To ignore the past is to risk the future

I was disappointed by the March 21 column by Brian Keegan, “We must end patterns of moral disengagement in our policy debates.”

But he appears to value scholarship. So I’ll offer some scholarly points:

CU’S own website describes how physicist Albert Bartlett, one of Keegan’s preceding professors, warned of the catastrophic environmental consequences of unlimited population growth.

Assuming Keegan values science, even “inconvenient truths” regarding ecology and biology, he doesn’t seem to understand the scientific fact that every bioregion has a finite carrying capacity.

The Apollo command module could hold three astronauts. If a fourth had tried to force their way in, NASA would have (accurately) said, “Sorry — there’s insufficient life support systems for a fourth. You’ll endanger yourself and the entire crew.”

Similarly, I assume Keegan has stayed at National Forest campgrounds. They have limited spaces as a precaution against overuse. USFS realizes exceeding carrying capacity jeopardizes the area for current and future occupants.

Per Keegan, the three original astronauts, and already-existing USFS campers are the problem but just can’t admit it. Keegan’s words suggest they’d think they’re “more virtuous.” Would Keegan also call them NIMBY’S?

Bartlett posited that Boulder’s maximum carrying capacity is roughly 100,000 residents. Note, carrying capacity can be exceeded — but at a price. In nature, when a bioregion exceeds its carrying capacity, biologists observe behavioral changes within species: more aggression, higher stress and corticosteroid levels in the body. We see this in Boulder now.

Keegan doesn’t appear to recognize many of us Boulderites who arrived before him respect limits and carrying capacity. We’re realists, not “rosetinted imaginaries,” as Keegan calls us. We don’t believe in forcing things. True, we were fortunate to arrive in Boulder before its carrying capacity was exceeded. But if many of us considered moving to Boulder now, we wouldn’t. So Keegan’s insinuation of hypocrisy is false.

I can’t speak for all the tens of thousands maligned by Keegan’s piece, but I regularly talk with hundreds of long-term Boulder residents. Different from Keegan and his Boulder “Progressive” colleagues, we don’t say, “Boulder or Bust.”

We make honest assessments of situations, and rational determinations whether there’s room for us. I wouldn’t consider moving to Boulder today. My selection process would turn to other communities that aren’t overloaded, the dozens of not-overgrown, not-overloaded, wonderful U.S. towns that I’d choose instead of Boulder. That’s where I differ from Keegan and the Boulder “Progressives.” Their premise seems to be “Boulder or bust. Everyone in the world who wants to live here, should. 500,000? 1,000,000? No problem!”

I’ll ignore Keegan’s insults against his fellow Boulderites. But just so everyone’s clear, I’ve been involved in neighborhood and “reasonable growth” issues for years, and I’ve never heard anyone use Keegan’s examples like, “Stop the flood of outsiders from destroying Boulder.”

I wonder what Bandura, Keegan’s quoted psychologist, would say about “projecting,” as Keegan appears to do throughout his column?

Regarding housing affordability, perhaps Keegan hasn’t heard of inelastic demand, which aptly describes Boulder. We’ve greatly increased our housing supply, but prices haven’t fallen. Consider: if the Boulder Progressives and their current City Council majority develop 20,000 more housing units, there’d be up to 100,000 more Boulderites, with occupancy limits of five people.

CU is also growing. Keegan, his “Progressive” fellows, and City Council seem to say, “Sure, bring it on, no matter how huge the numbers. Boulder can (should) house the world.”

If that’s inaccurate, I hope Keegan and our Council tell us how much more they think Boulder can sustain. That’d be the start of policy. “More, more, more” isn’t a policy. It’s an irresponsible denial of carrying capacity, water supply, and increased traffic, wildfire and flood risk.

Inelastic demand means the number of people wanting to live in Boulder will never be satisfied, unless Boulder becomes so overpopulated that there’s no water for future residents, the air is terribly polluted and getting across town takes an hour.

The wise policies from environmental stewards in PLAN Boulder in the 1970s (Blue Line, Open Space, Danish Plan, height limitations) hugely contributed to our quality of life. They also preserved the beauty I must assume partly drew Keegan and his fellow “Progressives.”

Emily Reynolds lives in Boulder.