Opinion: The magical shrinking of Colorado’s ‘housing crisis’ and SB23-213

As I was preparing to write this column, I read the news reports on 18 amendments that were made to HB23-213, the Polis land grab bill. This is the bill that would have rezoned essentially 100% of the single-family areas in larger Colorado cities and resort areas to allow up to sixplexes.

These amendments now reduce that 100% to 30% (and sixplexes to fourplexes). The committee vote was 4-3, apparently with serious reservations about still allowing even that much densification being expressed, including by some of those voting “yes.” Now the bill only focuses on densifying areas near transit and trains, and not on multiplying Colorado’s population. I guess it’s now a “transit crisis,” not a “housing crisis.” But the bill still doesn’t distinguish families from unrelated folks in determining occupancy. So, single-family houses can still be replaced with rooming houses.

The legislators focused on standard, fixed-line mass transit. No consideration was given to alternatives, like charging people for parking and using the money to pay people to carpool, vanpool, bike or work remotely. This has real potential in areas like Boulder County, where jobs and housing are diffuse, so mass transit doesn’t work very effectively. (Look at all the empty buses.) But alternatives were totally ignored.

It’s hard not to ridicule this process, especially when there is also a spate of bills that will discourage the building of rental housing, and so would exacerbate the “housing crisis.” Perhaps the most bizarre is the bill that allows cities to unilaterally grant themselves a “right of first refusal” when an owner decides to sell a rental property like an apartment building if the city thinks it might want the property for affordable housing. This would allow the city to delay the closing for up to six months, effectively killing off any competition, and so apparently constituting a taking of private property “without just compensation.” I fully expect lawsuits to follow.

There are also bills that would allow cities to impose rent control under certain conditions, limit the ability of landlords to not renew a lease and so on. That’s consistent with abandoning the “housing crisis,” since who would want to build an apartment building under these conditions, much less knowing that next year things could get even more restrictive?

Back to SB23-213. I listened to maybe two-thirds of the 12 hours of testimony on this bill at its first hearing. I was impressed by the elected representatives from various cities, especially the resort communities. They pointed out all the flaws with the original bill and how it wouldn’t work for their communities. More importantly, they discussed the steps they were currently taking to address their own housing needs, and why trying to densify their single-family areas wouldn’t work. Some people also brought up obvious, but unaddressed, problems, like forcing more growth into areas that have infrastructure and/or water supply restrictions.

I haven’t seen the text, but apparently this issue about the adequacy of water and other infrastructure was finally addressed in amendments, albeit somewhat backhandedly. Municipalities must ask the state for permission to limit growth if their infrastructure is not adequate; cities cannot limit growth on their own, even if they feel that more growth would degrade their citizens’ quality of life. This is a very fundamental failure.

I don’t think that the legislators have grasped the seriousness of the concerns around the Colorado River’s shrinking flow that could potentially affect many of the big cities on the Front Range that SB23-213 targets. These cities depend on trans-mountain diversions that are all “junior” to the rights of California, Arizona, Nevada, Mexico, the Native American tribes … and the physics of evaporation.

SB23-213 was also amended, by unanimous committee vote, to expire in 10 years. Clearly, the legislators don’t trust their own work.

The best thing the governor and legislative leadership could do right now is to put all these housing and land use bills on hold and start an open, inclusive process to prepare better legislation for the next term. Involve local government people who are experienced with addressing these issues, and do detailed regional and local analyses of actual housing, transportation and water needs.

Fund an in-depth inclusive survey of Coloradans to find out what they really want regarding growth. As I’ve pointed out before, the 2022 Rasmussen survey showed that 90% of Coloradoans want little or no more growth. If that conclusion stands up, let that be the starting point for what comes next. And respect local control!

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more