By Mark Gelband

We’ve come to this place in Boulder where Stacey Goldfarb isn’t embarrassed, while writing about local development, to refer in a recent commentary in the Camera to “‘equity’ reasons, whatever that means.” Imagine feeling so privileged to think these words, let alone to write them in the local paper. In Ibram X. Kendi’s important work “How to Be An Antiracist,” he notes that we are all racist — segregationists or assimilationists — and those of us offended by being called so are undoubtedly.

Goldfarb, like many of the virulently anti-housing folks around town, seems unaware of the well-documented facts about “exclusionary zoning” and “neighborhood character,” and their de jure history of racist housing policies. It’s as if she hasn’t heard of redlining and deed restrictions, seems clueless that black and brown people were systemically and legally disallowed from purchasing homes in Newlands, Martin Acres, Mapleton Hill, Aurora 7 and other Boulder neighborhoods.

And I know, if only those people would work as hard as I did, make the sacrifices I made to purchase my home, they too could own west of Broadway abutting open space. Because not everyone “deserves” to live in my neighborhood. Like President Trump says: They have to be the kind of people that will contribute.

I’ll forgive her this ignorance and her “tragedy of the commons” limited resources allusion. She must not know Garrett Hardin’s limited resources argument has been debunked and he discredited as a white supremacist. I’m even willing for the sake of argument to accept that we have limited resources. However, I am increasingly convinced that the selfish, self-centered, and inconsiderate notion that our limited resources are for the most privileged is a morally corrupt and indefensible argument.

So whether it is Councilwoman Cindy Carlisle going out on a limb to save vulnerable Mapleton Hill and Newlands residents from having some uppity busboy who commutes here 45 minutes each way to clean up after her spicy tuna roll park in the public parking spot outside her house, or it’s Councilwoman Lisa Morzel insinuating recently that outsiders are invading our open space, long-term Boulder single-family residents understand their rights.

I was taught in kindergarten to share, and especially so with someone less fortunate. Maybe I can forsake my view of the Flatrions from my Duravit master suite for the chance at a more economically, culturally and ethnically diverse community. It was so heartening during the Alpine-Balsam project discussion to hear so many 30-plus-year Newlands residents talk about the loss of the vital neighborhood character of economic diversity, and their support for more neighbors.

Like the eight acres at Alpine-Balsam, if the moral imperative argument of sharing is worthless, maybe some simple math is in order. We spent $42 million — $400 per person in Boulder for the site. If we put 600 units there, it’s $97,000 per unit before six years of carrying costs and a shovel hits the ground. At 200 units it’s three times as expensive. No logic equates to more affordability through less units.

I’ve also had enough of the privileged whining about exceeding height limits, when so many ill-informed voters don’t know that 55 feet is the height limit in town, set by a vote of the people, and it’s been down-zoned to 38 feet by advocacy group PLAN-Boulder County cronies on Council. Or that Ruth Wright in her seminal work on the 1972 height limit foresaw a “dense urban core of 5-story buildings” to prepare for 140,000 residents by 1990.

And yet, wealthy white people in 4,500-square-foot popped-and-scraped “homes” with three and four empty bedrooms want to “protect us” from bike lanes, multifamily housing, duplexes, four-plexes, plexibility, flag lots, co-ops and accessory dwelling units — you know, things that were legal before they moved in. God forbid. And so many people talking about “neighborhood character” can’t remember that Boulder has been systemically down-zoned for 40-plus years, and it’s as if the Boulder they “know” cannot evolve, but have no idea what it was like before they got here.

Whether it’s open space, roads for protected bike infrastructure, land for housing, views or public parking, this election season I am asking myself which candidates are committed to sharing Boulder, looking at policies through a lens other than the most privileged and proximate single-family homeowners. For way long enough, I’ve seen what that point of view has created, and I can assure Stacey Goldfarb and the rest of the anti-housing, anti-sharing folks, it’s much closer to Tesla elitism than social equity — which means, by the way, applying justice and fairness to social policy.

Mark Gelband lives in Boulder.

The Daily Camera welcomes letters to the editor and guest opinions from readers. Read our guidelines, and send submissions to openforum@dailycamera.com.