GENDER RELATIONS IN URBAN GROWTH POLITICS By Lynn Staeheli Department of Geography and Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado, Boulder Conflict Resolution Consortium Campus Box 327 University of Colorado Boulder, Colorado 80309 (303) 492-1635 (303) 492-6427 December, 1990 Working Paper #90-16 This paper was written with a small grant from the Conflict Resolution Consortium, University of Colorado. Funding for the Consortium and its Small Grants Program was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The statements and ideas presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Conflict Resolution Consortium, the University of Colorado, or the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. CONFLICT RESOLUTION CONSORTIUM Funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the University of Colorado, the Conflict Resolution Consortium is a coordinated program of research, education and applica- tion on three of the University's four campuses. The pro- gram unites researchers, educators, and practitioners from many fields for the purposes of theory-building, testing, and application in the field of conflict resolution. Cur- rent focus areas include international conflict; environmen- tal and natural resource conflict; urban, rural, and inter- jurisdictional conflicts; and the evaluation of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. WORKING PAPERS _______________________________________________________________________ The Conflict Resolution Consortium working paper series includes a variety of papers written by our members as a part of their research. Usually these papers are in prelimi- nary draft stage and are being prepared for eventual publi- cation in professional journals or books. Other papers record discussions from Conflict Resolution Consortium seminars and plenary presentations. The purpose of the working paper series is to generate a dialogue about the work presented. Readers are encouraged to respond to the papers either by contacting the author directly or by contacting the Consortium office. Additional copies of this or other working papers can be obtained from the Conflict Resolution Consortium, Campus Box Phone (303) 492-1635. ABSTRACT There are strong theoretical reasons to expect that gender relations, stemming from socially constructed roles for women and men within households and society, will shape growth and environmental concerns. Political activity related to urban growth, therefore, provides an opportunity to examine both the commonalities and differences between the interests held by women and men and the potential for conflict that these interests raise. This paper contributes to efforts to understand the gendered nature of politics at the local scale through an analysis of gender-based concerns and relations that were expressed in a grassroots movement to control growth in Boulder, Colorado in the 1970s. Women who participated in this movement were much more likely to express their environmental and growth related concerns in terms of issues of quality of life and fairness than were men. In a public debate with so many competing claims and where so much was at stake, the voices of these women may well have served to diffuse some of the potential conflict over growth control. The 1980 U.S. presidential election was a landmark for those who attempt to understand gender relations in politics. In that election, women voted for Jimmy Carter in far greater numbers than did men, thus giving rise to the notion of a "gender gap" (Klein, 1984). This gap is now documented for a variety of political arenas, and it is commonly accepted that political attitudes of many women are distinct from the attitudes that characterize the "mainstream" (or perhaps more accurately "malestream") politics defined by men. While understanding differences based on gender has been an important step forward, we now face the critical task of understanding how attitudes of both women and men are relat- ed, or connected, and the ways in which these attitudes are expressed in various issues. Incorporating the differences, similarities, and linkages between women's and men's politi- cal interests is necessary if we are to achieve a truly gendered understanding of politics (Kofman and Peake, 1990). Such an understanding is particularly important in urban growth politics. Much of the academic research focuses on the efforts of businesses, social elites, and government officials (many, if not all of whom are men) to persuade the general public that growth is in their interests. In these situations, growth coalitions attempt to diffuse disputes before they become public or enter the public conscience by equating or linking the interest of all groups (Cox and Mair, 1988). However, explicit consideration of interests emerging from gender relations are rarely part of these analyses -- or indeed, of the efforts of the coalitions themselves. Thus, gender-related interests pose a threat to the equation of interests achieved by coalitions, and there- by raise the prospect of debate and conflict over growth. As a result, if conflict does emerge, the reasons may have more to do with gender relations than with the efforts of the coalition directly. This paper contributes to efforts to understand the gendered nature of politics at the local scale through an analysis of gender-based concerns and relations expressed in a grass- roots movement to control growth in Boulder, Colorado in the 1970s. There are strong theoretical reasons to expect that gender relations, stemming from socially constructed roles for women and men within households and society, will shape growth and environmental concerns. Women historically have been assigned primary responsibility for the home and domes- tic concerns. Since the community, city and environment impinge on the home, women may become active in grassroots political organizations related to these issues as an exten- sion of their domestic responsibilities. Men, by contrast, historically have been designated "primary" wage earners within households. This status has propelled men into visi- ble jobs outside the home and is further cited as the reason men are more active in formal political organizations ad- dressing environmental and growth issues (Blocker and Eck- berg, 1989; Edwards, et al, 1984; Wilson, 1990). I argue that these structural positions of women and men within the home and society give rise to gender-related interests in urban growth. Political activity related to urban growth, therefore, provides an opportunity to examine both the commonalities and differences between the interests held by women and men and the ways in which these are expressed. The choice of topics and the setting (i.e., growth control in Boulder) is not incidental to this analysis. Most of the research that has considered women's political activity has focused either on issues that are stereotypically "women's issues" or on settings in which women were clearly and often self-consciously operating from a subordinate position within the movement or society. These foci often encourage the researcher and the reader to concentrate on the distinc- tiveness of women's political participation. By contrast, my focus in this analysis is on an issue in which women often are involved, but that is not identified solely or primarily as a women's issue. Further, Boulder has a long history of women in leadership positions in civic organiza- tions, on planning boards and on the city council. Thus, Boulder women participate in local politics on about as equal a footing with men as do women anywhere in the United States. My foci, therefore, are not on the distinctiveness of women's political activism or their very real subordina- tion. Rather, the foci of this paper are (i) on the origins of gendered-political interests and (ii) on gender relations in urban growth politics. The analysis begins with a brief description of PLAN-Boulder County[1], which was the best-known of the citizens' groups mobilized against growth, and of the methodology used in its study. It then proceeds with an examination of Boulder's histories with regard to politics, growth, and environmen- talism. Central to the analysis is a consideration at a theoretical level of the origins of political interests, focusing on conditions within households and societies that give rise to gendered interests. This is extended through an examination of how those interests were animated in the context of Boulder. In so doing, I am concerned primarily with the reasons women and men became involved in PLAN- Boulder and the growth control movement and with the impacts of their gender-related interests on the final outcome of the debates. In considering the political interests of both women and men, this analysis contributes to our under- standings of gender relations in urban politics, and there- fore, to our understandings of local politics as a whole. PLAN-BOULDER COUNTY __________________________ [1] "PLAN" in PLAN-Boulder stands for People's League for Action Now. PLAN-Boulder County was the most prominent of several grass- roots organizations that fought the unregulated, and seem- ingly unbounded growth of Boulder in the 1960s. PLAN-Boul- der has been involved in virtually every major and minor land use decision since its founding in 1959 to prevent development on the scenic backdrop provided by the Flatiron Mountains. Its members attend city council, county commis- sion, parks and open space, and planning board meetings, and regularly speak at them. Members also work with the profes- sional staffs of these boards or actually serve on the boards to ensure their positions are heard. In the 1970s, an election endorsement by PLAN-Boulder seemed virtually a political necessity, as PLAN-Boulder-backed candidates regularly defeated "Chamber candidates" (a term used in disdain by PLAN-Boulder members for candidates backed by the Chamber of Commerce). Thus, even while maintaining its citizen base, PLAN-Boulder County was, and continues to be, a major force in land use and growth planning in Boulder. As one might expect with a grassroots organization, member- ship information is sketchy, particularly for the 1960s and 1970s. Currently, there are about 300 members, but at any given time there are far fewer who are active in the organi- zation. For instance, before the impacts of growth were widely felt in the mid-1960s, many Boulder citizens regarded PLAN-Boulder as an inbred group, and meetings were generally attended by fewer than 10 people. As growth pressures increased, so did membership and levels of organizational activity. This ebb and flow of membership in accordance with the perceived threats to the environment and intensity of debate has been characteristic of PLAN-Boulder's history. Generally, however, members are white and middle- to upper- middle class. Its initial leaders were faculty of the University of Colorado or were from the town's scientific community, but there are many members, indeed many well- known members, who have no university affiliation. Perhaps the most important characteristic of PLAN-Boulder for this study is that it seems always to have had many women involved in its leadership, on boards, and in posi- tions in which they could influence organizational and government policies. For example, over 45 percent of the members of PLAN-Boulder's Boards of Directors from 1959 to 1990 have been women (Robertson, 1986; Brownlee and Jones, 1990). Further, women served as chairs of the organization for five of the seven years (1970 to 1976) that the growth control debate was at its peak. Finally, all PLAN-Boulder members are encouraged to speak at public meetings regard- less of whether they are "leaders" or not, and many women do so. In sum, PLAN-Boulder County is an ideal organization through which to examine gender relations in political activism. Being citizen-based, it is the kind of forum in which women are often active and in which they are able to give voice to their concerns. Further, and as I demonstrate in the fol- lowing pages, the issues addressed by PLAN-Boulder are issues around which both women and men mobilize. Taken together, then, the growth control movement and PLAN-Boul- der's actions in it provide a medium to analyze similari- ties, differences, and interconnections in attitudes that shape the gendered nature of urban growth politics. Such a project, however, requires analysis at several conceptual and empirical levels. In the next section, these levels and their connections are discussed and my strategy for their analysis is developed in accordance with principles of feminist methodology. ANALYZING GENDERED POLITICS Feminism challenges us to develop methods that deal with the multiple roles individuals can assume. In this study, for instance, participants in the debates over growth may have been simultaneously parents, spouses, workers, and political activists. None of these roles can be analyzed in isola- tion, because people do not live them in isolation. In turn, each of these roles may be conditioned by power rela- tions at several scales and settings -- i.e., the home, workplace, political organization, city, and society. Thus, we face the difficulty of incorporating multiple roles and scales in addition to their interrelations in our analyses. These connections are made easier through the layering of research methods, each of which can address different, yet complementary roles and scales (Staeheli and Lawson, 1990). In this analysis, the household and political roles of participants in the growth debates are shaped by relations at three levels -- the household, the Boulder region, and American society. The reasons women and men became involved in the debates may stem from relations at any combination of these levels, or from conditions emanating from the way these levels are linked. This makes for "messy" analyses, since combinations and linkages may not be direct or follow simple "transformation rules." The story of one woman with whom I spoke is illustrative of these complicated connec- tions. She told me that she became involved in PLAN-Boulder and other local planning activities as a way of creating her own identity -- an identity that was separate from those of her children and her husband (a scientist who was influen- tial in his own way in shaping Boulder's future). This woman had a 40 year career in public service that included positions on the planning board and City Council in the 1950s and then again in the 1970s. She said that for a long time she "truly enjoyed being one of the men, doing work that was not traditionally woman's work, and not being associated with women." Over the years, however, she said had come to realize that while she wanted to distance her- self from her family and domestic work (a reaction to house- hold relations and socially defined roles), she found that her personal situation influenced her career and her atti- tudes. As I talked with her, she evaluated the impacts of growth in terms of fairness and quality of life, and she believes her reactions to Boulder's experience was shaped in part by a set of attitudes fostered by socialization as a woman in American society. The women's movement of the 1970s was important in helping her see that and in helping her re-evaluate her actions and motivations. It is notable that on a personal level this woman had achieved a new consciousness that gave her insights into a variety of gender and political relations, but that this consciousness did not allow her to escape from these relations. One man told me that the reason a delegation of PLAN-Boulder members asked her to run for City Council was not her environmental- ism, but rather her image as a "motherly, housewife type." Clearly, the relations and conditions that give rise to particular interests and behaviors are complicated, and not everyone is able to articulate them in the way the above woman has. In order to examine these relationships, there- fore, I rely on a combination of theoretical and empirical research. My analysis of the household and social struc- tures that condition political interests draws primarily from theoretical research by others. It is extended through interviews with women and men who participated in Boulder's growth control movement, for only the individuals involved are able to speak to the way these relations were expressed in this context. The interviews were in-depth and loosely structured. I chose this form because the personal and political nature of people's motivations and situations are often inaccessible to researchers using highly structured techniques. Pred (1990) argues that people respond to the power relations in interpersonal communications. As a result, researchers unwittingly may condition the information they receive through their control of the questions. Thus, it was more revealing when people more or less spontaneously began to think about why they became involved in PLAN-Boulder and what they hoped growth control would accomplish than it would have been if I had suggested possible answers and let "respondents" choose from among them. Accordingly, I have remained as true to these individual's words and meanings as possible. Names of potential participants in the study were collected from news accounts at the time, the list of PLAN-Boulder board members and officers, and key informant techniques. It was, however, difficult to trace people 15 years after the growth control debates lost intensity. Some people have moved away, died, or become very ill. Women, in particular, were difficult to trace in the absence of old membership mailing lists, since many use their husband's names and cannot be traced through phone directories. In addition, seven people declined to be interviewed. Three cited time constraints due to their jobs (both volunteer and waged). Four women declined, because they were unshakable in their belief that they didn't "know anything useful." In all, twelve individuals were interviewed, eight of whom are women. The interviews generally lasted between two and three hours. Everyone discussed their involvement in the growth control movement, their reasons for becoming in- volved, and their beliefs as to the effectiveness of growth control and growth management in Boulder. Some people recounted their experiences in a quite personal way (such as linking their environmentalism to their spiritual beliefs), while others saw their actions in the context of national and world problems. No matter what the context, however, interviews covered a wide range of topics. All of the people with whom I spoke were white, upper-middle class, and over 60. Most were raising children in Boulder at the time of their involvement in the growth control movement. Three of the four men were tenured faculty at the University of Colorado; the other man was a former business executive who moved to Boulder after retirement. None of the women had waged employment during their involvement in the movement. However, one woman was a freelance writer, and several had careers as volunteers that often demanded more than 40 hours of work per week. Most of these women commented that they were fortunate to be in a position to have other people assume "their" child care and household responsibilities. Together, and with others outside of PLAN-Boulder, these people helped to create extraordinary changes in Boulder's development. They fought to surround Boulder with green- belts and open space to prevent sprawl; they established an extensive system of hiking, horseback, and bicycling trails; they campaigned for initiatives to curtail sharply the rate of growth; they supported candidates for office that claimed to place priority on environmental preservation over econom- ic growth. In a less sanguine vein, they also were instru- mental in creating a community in which property values remain high, and many would argue unaffordable, despite a severe regional depression. Indeed, many of the people with whom I spoke were concerned that Boulder had become the exclusive domain of yuppies and the upwardly mobile. Some might argue that this outcome was inevitable, since PLAN-Boulder members are from a privileged, socially power- ful stratum (if the power relations inherent in gender are somehow set aside). Certainly, one could make the case that the individuals with whom I spoke were not closely tied to the fortunes of the regional economy -- in some senses making them able to "afford" their environmentalism and wariness of growth. However, Boulder had higher housing values than surrounding communities before growth control (National Association of Home Builders, 1981) and had long been viewed as a town of radicals in a predominately conser- vative state. A more likely line of argument is that polit- ical interests (related to class and other characteristics, including gender) as expressed in the context of Boulder's history and civic values shaped the debates over growth and their outcomes. In the remainder of the paper, I discuss the context of Boulder's growth debates and the ways that gendered political interests were expressed. CONTEXT OF BOULDER'S DEBATE OVER GROWTH One is tempted to say that the citizens' movements in Boul- der were unique. It is not often, after all, that growth is re-oriented through citizen activism. However, growth controls and growth management practices have been adopted in many communities nationwide. For example, Logan and Zhou (1990) found in their survey of 416 suburban municipalities that approximately 20 percent had imposed growth moratoria, 27 percent had growth limitations (e.g., population caps), and 52% used zoning to protect open space. Additionally, nearly 80 percent of the suburbs required developers to provide infrastructure and public services to new develop- ments. That said, however, Boulder's early adoption of growth management practices and their implementation before growth had completely overwhelmed the community provides an interesting setting in which to examine these .PA debates. Indeed, there are several contextual factors identified by participants in the growth control movement that played an important role in mobilizing Boulder resi- dents. History of Citizen Activism Perhaps most important in this regard is the long history of citizen activism in Boulder. While many people would assume that the University of Colorado and the faculty, staff and students were instrumental in providing a base of liberal, environmentally aware people who knew how to fight City Hall, others told me that the roots of activism in Boulder predated the University. Indeed, one year after white miners arrived in Boulder, they began lobbying to have the university built in the town. In 1912, another citizens' group, the Civic Improvement Association, hired the Olmsted brothers to develop a plan to preserve Boulder Creek and the surrounding floodplain. In 1954, yet another group of citizens donated a tract of land to lure the National Bureau of Standards to Boulder. While these were examples of good old-fashioned civic boosterism (with the possible exception of hiring the Olmsteds), it was only five years after at- tracting the Bureau of Standards to town that a group of citizens joined together and put forward a proposal to set a line (about 5,750 feet above sea level) above which the City would not deliver services. When the City Council refused to consider the proposal, they collected enough signatures to place the "Blue Line" Amendment on the ballot. Publicity for the election campaign was predominantly in the form of letters to the editor of the Daily Camera, the local paper. The amendment passed, and shortly thereafter, the original backers formed PLAN-Boulder. Thus, citizen activism was not new to Boulder by the 1960s; the only change was that the activism was now against unregulated growth and more explic- itly for environmental protection. Environmental Ethics in Boulder The hiring of the Olmsteds was the first sign of another important factor in Boulder's opposition to growth, namely the longstanding environmental ethic held by its residents. While leaders of other municipalities may point to Earth Day in 1970 as the beginning of their environmental activism, Boulder looks further back. The Olmsted Plan, for instance, proposed that development be diverted from Boulder Creek's floodplain and that the riparian habitat be preserved. Thus, a strong environmental ethic had characterized Boulder for several decades before the first Earth Day. Many of the people with whom I spoke believe that the presence of the University, and later the scientific commu- nity brought by the federal government, was important in fostering this environmental ethic. Three women (none from the University or married to university faculty) told me that the University brought "brainy" people to Boulder and that "intellectuals care more about the environment than regular people do." Furthermore, the faculty hired by the University were "prestigious and some of the best known [researchers] in their fields. People listen to them." Related to the presence of the University is the reality that most people in Boulder are relatively affluent and do not work in factories or rely on them for their livelihood. Several women felt that Boulderites have been able to "afford" to be environmentally aware for some time. It is notable in this regard that three of the four men who organ- ized the Blue Line were tenured faculty at the University. It is also significant -- and unusual -- that many individu- al business owners in development-related firms have been long-time supporters of open space and restrictions on where development can occur, even though their trade associations have opposed these measures. These individuals (e.g., the president of a local bank, the owner of a major realty company, and a water rights consultant) seemed to combine their environmentalism with an awareness that preserving the scenic backdrop of the Flatirons and limiting the supply of housing would ultimately be good for their businesses. Finally, many people told me that the simple beauty of the area made people want to preserve it and take care of it. Boulder is in a valley, and almost every approach to the town provides scenic vistas. More importantly in this regard, the vistas also provided the opportunity to see the "big picture," to see the effects of individual developments on the town as a whole. This has led to an appreciation for "holistic," comprehensive planning to preserve the environ- ment. Thus, as the national environmental movement began to increase awareness of the threats posed by human actions, consciousness of citizens was already primed in Boulder. Local Politics In many respects, it is an understatement to say that Boul- der's politics are "distinctive." Set in the middle of the generally conservative Rocky Mountain states, Boulder is a strong-hold of liberalism. While local elections are non- partisan, candidates who are registered Democrats usually win. Further, it well may be the only town in the country where the current mayor is also the director of a women's health center and abortion clinic. Social services in the city are generally quite good, and concern is often voiced to ensure that the low-income households that do live in the town be remembered and served. As noted, citizen participation in government is great. Citizens' associations encourage their members to speak at hearings, and they do. Frequently, individuals who speak find themselves appointed to one of a variety of city boards, such as the planning board or the Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee. Consensual decisionmaking is the norm, and the charter provisions for referenda and recall are often used (Clarke and Moss, 1990). The fact that the local government was not an "oligarchy" was cited as one of the most pleasant aspects of Boulder. Many participants in the growth movements felt that these institutional struc- tures were crucial in their ability to foil the pro-growth city council of the 1960s and to elect new candidates in the 1970s. The rest of the state views such popular participa- tion and control with some suspicion, perhaps giving rise to the town's moniker "The Peoples' Republic of Boulder." One of the most distinctive features of Boulder politics is the participation of women in the government. Boulder's original city charter required that any appointed city board or commission with charter status have seven members "not all of the same sex." This is an extraordinary requirement by today's standards, but is truly astonishing in the char- ter of a small town adopted in 1918. While the reason for this provision is unclear, and compliance was uncertain in the early years, the effect has been to place women in positions of prominence in Boulder government. In fact, at one point in the 1970's, the planning board had only one member who was male. Many of the women appointed to these boards in the 1960s and 1970s went on to elected office in the city, county, and state governments. Such is the promi- nence of women in local government, that an owner of a local real estate loan company (a woman) complained in an adver- tisement that "Boulder badly needs anti-monopoly laws. Ultra-liberal profs took full control of CU long ago. Now their "liberal" spouses are doing the same thing on city council" (cited in Smith, 1981: 195). It is not true that the city council was dominated by wives of CU faculty, but the perception of the liberal notions represented in the University were carried into the council and into other governmental forums by female officials (not specifically wives) is supported by letters to the editor and by at least three of the people I interviewed. Significantly, these members of PLAN-Boulder believed that people often were not so defensive when women made radical or environmentalist statements. Hence the decision I mentioned earlier to ask a woman to run for City Council (p. 8). Population Growth Finally, the catalyst for citizen activism was the explosive population growth Boulder experienced in the 1950s and 1960s (see Table 1). Boulder's population in 1940 was 12,958, but by 1970 it was 66,870 -- an increase of over 500 percent in 30 years. In the 1950s and 1960s, the annual growth rates were approximately 9 percent and 8 percent respectively. In the context of rapid growth in the Denver metropolitan region as a whole, it was understandable that many people were concerned both that Boulder was losing its small town nature and that it would become just another suburb of Denver. As growth pressures rose in Boulder, some of these people began to devise strategies to either put a cap on growth or to slow it and then mitigate its effects. Thus, groups such as PLAN-Boulder focused on trying to slow the rate of popu- lation and employment growth and on persuading the city to buy open space surrounding the city. Then in early 1971, the growth debates came to the forefront of Boulder politics when the local chapter of Zero Population Growth (ZPG) issued a report "Is Population Growth Good for Boulder?" Packed with charts and figures documenting increases in crime, pollution, and municipal debt associated with popula- tion growth, the report recommended limiting Boulder to 100,000 residents. When the City Council refused to consid- er a population cap, ZPG launched a successful campaign to place the issue on the fall ballot. This set off a flurry of activity and maneuvering by Council, the Chamber of Commerce, and PLAN-Boulder that resulted in a second measure being placed on the ballot. While many members of PLAN- Boulder were sympathetic to the ZPG report, the group's official position was that a population cap was infeasible and that, in the absence of restrictions on where develop- ment could occur, would not preserve sensitive environments. As such, PLAN-Boulder helped to write and then supported the second measure that called for a significantly lower (but unspecified) rate of growth in the future and a citizens' commission to study the best ways to limit and manage growth. The PLAN-Boulder measure passed, setting the stage for five more years of study, debate, and recommendations focused on identifying public aspirations for growth and the future of Boulder. In these debates, it is possible to identify gender-related interests and aspirations held by Boulder residents. Making sense of these, however, requires an understanding of their origins, or of the household and social relations that assign women and men different responsibilities. However, most individuals do not talk about these origins -- and indeed do not even think of them. In the next section, therefore, I rely on theoretical explanations of gender- related interests developed by other researchers and extend these explanations through the interviews I conducted with PLAN-Boulder members. GENDERED POLITICAL INTERESTS RELATED TO URBAN GROWTH Much of the gender research by political analysts has either argued or implied that women hold different political inter- ests than do men and, therefore, are likely either to mobi- lize around different issues than men or to mobilize for different reasons. The distinction between interests and issues made in this research is quite important. Interests draw from structural relations in society. They are of lasting significance in that they are the source the of motivations and shape the context in which individuals evaluate issues. Issues are transient in that they are the specific policies, proposals and topics addressed in politi- cal debates and other forums. The gendered nature of political interests stems from patri- archal social relations that assign to women through their household "duties" the responsibility for reproducing social values and relations and raising families (Hartmann, 1984). Thus women are socialized to be "nurturing" and to assume a special interest in issues and social conditions as they relate to social reproduction in a way that men are not. While these interests may originate in the home and in household relations, they are reinforced by other social relations such as those in the workplace and many religious institutions. As a result, it should not be assumed that women's interests are relegated to the home, or "private sphere." Rather, the fulfillment of reproduction responsi- bilities necessarily takes women out into the world, into the "public sphere." Recognition that women's responsibili- ties, actions, and lives transcend the home (and make arti- ficial private/public dichotomies) is necessary to compre- hend the political interests that women hold and the reasons they mobilize around particular issues (Kaplan, 1982; Bondi and Peake, 1988; Mackenzie, 1988). Women's socially assigned interest in reproduction inclines them to mobilize around particular issues and goals. In the context of urban growth, women may express greater concern over growth impacts on community structure and the environ- ment than do men. Traditionally, neighborhood issues have been the particular province of women (Gittell and Shtob, 1980: S76). For example, women usually constitute the majority of members of neighborhood associations (although not necessarily the majority of leaders), and dominate the labor of volunteers (Dabrowski, 1983; Daniels 1988). The latter, one might add, can be seen as an extension of the unpaid work of women within their houses. Womens' partici- pation in neighborhood affairs is facilitated by the con- tacts they develop in the course of daily activities (as- sumed to be concentrated in neighborhoods) and provides an outlet from the isolation of housework. Further, neighbor- hoods have traditionally been the primary sites in which the labor of child rearing is performed. As the primary provid- ers of child care, women are particularly sensitive to neighborhood conditions and changes (Dyck 1989; Gallagher, 1977; Wilson 1977). When growth is seen as a threat to neighborhood and community conditions, women may become active in efforts to slow growth or to mitigate its effect. In a similar vein, women also have a socially assigned interest in both the natural and built environments and in the quality of life they provide. FitzSimmons and Gottlieb demonstrate the linkage between home and environmental concerns for women and trace that concern to the very begin- nings of women's participation in public political forums in the United States. They argue that early feminists linked "such 'women's' concerns as nutrition and a safe home envi- ronment with broader urban issues of industrial health, air and water quality and transportation.... Women fought the dangers of the industrial city at the level of the home, the .PA neighborhood, and the city as a whole, aspects of the wom- en's movement which were as important as (and not distinct from) the fight for suffrage" (FitzSimmons and Gottlieb, 1990: 116). This connection remains strong today. Heiman (1990) argues that many grassroots environmental movements of the last 20 years are organized by working class women who see environ- mental degradation as threats to their families. As an example, the Mothers of East Los Angeles was organized as a grassroots response to state attempts to locate noxious facilities in their neighborhoods (Pardo, 1990). Women may join organizations to fight the effects of growth related to service provision, pollution, elimination of open space, and other elements of the quality of life. In saying that women are socialized to particular interests and issues, I do not intend to imply that a) these are the only issues of concern to women, or b) that these issues are the exclusive domain of women, or c) that all women will be mobilized by these issues and interests. Rather, I argue that for all the diversity of women's experiences and status related to family, class, race, ethnicity, and sexuality, the shared experience of being a woman in a patriarchal society provides a basis for gendered political interests. I argue further that these gendered interests are continued in the reasons women and men become involved in political issues and potentially in the outcomes they wish to achieve. Thus, women and men joined PLAN-Boulder in roughly equal numbers, but some of the concerns that motivated them re- flected gender relations. It was not the case that women saw their roles in the organization as municipal mothers or housekeepers, for many women saw their activism as an escape or release from domestic chores. However, in speaking with PLAN-Boulder members, it was apparent that the socialization of women and men affected the concerns they brought to the debate over growth. GENDERED INTERESTS IN GROWTH POLITICS: THE CASE OF BOULDER When I asked participants why they became involved in PLAN- Boulder and the debate over growth, the first answer was usually along the lines of "I don't know. It was a long time ago." This was clearly a difficult question for these individuals, who tended to think of themselves simply as responding to a need. One man never did provide a reason, or a description of the need to which he responded, saying "I'm an engineer, not a philosopher!" I raise this issue as something to consider when analyzing the motivations of these individuals. The power relation inherent in an inter- view may lead people, particularly women, to offer explana- tions other than those offered in a different setting (Pred, 1990). Further, women tended to mention a greater number of reasons than did men. This may have been because women are more introspective (a common stereotype), or because women often feel the need to justify taking on "nontraditional" roles (Daniels, 1988), or because these women view growth as connected to a greater number of community and environmental conditions. Alternatively, it may simply be a reflection of the longer, more leisurely interviews that I had with women. On the basis of these interviews, it is not possible to argue for a definitive set of motivations. Rather, the analysis presented here describes the interests these indi- viduals believe they brought to the growth control move- ments. With this understanding, these participants became .PA involved for three general reasons: as part of their so- cialization into the community, due to their environmental- ism, and out of a concern for the impacts of growth on the community and its residents. Socialization into the Community There is a common belief that many of the growth activists were recent migrants to the area who were either looking for something in which to get involved locally or who wanted to "close the door" once they were in (what White (1973) terms "last settler's syndrome"). Certainly, it appeared that many of those calling for limited and managed growth were new to the area. However, one woman observed that was almost inevitable. Since the population of Boulder nearly doubled in the 1950s and again in the 1960s, most of the people in town were newcomers. Probabilities aside, several of the individuals with whom I spoke said a friend took them to a meeting shortly after they moved to town, and/or that they wanted to become in- volved in local projects as a way to learn about Boulder and make friends. Further, many others said that the friend- ships they made were some of the greatest personal benefits they received from their participation, even if social reasons did not motivate them to join PLAN-Boulder. While the social aspects of community and civic groups are common- ly cited as reasons for women's involvement, men also gave this reason for their participation. Environmentalism If the first reasons were social in nature, then the next category -- environmentalism -- is more overtly political. Individuals mentioned two concerns related to the environ- ment. The first, as is to be expected, is environmental protection. Many activists in the growth debate were alarmed, and in some cases outraged, by the threats to the environment posed by growth. Concerns ranged from protect- ing the scenic mountain backdrop to preserving riparian habitats to halting the increasing air pollution. Again, the topography of Boulder played a role, as people could see development creeping up the ridges and could see the pollu- tion becoming worse and worse. Most of the men with whom I spoke saw protecting the envi- ronment to be an "absolute necessity." One man said, "A lot of times you hear people say that we need to compromise between the environment and the economy. But that's bad, because it's always the environment that suffers. Maybe not as much as if there had been no compromise, but it adds up. Protecting the environ- ment is the best thing you can do for the economy. Look at Boulder. We haven't been hurt by stopping growth." Two others -- both Europeans -- thought that private proper- ty rights inhibited the abilities of local governments to protect the environment. Such a notion, however, is almost heretical in American cities. Women were more likely to express their environmental con- cerns in less "absolute" terms. Many women spoke of their love of the land or of strong feelings for land and open space. For instance, one woman told me, "I have sent my roots into [the land], and its roots are in me." Another spoke of wanting to be able to pass that feeling onto her children (who were quite young then), but growth was threat- ening to take the land away. These women expressed their interest in protecting the environment as the place where they lived and raised families. Regardless of whether concern for the environment was given as a reason for becoming involved, all of the participants spoke with feeling about the open space that surrounds Boulder, and they were proud of their community for consist- ently voting to expand the open space program. However, they also all expressed concern that if they were not vigi- lant, the philosophy of the city council and county commis- sion members would change. Concern for environment and open space has been responsible for sustaining the activism of many of these individuals for several years. Impacts of Growth on the Community While there were hints of gender differences in the environ- mental interests of participants, such differences were most striking in terms of the impacts of growth on the community and its residents. Not only were women more likely to mention these concerns, but the ways in which the sexes expressed the issue was qualitatively different. One of the issues that repeatedly arose in the growth de- bates had to do with the costs of growth and whether growth would pay for itself. As part of this argument ZPG argued population growth ultimately cost taxpayers money because it increased the per capita debt for water supply, schools and other services (Johnson, 1971). A few people said that they were swayed by this argument, but it should be noted that they were all active in PLAN-Boulder for several years before the ZPG report was issued. What seems more likely is that this argument was used in the growth limitation cam- paigns and may have attracted voters to the cause. More frequently mentioned, but only mentioned by women, were concerns that growth was transforming the character of Boulder. Where Boulder had been a small town where you "could count on meeting your friends in front of Potter's Drug Store on Saturday morning," it stood in danger of becoming "just another suburb of Denver." Related to this in the minds of these women was the concern that the city and county were trying to attract new residents and employ- ers to Boulder, but were doing little to plan or prepare the area for their arrival. One woman in particular was con- cerned that the city and county governments needed to work together to ensure that newcomers and long-time residents were treated fairly and without animosity as growth pres- sures mounted. The issue of fairness arose in another context, as well. Two women noted that the growth Boulder experienced in the 1950s had driven up housing prices and reduced the avail- ability of rental housing. These women were also concerned that the type of jobs being attracted to Boulder were only going to employ people in white collar positions. They feared that Boulder would soon become too expensive for lower income households and that the new firms would not employ local residents in need of jobs. As a result, lower income households would be driven from the community. One cannot escape the irony that the growth management measures taken in Boulder are widely attributed to be the cause of high housing costs that only upper middle class whites can afford. Overall, all but two of the eight women and none of the men with whom I spoke said that the effects of growth on quality of life, fairness and planning were important reasons for their involvement. For them, growth pressures threatened their community as a place to live, work, and raise fami- lies. Men may well have felt these concerns as well, but as feminist theory suggests, it is women who are compelled to act on the basis of them. Significantly, many of these women were in visible positions in the community and in the city government and thereby had the power to influence the debates over growth and the implementation of growth manage- ment policies. Impacts of Women's Participation in Growth Politics in Boulder In bringing the issues of quality of life, fairness, and planning to the growth debates, women helped to shape Boul- der's growth management policies in ways that may have been vital to its ultimate success. Through their actions and the political interests and concerns, these women may have moderated the tone of the debate and allayed the concerns of some citizens and business groups that might otherwise have opposed growth control more strongly. This is not to imply that women were malleable or uncommitted or that they were playing a role as "municipal mother," trying to satisfy everyone. However, through their work with city and county officials, their positions on the Growth Study Commission, and their own, very visible positions in the city govern- ment, women may have made growth control less objectionable to many Boulder residents and political actors. For example, one woman has dedicated much of the last 30 years to working with the city and county in support of comprehensive planning, open space acquisition, and environ- mental protection. She has never worked in the government or run for office (although the chairs of the Democratic and Republican parties both asked her to run one year), saying that she prefers "...to be the burr under the saddle than to actually ride in the saddle." Those are not the words of a retiring, easily swayed person. Indeed, most people de- scribed her as "brainy," "opinionated," "difficult," or "overpowering." Yet she works closely with people at dif- ferent levels of the government in ways such that "...they can take credit for [her] ideas and work." Similarly, when the Growth Study Commission was established in 1972, its three female members did the basic work, ac- cording to one of the women on it. The males came and went in response to demands from their waged jobs or were active only in their areas of expertise. One of the cornerstones of the study was a series of neighborhood meetings run by one of the women. In these meetings, she tried to help residents articulate their aspirations for their lives and community. While the "results" of these meetings were not included in the final commission report, the meetings made residents feel they were part of the process and that their views were represented. Finally, several women were on the planning board and city council as the actual growth control and growth management policies were formulated. Indeed, a woman was mayor at the time the cap on building permits was voted. To the extent that people believed that these women were not "rabid envi- ronmentalists," to the extent that the general public saw that at least some of the leaders of government and of PLAN- Boulder were concerned with the effects of growth control on the environment and on the economy, then perhaps public support increased. Certainly, to have a female city council member who supported growth control, but who also said "...it is important that people be able to find jobs and affordable housing here," must have had an impact. In the final analysis, it is impossible to know with cer- tainty exactly what that impact was. However, several people told me that in the midst of heated debate, PLAN- Boulder came across as rather moderate. In part, this was because there were groups to the extremes on either side of PLAN-Boulder. In part, however, the concern of these women leaders for quality of life and for fairness probably was of equal importance. In this situation, the voices of women who were concerned about a variety of impacts of growth well may have served to diffuse some of the potential conflict over growth control. CONCLUSION: GENDER AND URBAN GROWTH POLITICS Boulder's debates over growth suggest continuity between socially constructed household roles and interests in urban growth. Both men and women were concerned with the effects of growth on the environment, but women seemed to have a broader definition of environment than men. Women were more likely to express their environmentalism in terms of the human habitat, and thus brought a wide range of concerns to the debates over growth. They were concerned with Boulder as a place to live, work, raise families, and maintain community values. This has two important implications for our understandings of local politics. First, the focus on "public" roles, behaviors, and attitudes characteristics of political re- search is limiting. Women's activity and attitudes are shaped as much by relations between men and women in the household as by relations outside the home. Indeed, femi- nist research in Geography and other disciplines argues for a new conceptualization of "home" and "the private sphere" that includes household, neighborhood, and urban relations (see for example, Brownhill and Halford, 1990; Bondi and Peak, 1988; Hanson and Pratt, 1988; Mackenzie, 1988). Second, the focus on elites in government, political par- ties, and business characteristic of much urban growth research denies the important roles in shaping growth of grassroots, citizen-based organizations -- settings in which women's participation is most notable. Across the country, grassroots organizations have been successful in the imple- mentation of growth restriction and management programs. Our research needs to be expanded to include these organiza- tions for a richer appreciation of the range of interests represented in conflicts over urban growth. This range of interests includes those both for and against growth, and interests created by the relations between women and men in the home, community, and indeed, in the society as a whole. References Blocker, T. J. and Eckberg, D. L. (1989). "Environmental issues and women's issues: general concerns and local hazards." Social Science Quarterly 70, 588-593. Bondi, L. and Peake, L. (1988). "Gender and the city: urban politics revisited." In Women in Cities: Gender and the Urban Environment. (J. Little, L. Peake, and P. Richardson, eds) pp. 21-40. Brownhill, S. and Halford, S. (1990). "Understanding wom- en's involvement in local politics: how useful is a formal/informal dichotomy?" Political Geography Quarter- ly 9, 396-414. Brownlee, C. and Jones, B. (1990) Addendum to "Highlights of PLAN-Boulder County." Boulder, CO: PLAN-Boulder County. Clarke, S. and Moss, A. (1990) "Economic growth, environmen- tal quality, and social services: mapping the potential for local positive-sum strategies." Journal of Urban Affairs 12, 17-34. Dabrowski, I. (1983). "Working-class women and civic ac- tion: a case study of an innovative community role." Policy Studies Journal 11, 427-435. Daniels, A. (1988). Invisible Careers: Women Civic Leaders from the Volunteer World. Chicago: University of Chica- go Press. Dyck, I. (1989) "Integrating home and wage workplace: women's daily lives in a Canadian suburb." The Canadian Geographer 33, 329-341. Edwards, P., Edwards, J. and Watts, A. (1984). "Women, work, and social participation." Journal of Voluntary Action Research 13, 7-22. FitzSimmons, M. and Gottlieb, R. (1988). "A new environ- mental politics." In Reshaping the US Left: Popular Struggles in the 1980s (M. Davis and M. Sprinker, eds) pp. 114-130. London: Verso. Gallagher, A. (1977). "Women and community work." In Women in the Community (M. Mayo, ed) pp. 121-144. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Gittell, M. and Shtob, T. (1980). "Changing women's roles in political volunteerism and reform of the city." Signs 5, S67-S78. Hanson, S. and Pratt, G. (1988). "Reconceptualizing the links between home and work in urban geography." Econom- ic Geography 64, 299-321. Hartmann, H. (1981). "The family as the locus of gender, class, and political struggle: the example of housework." Signs 6, 366-394. Heiman, M. (1990). "The local defense of residential space: a challenge to the national environmental agenda." Presented at the Association of American Geographers Annual Meetings, April, 1990, Toronto, Canada. Johnson, E. (1971). Is Population Growth Good for Boulder Citizens? Boulder, CO: Boulder Zero Population Growth. Kaplan, T. (1982). "Female consciousness and collective action: the case of Barcelona, 1910-1918." Signs 7, 545-566. Klein, E. (1984). Gender Politics: From Consciousness to Mass Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kofman, E. and Peake L. (1990). "Into the 1990s: a gen- dered agenda for political geography." Political Geogra- phy Quarterly 9, 313-336. Lawson, R., and Barton, S. (1980). "Sex roles in social movements: a case study of the tenant movement in New York City." Signs 6, 230-247. Logan, J. and Zhou, M. (1990). "The adoption of growth controls in suburban communities." Social Science Quar- terly 71, 118-129. Mackenzie, S. (1988). "Balancing our space and time: the impact of women's organisation on the British city, 1920- 1980." In Women in Cities: Gender and the Urban Envi- ronment (J. Little, L. Peake, and P. Richardson, eds) pp. 41-60. New York: New York University Press. National Association of Home Builders (1981). "The Danish plan in retrospect: a look at growth management issues in Boulder." Washington, DC: National Association of Home Builders, State, Local, and Environmental Affairs Division. Oropesa, R. (1989). "The social and political foundations of effective neighborhood improvement associations." Social Science Quarterly 70, 723-743. Pardo, M. (1990). "Mexican American women grassroots commu- nity activists: 'Mothers of East Los Angeles.'" Fron- tiers 11, 1-7. Pred, A. (1990). "In other wor(l)ds: fragmented and inte- grated observations on gendered languages, gendered spaces and local transformation." Antipode 22, 33-52. Robertson, J. (1986). "Highlights of PLAN-Boulder County, 1959-1986." Boulder, CO: PLAN-Boulder County. Schoenberg, S. (1980). "Some trends in the community par- ticipation of women in their neighborhoods." Signs 5, S261-S268. Smith, P. (1981). A Look at Boulder: From Settlement to City. Boulder, CO: Pruett Publishing Company. Staeheli, L. and Lawson, V. (1990). "Feminism, praxis, and human geography." Unpublished manuscript, Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder. Steinem, G. (1983). Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebel- lions. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. White, G. (1973). "The last settler's syndrome." Exploring Options for the Future: A Study of Growth in Boulder County, vol. 8, pp. 80-85. Boulder, CO: Boulder Area Growth Study Commission. Wilson, E. (1977). "Women in the community." In Women in the Community (M. Mayo, ed) pp. 1-11. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Wilson, J. (1990). "Public" work and social participation: the case of farm women. The Sociological Quarterly 31, 107-121. Copyright (C) December, 1990 by Lynn Staeheli All rights reserved. Single copies of this paper may be reproduced for personal use with the following conditions: - All information concerning copyrights, authorship, acknowledgement of grant support, and publication must not be deleted from printed or electronic copies. - Any use of this material must be fully cited and in compliance with all copyright statutes and ethical fair use principles. - The paper may be reproduced only in its entirety. This paper may not be reposted on any other electronic bulletin board or retrieval system without formal permission from the Consortium or the author. This paper is provided free of charge and may not be offered for sale by anyone other than the Consortium or the author(s). Graphic images are not included in this file. For information on how to obtain graphics contact the CRC at the address below. All correspondence related to this paper should be addressed to: CRC@CUBLDR.COLORADO.EDU -or- Conflict Resolution Consortium Campus Box 327 University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309 -or- (303) 492-1635