‘Density,’ a shibboleth as much as a plan, has consequences all too plainly and tragically on display
What a tragic year it’s been for Boulder and its environs. It started with a horrific shooting at a grocery store and ended with fires that drove tens of thousands from their homes and destroyed close to 1,000 homes. As of this writing, two people are still missing and we pray for their safe return.
While the cause of the fire is not yet known, many factors contributed to its spread and destruction of residential areas.
According to the National Weather Service, high winds are not unusual for Colorado at this time of year, though the Dec. 30 winds were higher than usual. What was not typical is the drought on the Front Range. Though all of Colorado is in a drought, a wet spring followed by an extremely dry summer and autumn led to conditions that, should a spark fly, could explode like a tinderbox. Tragically, for all those affected, that is just what happened.
So the conditions were ripe — but other factors must be examined, such the population boom and lack of affordable housing. Colorado’s population has exploded this past decade, growing by 15%. Most of this growth has landed in the Denver-Boulder-Fort Collins-Colorado Springs area.
This growing density in urban areas, while lauded by many politicians, wreaks havoc on our natural environment, as open space and needed greenery rapidly disappear.
The density contributes to a lack of affordable housing in that nearly all new housing units in Denver (for example) are classified as luxury. Housing prices keep rising, pricing many, especially families, out of the market. There’s also cognitive dissonance from the politicians and city planners who push density as some kind of solution, not acknowledging that many Coloradans, especially young families, want single family homes.
So where do these young families go? To newly built developments outside of the big cities but still within the corridor — areas such as Longmont, Louisville and Superior. These areas were mostly grassy plains, but today they have been developed into residential housing and commercial buildings.
Tragically, these provided tinder for the Marshall and Middle Fork fires.
There is always an element of the unforeseen, force majeur, but there are also rational explanations: population movements and climate change for which local governments have poorly planned or even ignored. Instead, “density” and development is offered as slogan, not well thought out. Questions about the potential costs of density are banned as non-PC.
These fires should impel us to confront the consequences of the migration from a largely rural to a predominantly urban society. We must examine its sustainability. Government planners should consider incentivizing the growth of smaller cities and creating new population areas. The overpopulation of urban corridors is unsustainable.
Advances in technology and the significant increase in remote working can be a boon to many rural communities, especially in places like the Great Plains, where the economy is already strained by a steady decrease in single family farms. While adding much needed population to small towns, such a migration could also relieve some of the density in metropolitan areas and urban corridors — a potential win-win scenario.
Meantime, we weep for the families who lost their homes, their belongings, every memory, their safe haven — all gone up in flames. It is weak succor for the victims, but the silver lining — from the shooting in January to the fires in December — is the empathy, emotion and support exhibited by and for the communities impacted by these tragedies. We Coloradans care about each other. So sad that we’ve had to show that compassion so often in recent years.
Copyright © 2022 by the Intermountain Jewish News
