Today, after several delays, the Boulder County Board of Commissioners finally closed the door on the expansion of the Dawson School. This is a private school in Lafayette that is held in fairly high regard, situated in a rural agriculturally zoned area
When I read this headline seeing the vote of 2-1, I made a few assumptions. It is always fun when you read the article and realize that you assumed TOTALLY WRONG! The assumption that I made was the Commissioners Toor and Pearlman, voted against and Commissioner Domenico voted in favor. I made that assumption because a. Cindy Domenico lives in, and represents that part of the County. b. I generally think that Domenico is the most sensible member of the board (the context being a view that Boulder County's development policies are unsensible) and c. I voted for Cindy Domenico and not for Will Toor (I voted for Ralph Schnelvar). Like all who assume I was righteous in being wrong.
Commissioners Domenico and Pearlman voted no and Toor in the affirmative to my surprise. I was pleased to be wrong for a few reasons. First it's always good to be reminded that it is prudent to get more information before making a rash judgement. Knee-Jerk reactions are frequently my criticism of public officials so it's important to realize that you may be guilty of the same offense. Second it was clear that the boards decision was NOT a knee-jerk reaction. While the length of time it took to arrive at a decision is subject to criticism, there is no denying that whether or not you agree with the outcome it was well vetted.
Since the result itself was evidence that I was prepared to make a knee-jerk judgement, I decided that I should try to actually take a look at the development plans before I rushed to scribing an opinion I would live to regret once supplied with facts.
My search for information led me to another realization . . .
The City of Boulder's website is really good (as compared to other municipal websites). On Boulder's City Council agendas, there is usually a hypelink to the actual information in the council packet. On the county commission agenda online however you are on your own. There is a handy "docket search tool " however when you search the docket number it gives you the title but no text. So Way to go City of Boulder in terms of open records. While I don't mean to accuse Boulder County of not having open records, (I could just go down to the county and get hard copy of the docket), and I'm sure I could probably get the school's plans somewhere online if I tried hard enough, I just was glad to have an opportunity to commend the City of Boulder on its access to information.
What I do know is that the school's plans would without a doubt would be a significant change to the land use in that area. The change from a 49,000 sq. ft facility to 255,000 sq. ft. in a rural area is no small detail. Knowing only that detail, without knowing what the new facilities would look like, how they would be used and how much energy, water, and vehicle access would be required, it's easy to make a knee jerk reaction in support of the commissioner's decision. Of course you can't legislate taste so the issue of what the facilities would look like is a non-starter. Energy efficiency, traffic mitigation and appropriate uses are germane to good land use, and simply put, if your land use philosophy is conservative in general, the burden of benefit would be pretty hard for such a large expansion. It's easy therefore to take a knee-jerk position in defense of the board.
**CORRECTION**
I received the following email from someone who knows something about it,
Greetings,
I was just googling info on the Dawson school expansion, noticed your comments and wanted to correct an error:
You said,
“The change from a 49,000 sq. ft facility to 255,000 sq. ft. in a rural area is no small detail.”
Actually the expansion itself is just 49,000 SQFT over several years.
Currently, the buildings add up to a total of just over 200,000 SQFT.
The newspaper confused a lot of people when it stated it that way. The additional 49,000 would total 255,000, so it would go from its current 210,000 SQFT to 255,000 SQFT by the year 2012.
Just thought to mention that……
Thanks, Bev
My apologies for having incorrect information.
On the other hand this is Boulder County, infamous for draconian land use regulation and a really easy target for knee-jerk criticism. Also this is a school they said no to, people don't say no to schools in Boulder County, PERIOD. With a long track record of no development, no how, no way. With the context that this issue comes after a huge revision of the school's plans and the matter being tabled four times, it would be easy to take knee-jerk position, critical of Boulder County yet again standing in the way of reasonable progress in pursuit of a conservative land use agenda.
After weighing both sides relying solely on limited physical evidence and anecdotal conjecture, if one still wanted to get more information about this project before joining the Daily Camera blog lynch mob, one would google search "dawson school expansion boulder county" and then find . . .
This is when it gets complicated. If you are in the process of defending yourself in a lawsuit, AND you have an opportunity to discredit an argument against you through a defensible action, at the same time the case is being heard, well . . .
That is not to say I believe the commissioners where making a purely political decision, although if the politics did inform their decision, that would be okay, a. they are politicians, and b. it is in the public's interest which the commissioners are sworn to protect to not loose lawsuits, and not have their decisions overturned by state or federal courts, particularly when the rest of the state has already decided that Boulder County's land use is draconian and decide against the county at every opportunity for political reasons.
So I won't say the decision was political, and I will say that I rather hope that it was at least in part. Even when I disagree I can respect when leaders are principled. I will also offer that if the motive was overtly political the decision would have been made 2 or 3 motions to table ago.
I don't have enough information however to know if I agree or disagree, or to make a knee-jerk critique of the commissioners decision. What I do know is that it was in fact "complicated". What is reaffirmed is that whenever you voluntarily leave the political mean you open yourself to knee-jerk criticism and Boulder County's conservative/protectionist land use philosophies carry the liability of needing constant defense. Frequently Boulder County is right, though it sometimes takes a long time for that to become apparent.
Boulder County, for it's folly is visionary. However this does not mean that it is inappropriate to question how far from the mean we've gone and to recognize the inefficiency that results when one moves too far to the left or the right.
And for those joe blog readers out there that;
a. read The Routt Report
b. read David Sirota's blog today and
c. remember this saturday night live skit,
d. and are playing a political blog drinking game
Knee Jerk.
(If you fit that category I promise that joke is Hilarious!)
Comments