We begin by acknowledging the heartfelt conviction on both sides of the debate over Boulder’s future embodied in the campaign around city ballot issues 300, the so-called “Neighborhoods’ Right to Vote,” and 301, entitled “Development Shall Pay Its Own Way.”

In the heat of the campaign, partisans on both sides have demonized the other — proponents as selfish NIMBYers, opponents as greedy developers or their lackeys. Having met with representatives of both groups, we are convinced they simply have different visions of what kind of town Boulder should be.

It is an important debate. In the end, whatever our opinion or that of anyone else, this is a decision for Boulder voters, and we hope they turn out in sufficient numbers to deliver a mandate one way or the other.

The antagonists on these issues represent divergent views of environmentalism we have discussed before. The traditional Boulder view is represented by Livable Boulder, sponsor of the two measures. It is a vision based in aesthetics and quality of life — open space, unimpeded views, and slow, managed growth. In fact, some in that camp now advocate no growth at all. The modern view of environmentalism espoused by opponents has more to do with carbon footprint — walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods where population density justifies business investment in commercial spaces nearby. The former is fundamentally a rural or suburban vision; the latter an urban vision.

Boulder Junction is the handiest proxy for this debate. Generally, supporters of the ballot issues don’t like the aesthetics or housing density there. Opponents tend to cite it as an example of the “15-minute neighborhoods” that allow people to leave their cars at home or do away with them altogether.

Prop 301 is simply too vague for us to understand, let alone support. City council is ordered to come up with a way to measure the cost of a new development to a variety of city agencies and services, but it offers precious few specifics about how to do it. Council members have often acknowledged how difficult such correlations are to pin down. We have no doubt it would end up in the courts, with progress in the city put on hold awaiting judicial outcomes, which may be the intent. In any case, a requirement that is little more than a political slogan does not belong in the city charter, in our view.

Prop 300 is somewhat clearer, although the language leaves the door open to a creative neighborhood claiming it was “affected” by a regulation change even if that change occurred in a different part of the city. More important, there are likely consequences of the proposal that its sponsors are reluctant to acknowledge. One is to exacerbate the rapidly-escalating cost of housing in Boulder. Restricting the supply more dramatically than it would be restricted without the measure, which we think the likely outcome, will only accelerate the upward spiral of housing prices. This speaks directly to what kind of town Boulder wants to be — inclusive or exclusive. Mayor Matt Appelbaum calls Prop 300 “the Gated Community Act” because he believes the effect will be to shut the door and create an enclave of affluence.

Some advocates believe shutting the door is a good idea. Cindy Carlisle, a candidate for city council endorsed by PLAN Boulder County, said in response to a Daily Camera questionnaire that Boulder has too many jobs and should not grow at all. She is not alone in this opinion.

Although the debate around growth and development in Boulder often suggests the city is a planet unto itself, free to choose its own course independent of its surroundings, the economic reality is quite different. In real life, Boulder is part of the Greater Denver metro area and, more generally, the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, one of the fastest-growing regions of the United States.

Forbes magazine ranks Denver as one of the 10 fastest-growing cities in the country. The state demography office, a division of the Department of Local Affairs, predicts Colorado’s population, currently estimated at almost 5.4 million, will grow to almost 7.4 million by 2035. That’s a 37 percent increase in 20 years, or a compound annual growth rate of 1.6 percent.

Because of existing growth controls, it projects the population of Boulder County will grow at a more modest rate, from an estimated 310,000 today to 387,000 in 20 years, for aggregate growth of 25 percent over that span, or a compound annual rate of 1.1 percent. The city of Boulder represents about one-third of the county population, so if that population growth were spread evenly throughout the county, one would expect the city to add between 25,000 and 26,000 residents over the next 20 years. To keep growth to an annual average of 1 percent or less, the city’s policy, that number would need to be limited to about 22,500.

Where will they live?

Well, as city residents are well aware, Boulder’s growth is restricted horizontally by open space and the blue line in the foothills. It is restricted vertically by a 55-foot height limit in its charter, with zoning imposing a 35-foot limit in much of the city. The method that remains is increasing the number of people who can reside in living spaces within those horizontal and vertical constraints. That generally means developing housing where it does not now exist or replacing some single-family housing with multi-family housing. Attempts to do this on a scale large enough to make a significant impact on supply generally require the sort of land-use regulation changes that would trigger the ability of any “affected” neighborhood to veto such a change by referendum under Prop 300.

Ask residents of virtually any urban or suburban neighborhood anywhere whether they want their neighborhood to get more crowded and a large majority will say no. Who wants more traffic, more people in line at the hot local restaurant, more crowded green spaces?

So, fine, you might be inclined to say. Shut the door.

But here comes that pesky reality again. In a free country, people can move where they want, and people keep moving to Colorado, most of them to the Front Range, for reasons we know well. Colorado is one of the most spectacular places to live on the planet. So they’re coming, whether we like it or not. The only question is where they’re going to live.

If Boulder neighborhoods have the right to veto by referendum the zoning changes that would provide much of the city’s share of regional population growth, the city’s housing supply will grow more slowly than the region’s, if at all, meaning its cost of housing will grow more rapidly. That’s simple supply and demand. Even without the measure, Boulder Housing Partners reports a 70 percent decline since 2000 in apartments that Boulder’s 19,000 service workers can afford to rent.

Accelerating that trend would create, in effect, the gated community Appelbaum fears. The affluence required to rent or buy in Boulder will only increase if the supply of new housing is restricted in this way. Over time, the physical character of Boulder may be preserved, but the human diversity will not. Young people and families, lower- and middle-income people, will be forced out, with the exception of the small cohort lucky enough to score subsidized units. Boulder is likely to become even whiter and wealthier than it already is.

If the impetus for Prop 300 were truly greater neighborhood representation in decision-making, you would think its proponents would favor a change from the city’s nine at-large city council seats to a district or ward system in which every neighborhood would have a local council person to represent its interests. But they don’t; at least, the Livable Boulder representatives who met with us didn’t. So we conclude the measure is less about neighborhood representation and more about the disincentive to growth that the threat of vetoes by referendum would pose.

For better or worse, popular places in a free country generally face choices of growth or exclusivity. The desire to stay the same is natural, but illusory. Change is inevitable. If the ballot measure is rejected and Boulder grows at the rates projected, it will change. If the ballot measure is approved and Boulder grows more slowly or not at all, it will change, and perhaps more profoundly.

We think the latter is the more ominous possibility, so we recommend a no vote on both 300 and 301. But we also believe in self-determination, so we urge every eligible voter in Boulder to cast a ballot during the three-week period from Oct. 13 through Nov. 3 when ballots will be accepted. However this turns out, it will tell us what kind of town Boulder wants to be.

—Dave Krieger, for the editorial board. Email: kriegerd@dailycamera.com. Twitter: @DaveKrieger