My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC01488
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
13000-13999
>
WSPC01488
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:12:11 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 2:47:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8040.950
Description
Section D General Studies - General Water Studies
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
6/21/1972
Author
Unknown
Title
Balanced Population Committee - Areas for Committee Exploration - SJR Number 11
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />OOJ:J9~ <br /> <br />Although the Boulder City Council is working on <br />measures to slow the community's growth, techniques may <br />not yet be devised to reduce growth. The Denver Post re- <br />ports that roughly 4,600 housing units have been approved <br />and 2,300 are pending approval before the planning board <br />and city council. If these units are constructed, an ad- <br />ditional 17,000 persons will be added to Boulder's popu- <br />lation of 70,000. A suggestion has br . ~a1e for ~ mora- <br />torium on building permits in Boulder.lI \I~at effect would <br />this have on the ten percent of the population involved in <br />the construction industry in that area? What effect would <br />this have on building in unincorporated parts of Boulder <br />Valley? These are some of the questions the Boulder City <br />Council is wrestling with. <br /> <br />IV. Efforts to Stabilize Metro Denver <br /> <br />The Colorado Environmental Commission recommended <br />that the General Assembly adopt a policy of population <br />stabilization for Colorado. Specifically, the Commission's <br />report provides: "to protect the environmental integrity <br />of the state, population growth must be stabilized; to <br />prevent its further decay, the revitalization of rural <br />Colorado, accompanied by the limitation of metropolitan <br />Denver's growth must begin immediately." <br /> <br />Perhaps in response to the Environmental Commission, <br />H.B. 1115 was introduced during the 1972 Session. The <br />purpose of H.B. 1115 is to discourage the location or ex- <br />pansion of large industries in the Denver metropolitan <br />area. Obviously the intent of this legislation is to pro- <br />vide some braking action to at least one factor relating <br />to growth of the Denver community. The headquarters relo- <br />cation of the Johns-Manville, for instance, certainly will <br />provide economic stimulus and more growth to the metropol- <br />itan area. Analysis, however, needs to be made as to the <br />total economic and social benefits and costs of the loca- <br />tion of such activities. Is this industry providing local <br />employment opportunities, or will positions be filled by <br />in-migration? What stimulus will be provided to the econ- <br />omy and at what costs for schools, highways, and other <br />governmental services? Do the advantages outweigh the <br />disadvantages? Would the location of this industry else- <br />where in Colorado be of substantial benefit, but for the <br />Denver area pose long-range problems? Finally, is there <br />another community in Colorado capable of meeting housing, <br />schools, and other needs for such a large employer? <br /> <br />11 Denver Post, June 14, 1972, page 82. <br /> <br />-16- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.