State lawmakers’ latest attempt to boost denser housing in Colorado cities would give local governments a choice: Embrace newly required density goals and unlock millions of dollars in grants and tax credits to help achieve them.
Or flout the new mandate, lose out on millions more in shared tax money — and then be required to incorporate the density goals anyway.
That’s the carrot-and-stick approach contained in HB24-1313, a bill introduced Tuesday that’s likely to be one of the most hotly debated bills in the state Capitol this session as local governments push to keep their control over land use. The measure, part of a package of land-use bills pursued by the majority Democrats and Gov. Jared Polis, is a redo of a similar effort that collapsed at the end of last year’s legislative session.
While different in approach and conception, this attempt shares the same goal: to bolster the state’s lagging housing stock, as well as its transit systems, by requiring local governments to allow more housing development in denser concentrations.
“Low-density housing creates sprawl, forcing Coloradans to live farther from their jobs, grocery stores and schools,” said Rep. Iman Jodeh, an Aurora Democrat sponsoring the bill with fellow Democratic Rep. Steven Woodrow, in a statement. “It doesn’t have to be this way. We can change the status quo to create a more affordable Colorado that works for its people.”
Broadly, the bill would require roughly 30 Front Range cities, towns and counties to calculate a housing-unit density goal in designated transit areas and to provide a plan for how they’ll hit that target. Local governments could take multiple routes to reach the goal, including allowing for taller buildings; clearing the way for triplexes or town homes in single-family areas; or streamlining approval processes.
Those municipalities also would be required to include affordability and anti-gentrification policies in their plans. That’s a nod to concerns from housing advocates and affordable housing developers who worry that market-rate development moving into newly rezoned — and newly lucrative — areas would displace longtime residents by pricing them out.
Jodeh and Woodrow also backed last year’s land-use reform effort. Like the final version of last year’s bill, this measure’s mandates would not apply to rural or mountain communities, leaving out some towns with stark housing and economic disparities. That’s a shift from how land-use reforms were first pitched — as a statewide solution to a statewide housing crisis.
Woodrow said the new bill is focused on transit-oriented development and thus applies to areas of the state with the most robust transit offerings.
The bill’s introduction was hailed Tuesday by a spectrum of Colorado groups, including housing advocates, the Boulder Chamber and the president and CEO of Gary Community Ventures, a philanthropic foundation that’s pushed for affordable housing investment at the state level.
Part of a larger package of reforms
The other bills in the Polis-backed land-use package include measures to eliminate parking minimums and occupancy limits; a measure to allow accessory-dwelling units in Front Range communities; and a bill studying local governments’ housing needs.
All of those proposals, with the exception of the study bill, have now been introduced. The bill barring occupancy limits, except to uphold health and safety standards, has already passed the House and is now headed for the Senate.
The transit-oriented communities bill, as supporters have dubbed Woodrow and Jodeh’s measure, likely will be the most controversial. Though it includes incentives and a two-year window for local governments to come into compliance, it would still ultimately require local governments to change their land-use and density plans.
Local land-use decisions long have been under the exclusive control of local authorities. Any attempt to pre-empt that authority is certain to trigger resistance from municipalities and sympathetic legislators from both parties, as was the case last year.
“At the end of the day, a mandate is a mandate,” said Kevin Bommer, the executive director of the Colorado Municipal League, which represents local governments. ” … It all is wordsmithed very nicely, but at the end of the day, this is not (an example of) working together.
“This is the state trying to determine how, specifically, municipalities and communities (should) grow, without actually working together to do it.”
The Regional Transportation District’s G-Line train travels through Arvada in 2018. The suburban city has seen denser residential development, including apartment buildings, built near G-Line stations. (Photo by Andy Cross/The Denver Post)
If local governments aren’t in compliance with the new requirements by the end of 2027, the state could pursue a court injunction against the entity that requires officials to comply, according to the bill.
Woodrow and Jodeh have taken pains to point out the differences in this year’s approach after last year’s effort drew criticism for sidelining local interests. Stakeholders have met publicly each Tuesday for months, and the bill is beginning its legislative journey in February, with more than half of the legislative session still to go.
Supporters also have openly discussed the bill’s contents for months.
Last year’s legislation, by comparison, was drafted largely in private, and it wasn’t introduced until the third week of March.
Still, both supporters and opponents acknowledged that sometimes, no amount of meeting, negotiating and conferring with stakeholders can fix what has become a fundamental policy disagreement over the question: Should the state have a say in local land-use decisions?
Land-use reform seen as solution to housing crunch
For Woodrow, Jodeh, Polis and their supporters, the answer to that question is a resounding yes.
They argue that more housing supply is needed to address the broader affordability crisis in Colorado, where nearly half of renters in a poll last year expressed anxiety about losing their housing because of rising costs.
Polis has described land-use reform as a broad panacea for the state’s various challenges. Denser development means less sprawl in a state that’s projected to grow by 35,000 households per year through the end of the decade, according to the governor’s office. Development near transit lines like trains and frequent bus routes means fewer cars on the road, a better-supported transit system, less pollution, and more efficient use of infrastructure and water.
Local land use decisions, the argument goes, have limited their own density potential and are too influenced by vocal opposition on the ground.
But local government officials have argued that they know what’s best to address their local housing needs and that they’ve already been working to address their housing crises on their own.
They also say they want to partner with — not be directed by — the state in that work.
Related Articles
Colorado legislators pitch open-meetings changes as pragmatic, but will too much happen outside public view?
Rural Colorado colleges band together to ask state for millions in funding
Colorado parole violations plunge 50% in 6 years as penalties lessen for drug, alcohol use
Dating app safety, tax credit for renters under consideration at Colorado Capitol this week
Colorado Democrats want to use TABOR refund money to fight child poverty, help care workers with new credits
In exchange for willingly accepting the bill’s density requirements, the state would provide $35 million a year in grant funding for infrastructure upgrades near transit-rich areas, plus millions more in tax credits. If local governments don’t voluntarily embrace the program within two years, they would be hit with the same requirements — while also losing out on millions of dollars from the state’s Highway Users Tax Fund.
“At a certain point, we can’t let the residents of the community fall by the wayside because their leadership wants to thumb their nose at the state,” Woodrow said.
Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Brighton Republican and vocal opponent of last year’s land-use bill, expressed similar opposition Tuesday.
She called the bill “irresponsible,” particularly because of its proposed “punishment” of withholding money from local governments that don’t fall in line.
“Instead of saying to local governments, ‘We’re going to work with you on this. We’ll try and find additional funding if you can’t follow these goals,’ ” she said, the message is: “Forget the partnership. We’re not only going to preempt you, we’re going to punish you.”
Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.