There has been much talk in our community about the pace of growth in Boulder. Many of us moved here because of the open space, quiet neighborhoods, and beautiful Flatirons. How will we accommodate the influx of residents that all of this new construction will bring?

This topic is at the heart of two proposals on the upcoming ballot. Even if, like me, you don’t normally follow local politics, I urge you to read on — they will affect our city for decades to come.

I’ll start by saying that I don’t hold a particular stake in this debate. I’m not a real estate developer trying to protect my business prospects nor am I a homeowner with an incentive to increase my property value. I’m a young entrepreneur, a renter, and have never gotten involved in city politics.

When we vote on ballot issues like these, we’re voting on an amendment to Boulder’s charter — the local equivalent of our national Constitution. Amendments are very difficult to revise or repeal, and that’s why we should be so concerned about issues 300 and 301.

Ballot issue 300 (“Neighborhoods’ Right to Vote on Land Use Regulation Changes”) would divide Boulder into 66 neighborhoods and give each one the power to prevent new residential developments within its borders. If the city approves a zoning change in, say, Mapleton Hill, the neighborhood can start the veto process by collecting a petition signed by just 10 percent of the Mapleton Hill residents.

To put this in context: If such rules were in place in 1973, the Pearl Street Mall would likely not exist today — it was only approved by an 86 percent majority.

Herein lies the problem. It is easy to find 10 percent who disagree with the rest of the group — consider, for example, that 14 percent of Americans believe in Bigfoot. When we give veto power to such a small fraction of people, it makes it almost impossible to get anything accomplished.

Equally concerning is complementary amendment 301 (“New Development Shall Pay Its Own Way”), which is a bureaucratic nightmare designed for one simple purpose: to ensure that no new construction in Boulder will ever be possible. If 301 passes, Boulder would have to reject any development that did not fully pay for its projected use of city facilities and services — including vague factors such as emergency response times and vehicle-miles driven within the city.

Before the city approved a new building, it would first have to somehow calculate, for example, the cost of a hypothetical increase of an ambulance’s response time, and then make sure that tax revenue from the new residents would cover the cost. If not, the developer would have to foot the bill. Applications would take months — years, perhaps — to process, at an astronomical cost.

You might ask why are we are even considering such extreme measures. It is because some residents are uncomfortable with the pace of change in our city and they fear that Boulder is becoming Denver.

But from that fear is born a false dichotomy: that we can either stop growth now or become a metropolis. And so the pendulum swings just as strongly in the opposite direction. Isn’t there a reasonable shade of grey that we might consider in between?

Besides, though the idea may sound nice in principle, it isn’t possible to freeze the city in time and keep Boulder exactly the way it is today.

If we prevent new construction and demand for housing continues to increase, the price of housing will rise dramatically. This is the law of supply and demand — perhaps the most universally accepted principle in all of economics.

And as the price of housing increases, Boulder will change. It will push out young families, lower-income renters, artists, musicians, CU students and recent graduates — really, all but an influx of upper-class residents who can afford the skyrocketing cost of property.

This is a story that has been played out many times to the same result. Look no further than Aspen to see how this story ends.

The best way to preserve what we love about Boulder is not to close the door behind us, but to allow for a reasonable pace of growth that keeps Boulder accessible and affordable to brilliant, creative, and open-minded people.

If you even have a shadow of a doubt that these permanent, extreme measures may not be the best course of action for Boulder, I urge you to vote no on ballot issues 300 and 301.

Zack Kanter is founder and CEO of Proforged in Boulder.