Bedrooms Are For People Divides Boulder, but Both Sides Agree Change is Necessary
On Nov. 2, Boulder voters will decide the fate of Ballot Question 300, one of the most hot button issues in this year’s election circuit
The November 2 election is right around the corner, and the debate around one ballot measure in particular is heating up. Ballot Question 300 seeks to end Boulder’s limited housing occupancy laws, a proposition pushed on to the ballot by grassroots organization Bedrooms Are For People (BAFP). The seemingly simple measure, however, has left the community starkly divided as the future of Boulder housing hangs in the balance.
Bedrooms Are For People took to the streets in 2020 with an army of volunteers and workers, garnering significant community support with promises of an affordable, equal, environmentally friendly and diverse Boulder on the horizon. Their message was a hit with CU students and low income Boulderites who most often run into the walls built by the city’s occupancy restrictions.
“There’s just such a movement and momentum and so many people want to see change here that’s why we kept going,” said Eric Budd, one of the leaders of the BAFP movement.
But BAFP’s adversaries say passing Question 300 won’t deliver on the organization’s big promises—in fact, it will only exacerbate these issues.
“There is literally no affordability component to Bedrooms Are For People and there’s literally no reason that anyone should expect affordability to result from this,” said Dr. Ray Bambha, a climate scientist and sustainable energy researcher local to Boulder, and a founder of Real People for Housing Affordability.
Bambha has been campaigning against Question 300, noting the potential negative impacts the measure could have on the city by writing op-eds, speaking to the Chamber of Commerce, City Council and community members.
According to Bambha, the fault in Question 300 is in the fine print. The wording is sparse, featuring no explicit solutions to affordability or diversity issues and only spelling out occupancy expansion. Bambha says that simplicity will be the measure’s downfall, opening the door for property investors to continue gobbling up housing and charging the same steep rental rates per person.
“If there were controls on how occupancy limits were changed, I think you’d get a really different response from people like me,” he said.
Many students and young professionals have sided with BAFP because they believe the measure, although flawed, is still a step in the right direction. The majority of students say prices are going to keep rising whether Question 300 passes or not, so changing housing laws will at least provide students and workers with more flexibility.
“Rent is generally more affordable when it can be split amongst multiple people,” said CU student Chase Schwartzman.
CU Student Government Legislative Council President Sophia Khan also voiced her support for BAFP.
“The campaign pushes policies that are in place for the benefit of blue collar residents and people of color in Boulder; two demographics that are often underrepresented in a predominantly upper class and white area,” she said. “Bedrooms are for People recognizes how incredible of a city Boulder is, and they fight for our city to be easily accessible for all people; not just those who can afford to be here.”
Budd and his co-organizer Chelsea Castellano say BAFP is fighting for all minorities in the Boulder area.
“There’s a lot of research now around exclusionary zoning and how restricting housing, restricting access to housing hurts people who are lower income,” Castanello said. “It hurts people who don’t fall into the heteronormative standards that our society likes to put on us.”
But some people are worried about the effects BAFP will have on Boulder. Luna Graham, a CU education major, pointed to the history of the now popular, student-dominated zone of Goss Grove as what turned her against the proposition. Previously a neighborhood with secure housing for Boulder’s minority populations and family homes, a wave of CU students escaping the overcrowded Hill wiped out the locals with the help of loosened occupancy restrictions.
Since the student takeover, which was quickly seized on by property investors, Graham notes parking problems and rents have both soared.
“If the BAFP initiative is passed, as it’s currently written, developers will likely purchase large chunks of Boulder real estate and charge high rent, making it less accessible to the people it’s trying to help,” Graham said.
While many of the students and professionals opposed to Question 300 say they could get on board if it was written differently, this is no longer an option.
“Unfortunately, it is too late now to make changes to 300,” said Lisa Spalding, a member of NO on Bedroom$, in reference to rules of the Boulder charter. “If the Bedrooms Are for People organizers had listened to requests by the mayor, a majority of our city council members, and members of the public to include measures to ensure affordability and prevent rental housing investors from exploiting residential neighborhoods, we would never have had to form a ballot measure committee to oppose 300.”
Spalding and NO on Bedroom$ are urging people currently voting in favor of 300 to instead join movements to repeal Colorado’s ban on rent control to get at the root of affordability. She and Dr. Bambha also strongly encourage students to turn to CU for housing solutions.
Bambha’s wife, CU Boulder engineering professor, Hope Michelsen, is also an advocate against BAFP and the ballot measure.
“I don’t think it’s going to help students at all. I think it’s going to make it worse for students,” Michelsen said. “What I think we should do for students is get the University to help build more housing on campus.”
CU already has plans drawn for convenient, LEED certified housing that would keep the huge student population from displacing local communities. But it’s easier for the university to work with property investors and managers that seek out student rent than use tuition to fund a new housing solution.
Students in Boulder know how hard it is to find affordable housing. The typical rent for a one bedroom apartment is upwards of $1,875, and students are lucky to find bedrooms that cost less than $1000/month. New university housing could provide a viable solution to many of the issues BAFP is targeting—but only if the price is right.
Lisa Nelson, a volunteer for No on Bedroom$, knows the lengths landlords will go to capitalize on the new ballot measure if passed.
“This measure will make existing properties far more valuable as investment properties because of the opportunity for more tenants and more rental income,” Nelson said. “Between the 60,000 people who commute into Boulder for work and the approximately 30,000 students looking for housing here, the demand for housing in Boulder is far greater than the supply, so landlords will have no reason to lower rents, they will just reap greater profits with no incentive to improve student living conditions.”
With a community divided and different facts coming from each side, it’s difficult, maybe impossible, to predict the fate of Ballot Question 300. No matter the outcome, wars on the topic of occupancy laws and affordability in Boulder are sure to continue. For now, in Colorado, you can register to vote on Election Day, and in Boulder, you have three options to register to vote if you haven’t yet received a ballot. If you received a ballot in the mail, check out this map to find where ballot boxes are located near campus.
