean people could divide up expenses and save some money.

CON ON 300

  • There are no safeguards in the ballot language about affordability.
  • Having more people in student-heavy neighborhoods might contribute to noise and other impacts.
  • The ballot language would not prohibit property owners from converting a home to add more bedrooms.
  • Passing BAFP might incentivize investors to buy homes and convert them into high-occupancy student rentals.

ON THE WEB:

Yes on 300: https://www.bedroomsareforpeople.com/
No on 300: https://noonbedrooms.org/

RICHARD’S TAKE

I’ve had a running battle with myself over the desirability of settling things by “yes/no” ballot measures, as opposed to deliberative public processes with final decisions by elected bodies.

One down side of ballot measures is that voters are stuck at some point with what’s in the final language, usually set months in advance of when ballots go out. This means once the language is set, proponents can’t change even in the face of fairly common possibilities, like new information coming to light or discovering unintended consequences.

With the deliberative process, you can put draft language out to the public. If there are good ideas for improvements, even minor tweaks, a good legislative body can make those changes up until very shortly before an issue comes up for a final vote. Sometimes great suggestions even come from political opponents, since they have different perspectives, and might point out obvious places for improvement – possibly in the interest of fairness. I’ve seen this process make laws better literally hundreds of times, if not thousands since I’ve lost count.

So, I vote “no” on a lot of initiatives if I think mistakes could cause negative impacts into the future. It’s what I’ll do with BAFP, because while I think the concept has merit, the law that would go into city code has serious omissions which could enable unintended consequences. I heard often this summer that we “shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” which is an OK slogan, but doesn’t appeal to me when it comes to making law.

However, I’m glad citizen initiatives are an option, because a legislative body sometimes can’t or won’t do what some segment of the people reasonably want. At that point, running a ballot measure might be the only way to bring about legal change. I respect BAFP for spending the last couple years gathering petitions and organizing campaigns, and whether it passes or not they’ve moved the conversation about occupancy limits from the city’s back burner to a pretty hot front burner.

Still, none of this makes me want to make this specific proposal a law, and here are a few key reasons why:

Zoning’s Not Always The Devil: The BAFP ballot measure sets occupancy standards for the entire city based on the number of bedrooms only, and does not differentiate even for areas that traditionally house large concentrations of undergrads. This is a very serious flaw in my opinion, one that BAFP proponents should have taken more seriously. Anyone who’s spent actual time in areas dominated by undergrads, myself included, knows the parties can get loud and last into the early morning. However, I want to be crystal-clear that not all undergrads are noisy – this is just an observation that certain neighborhoods tend to be noisier than others.

Results might vary case-by-case, but it seems likely that BAFP would put more energetic young adults into areas with reputations for noise and parties such as University Hill or Martin Acres. Criticize older neighbors as you will, but they deserve a good night’s sleep. Through zoning, Boulder already allows higher residency (four per household instead of three) for non-related persons in certain zones – and again through zoning, City Council might be able to allow even higher occupancy in areas where the impacts probably won’t be as noticeable, while the ballot measure doesn’t allow for discernment.

No Protections Against Abuse: With the potential for property owners to make more money if they have more bedrooms, what’s in Bedrooms language to stop someone from just hiring Tarek and Christina from “Flip or Flop” and crew to knock out a few walls and turn a 3-bedroom into a 5-bedroom? That’s right, nothing.

There are, of course, regulations over what constitutes a legal bedroom, and would-be renovators would still need to obtain permits to do the work legally. Renovations cost money, and the work might be difficult depending on the structure. But if owners can increase the rental potential from, say, $3,000 a month to $5,000 a month, that’s a potential additional $240,000 in gross revenue over the course of 10 years. I’d at least think about it, wouldn’t you?

Some opponents to BAFP have taken this angle a tad too far, as if property owners are going to just cram as many 70-square-foot bedrooms as imaginable into any available home. They won’t – but the fact is, the ballot measure language is completely silent on what property owners could do as long as they follow all other applicable laws, and that’s a serious oversight in my book.

No Guarantee It Will Save Renters Money: I could accept that an answer to “Will BAFP save renters money?” would be “in some cases, yes, in some cases, no.” But to assume that some property owners wouldn’t use this new law to maximize income seems in denial of human nature. It’s completely possible that new occupancy limits could attract national or international investment corporations to buy up homes for rental properties, and there are no provisions in BAFP to regulate or incentivize for affordability. Again, this seems like a serious oversight. Ownership is one of the factors that influences pricing.

No Guarantee the Next Council Would Fix The Law: People have been claiming that if there are issues with BAFP, the next City Council could just address omissions or consequences legislatively. However, we don’t know who will be on the next Council, or how many of them would actually support changes, and there are questions about what provisions Council could actually change from an approved citizen initiative per the City Charter. And if property owners act fast, they might be able to get their physical projects done before Council even finds a reason to address them. Then, it takes time to decide to pursue action, draft an ordinance, hold public hearings, consider amendments, and pass an ordinance after multiple readings.

It’s just not a prudent idea to put language into law and assume someone’s going to fix it later, especially given that BAFP could influence physical property developments, and a new ordinance can’t force someone to tear down a project that’s already been legally completed.

Tough for Families: Simply put, if a house rents for a given lump sum price based on the number of bedrooms or potential occupants, it might be easier for some number of college students to afford the house for a year than an actual working family with kids and a longer-term commitment to Boulder. It’s not a certainty, but it’s possible that passing BAFP could mean more nuclear families will get priced out of housing in certain parts of town. Yes, living on the Hill might be a perfect location for college students, but it could also be ideal for faculty or staff members with kids.

BAFP’s Not The Only Possible Solution: In my opinion, some advances on occupancy limits could have already been accomplished through Council process. Council clearly had awareness of the issue in 2020, and it was considered for Council’s 2021 work plan but dropped due to BAFP probably heading for the ballot. So, if one of the BAFP objectives is to fill unused bedrooms, I’d suggest Council could have passed a simple ordinance allowing owners with 4 and/or 5 existing bedrooms to register and apply for increased occupancy. This would have minimized the concern about large-scale renovations, and possibly reduced the incentive for investors to buy and convert homes. The community and Council could have also discussed other safeguards, perhaps zoning or even affordability incentives, though complexity can insert difficulties. All in all, good public process might have created a solution(s) more amenable to larger percentages of the community. Instead, we’re voting yes or no on an entire section of language, take it or leave it, and I just think we could do better.