Growth Control by Hassle

Since 1971, Boulder has conducted “growth control by hassle. - Paul Danish, former Boulder City Councilman

Boulder’s explicit growth-control policies are well-known and widely studied: the greenbelt, the Blue Line, the 55-foot height limit, and the 2% residential growth cap. The city has made no secret of its decision to limit growth through concrete measures (many of which were visionary and have created the beautiful city we have now).

However, just as powerful – and far less studied – is Boulder’s regulatory regime, a quieter system of rules and regulations that, in practice, can be costly and exhausting to navigate. Talk to anyone who has tried to build housing or start a small business here, and they will describe the same experience: delays, ambiguity, endless reviews. Time and time again, projects that should take months stretch into years.

“Growth control by hassle” emerged as a deliberate political strategy that took root in the 1970s and never really left. Rather than rejecting development outright, Boulder increasingly relied on administrative and procedural mechanisms that slowed or discouraged projects without formal bans. Layers of review and months or years of delay make it functionally impossible to build, even when the zoning technically allows it.

The Origins

Boulder’s resistance to growth took root shortly after colonization. There were “violent objections” over growth at City Council meetings in the 1920s, when the city’s population was only 11,200 (Perrigo, 1946, p. 227). Explicit growth-control measures did not become widely used until the 1960s and 1970s, following a dramatic post-war population boom, the arrival of federal labs and IBM, and the University of Colorado's expansion. As the city transformed, many residents became anxious about losing Boulder’s unique character and natural beauty. The city rolled out several explicit growth-control policies during this time, many of which have been studied and written about in detail. However, it was a little-known resolution, passed after an intense public fight over population limits, that quietly set the stage for what would become “growth control by hassle.”

In 1971, Boulder voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have capped the city’s population at 100,000. One of the resolution’s strongest proponents, Councilman Paul Danish, thought that if Boulder exceeded 100,000 people, its urban infrastructure would “break” (Hamilton, 1976). The measure failed 58% to 42%, but to address the concerns of many residents, City Council passed a resolution committing to keep population growth “substantially below” 1960s levels (Hamilton, 1976; Lidstone, 1977, p. 14). The resolution served as a political promise to concerned residents that (even without voter approval) the city would take steps to slow the pace of change.

Five years later, in 1976, Boulder passed what became known as the Danish Plan, a formal cap on residential building permits limiting growth to 2% annually. Named after Councilman Danish and backed by PLAN-Boulder, it made Boulder the first U.S. city to adopt a quantitative growth ceiling. The measure passed by just 550 votes, despite opposition from the Chamber of Commerce and a majority of the City Council.

Danish had been explicit about what the plan represented. He is quoted in a 1976 High Country News article:

“Since 1971, Boulder has done growth control by hassle. … The city planning department has required that developers meet all the standards, but no ‘concrete’ action has been taken to slow growth.”

The 2% cap was the concrete action Danish wanted. Unfortunately, when the plan passed, the city did not remove the hassle. Instead, a few years later, in 1981, the city codified it into a new, more complex land use code, adding new zoning categories, discretionary reviews, and heightened design standards.

What Changed in 1981

In 1981, Boulder comprehensively revised its land use code for the first time since 1965. The updated code introduced multiple new discretionary review processes, including Use Review, Site Review, and Height Modifications, and expanded Historic Preservation triggers. These changes increased both the time and cost required for project approvals and gave administrators greater discretion in the review process. The 1981 Revised Code marked the point at which “growth control by hassle,” a strategy already informally in place, became formally embedded in the city’s regulatory framework.

Boulder was not unique in this approach. Cities across the country, particularly in California, were adopting similar strategies to manage growth while minimizing legal vulnerability. Boulder, however, incorporated procedural friction more extensively, integrating discretionary review into nearly every stage of the development process.

Major changes to the 1981 Revised Code included:

• Use Reviews and Site Reviews, which meant that even if your project aligned with zoning, you still needed special approval. (Months of review, discretionary evaluation, and new opportunities for denial)

• Planning Board call-ups have served as a wildcard because projects can be pulled into a public hearing at any moment, for any reason, adding weeks or months of uncertainty. (City Council’s parallel authority to call up Planning Board decisions is now a standard feature of Boulder’s land use process, though the exact date it was added remains unclear.)

• Height Modifications, which turned what should have been a straightforward question (is this building the right height for the zone?) into a case-by-case negotiation.

• Historic Preservation Review, initially established in the 1965 code, was expanded to cover any building over 50 years old, with a broadened definition of what counted as a “significant change.” In a city where most buildings are old, this meant almost any renovation could trigger months of additional scrutiny.

The 1981 code did not just add process; it added discretion, and, with it, subjectivity. Phrases like “adequate public services,” “neighborhood compatibility,” and “design harmony” appeared throughout, each one vague enough to mean almost anything. City staff, Planning Board, and City Council became gatekeepers with the soft power to delay, to question, to require one more study, one more revision, one more hearing.

Where We Are Today

Boulder’s current Title 9 Land Use Code is more layered and complex than ever. Instead of reforming or streamlining the 1981 code, the city continued to build on it, adding new layers to address emerging priorities such as environmental resilience, sustainability, and housing affordability. These include:

• Floodplain Permits, which require detailed environmental review and apply to many parcels across the city

• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans, mandating new infrastructure and operational standards for developments near transit corridors

• Inclusionary Housing Requirements, which require either the inclusion of affordable units or the payment of a cash-in-lieu fee

• Form-Based Code Elements, adopted in select districts, that introduce stricter design standards on top of existing procedural reviews

These additions reflect important progressive goals: protecting the environment, reducing car dependence, and promoting equity. However, critically, they were not accompanied by any real simplification of the base system. Instead, they were layered on top of decades of existing rules and regulations.

The result is a regulatory maze that often requires a team of specialists (lawyers, planners, consultants) to navigate. Complexity itself now acts as a gatekeeper in Boulder.

The Hidden Costs of Delay

Every additional month of review carries a measurable financial burden. Developers and small business owners alike face what economists call “time costs of regulation” … expenses that accrue not from what is required, but from how long it takes to navigate through the process.

For a financed housing project, a conservative rule of thumb is that each month of delay adds roughly 1% of the total project cost in carrying expenses. These include interest on construction loans, taxes, insurance, consulting and legal fees, and the overhead of retaining contractors, architects, and engineers. On a $10 million multifamily project, that equates to roughly $100,000 per month (a figure that compounds quickly as timelines stretch from twelve months to twenty-four).

Many argue that these costs are simply passed on to buyers or renters, making housing more expensive than it would otherwise be. I’m skeptical of that claim. Rents and home prices are set by the market, not by a developer’s spreadsheet. As a real estate agent, I’ve never told a seller the market value of their home and then watched them lower the price because my commission was smaller. The same logic applies to rent: if the market will bear $2,500 a month for a two-bedroom apartment, faster permitting won’t make that unit rent for less.

The real consequence lies elsewhere. When projects drag on for years, the local, community-minded developers (the ones who live here, raise their kids here, and care about what gets built) often walk away. They simply can’t afford to keep playing the game. What remains are the large institutional players with deep pockets, firms like Blackstone Capital, who can absorb the costs, wait out the bureaucracy, and buy in when others give up. In this way, Boulder’s “growth control by hassle” has quietly shifted who builds here, favoring capital over community.

Boulder vs. Portland

Other cities have also grappled with managing growth and change, but some, including Portland, Oregon, have adopted a different regulatory structure in recent years.

In Portland, most new housing is approved by-right. If a project meets established zoning standards, such as setbacks, height, density, and design, it proceeds through an administrative review process without public hearings or discretionary approvals. In Boulder, by contrast, projects that conform to zoning are often subject to additional processes, including Site Review, Use Review, or public “call-ups,” each of which can introduce added time, uncertainty, and cost.

Until recently, affordable housing projects in Boulder also followed this traditional review path. In 2024, the city adopted targeted reforms to exempt 100% permanently affordable housing from Site Review and Use Review, shortening timelines for these projects. However, mixed-income or partially affordable developments remain subject to the standard layers of review, whereas cities like Portland extend streamlined approvals to a wider range of housing types.

Permit timelines illustrate the difference in approach. In Portland, a multifamily housing project that meets zoning requirements typically moves from application to approval in four to eight months. In Boulder, similar projects often take between twelve and twenty-four months, even when aligned with adopted planning goals. Both cities care about design, density, and livability, but Portland achieves these goals without the procedural gauntlet.

The Impact on Small Businesses

The same layers of review, ambiguity, and discretionary authority that constrain housing development also affect Boulder’s local businesses. In fact, for small business owners, especially those without excess capital and time, the hassle can be even more destructive. Small business owners often face tight lease deadlines, limited cash flow, and narrow windows of opportunity. For them, months of delay can be a death sentence.

Because Title 9 governs all land uses, the permitting maze applies to almost every new venture, no matter how small. In practice, this means:

• Use Review Gridlock: Opening a gym, restaurant, or cafe in a “nonstandard” zone often requires a Use Review, a process that routinely takes 200+ days, even when the location is ideal and there is no opposition.

• Planning Board Call-Ups: Any project can be “called up” for Planning Board review, a process that adds weeks of delay even if the board ultimately chooses not to act. These non-decisions burn rent, waste time, and discourage future applicants.

• Historic Preservation Delays: If a building is more than 50 years old (most in Boulder are), it triggers a Landmark Review, even for minor façade changes. This adds weeks or months of review, regardless of historic significance.

• Permit Timeline Reality: Even when applications are flawless, contractors report an average 4-month wait for basic building permits (8–12 weeks for initial review, followed by weeks of resubmittals, plus health inspections, utility reviews, fire, signage, parking, ADA compliance)

Real-World Consequences

For small businesses, every month of delay hurts. Rent continues, but revenue cannot begin until permits are approved. A restaurant waiting 200 days for a Use Review might pay $60,000-$100,000 in rent on an unopened space before accounting for consultant fees or interest on borrowed capital. For many, those costs are existential.

Beyond the direct financial hit, lengthy and unpredictable timelines deter future investment. Lenders tighten credit, and new entrepreneurs look elsewhere. Over time, these “hassle costs” serve as a soft form of exclusion, filtering out anyone without the capital reserves or patience to navigate the system. What began as an administrative safeguard has become a structural barrier to entrepreneurship and innovation.

These delays are not theoretical. They are directly tied to closures, debt, and abandonment of plans.

• Fresh Thymes Eatery (2021–2023): Owner Christine Ruch waited a year for permits to expand her restaurant into an adjacent space. She paid rent on the unused space for nine months with no revenue. The stress, debt, and inaction from the city contributed to the eventual closure of all three Fresh Thymes locations. “The city made no effort to prioritize small business projects during COVID... and it cost us.” – Christine Ruch, via Boulder Reporting Lab

• Creature Comforts Café (2021–2022): Owner Jess Liu waited 408 days for approval to convert a former retail space on Pearl Street into a café. Her architect estimated 6–9 months. It took well over a year, even with no red flags and no public objections. “If I had known it would take this long, I never would’ve signed the lease.” – Jess Liu, via Boulder Reporting Lab

• Illegal Pete’s & Jet’s Pizza: Illegal Pete’s faced delays opening in South Boulder. A Jet’s Pizza franchisee described the city’s review process as “so many disappointments,” citing slow feedback and conflicting requirements. (Boulder Reporting Lab)

Conclusion

Since 1971, when “growth control by hassle” was first described, Boulder has experienced significant divergence between job and housing growth. From 1970 to 2020, the number of jobs in the city increased by approximately 109%, while housing stock grew by about 53%. During the same period, the median home price, adjusted for inflation, rose 374%. As of 2025, the median price of a single-family home exceeds $1.3 million. More than 60% of Boulder’s workforce now commutes in from outside the city, contributing tens of thousands of metric tons of CO₂ emissions annually and adding to regional traffic volumes.

These outcomes have occurred alongside the continued layering of procedural requirements in Title 9 of Boulder’s land use code. Over time, these requirements have influenced who can build and live in Boulder, shaping both housing supply and the local labor market. Economists have described such places as “zoned zones,” where regulatory structures play a more significant role than market forces in shaping development patterns and housing access.

The economic and environmental effects of extended permitting and review timelines are measurable. Long delays can increase carrying costs for small businesses, reduce the likelihood of project completion, and limit the creation of new commercial and community spaces. Similarly, long housing approval timelines contribute to a persistent jobs-housing imbalance, which in turn increases regional commuting and associated emissions.

The current system reflects choices made over several decades to slow or shape growth through procedural means. As Boulder considers future land use reforms, the challenge will be to align its stated goals of sustainability and equity with the cumulative effects of decades of procedural layering. How the city approaches this tension will shape its housing, economy, and environmental outcomes for decades to come.

Sources

• Danish, P. (1976). Quoted in High Country News (Hamilton, B. (1976, November 19). Boulder adopts plan to slow growth. High Country News, 8(23).

• Boulder Reporting Lab (2021–2024). Multiple articles on permitting delays

• RTD (2022). Traffic and Emissions Report for Boulder County

• City of Boulder. The Revised Code of the City of Boulder, Colorado 1965: Including the Charter as Amended. Boulder: Municipal Code Corporation, 1965. Colorado Historical Municipal Codes Collection, University of Colorado Law School. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/colorado-municipal-codes/13.
  The Revised Code of the City of…

• City of Boulder. Boulder Revised Code 1981. Boulder: Sterling Codifiers, Inc., 1981. Colorado Historical Municipal Codes Collection, University of Colorado Law School. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/colorado-municipal-codes/59.

• City of Boulder (2025). Title 9: Land Use Code

• City of Portland (2023). Title 33: Planning and Zoning

• Lidstone, J. (1977). Growth management in Boulder, Colorado. University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science.

• Lidstone, S. (1977). Boulder’s growth management policies: An overview. Colorado Land Use Commission.

• Pendall, R. (2000). “Local Land Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(2), 125–142

• Perrigo, L. (1946). Boulder: The story of a city. Boulder Historical Society.