Opinion: Polis’ land use bill should be rebuilt from the ground up

So … what do we do with Gov. Jared Polis’s land grab bill?

A friend told me that to influence some of the politicos, I need to put forward fixes to this horrible, damaging bill.  So, I’ll try. But first, a critical point:

For those who think this bill’s overly loose state-imposed rezoning of single-family areas will lead to only incremental changes and only over a long time, think again! Once the first house on a block goes on the market, the big-money speculators will be making offers “too good to refuse.” And when it’s converted to a multi-plex built to the bill’s ridiculously excessive 125% of the currently allowed maximum size, the rest of the neighborhood’s residents will be running for the hills. Then the neighborhood could quickly convert to dense, almost treeless development since anything not built on will be needed for parking spaces because there will be none left on the street.

Back to the bill:  The fundamental problem with this bill is that it is structured backward. The bill forces densification first, and only then requires cities to submit housing plans to the Department of Local Affairs. This means that big-money developers could spend huge amounts to elect city councils that will write these housing plans the way they want. Or, even more self-servingly, they may submit plans that are unacceptable to DOLA, so that the bill’s initial zoning, which allows dense ADU/multi-unit development, will stay in place and the developers will have an even bigger field day.

Clearly, the Legislature should first put in place detailed, substantive requirements for these housing plans, including quantitative standards that they need to meet, including affordability and regional limits on job growth to match available housing and water supplies. Only then grant limited density increases as carefully and legitimately justified by these plans.

The second problem is that the bill allows far too much development for any reasonable growth rate. For example, allowing one new ADU per 100 existing single-family houses per year would handle all of Colorado’s natural growth, i.e., births over deaths. Allowing just three or four per 100 per year would match Colorado’s excessive growth rate over the last 20 years. And that’s without the multitude of apartment buildings that are already being built, which, when combined with the over one hundred thousand currently vacant units, will satisfy any “backlog.” So, get rid of the bill’s automatic multi-plex allowance in single-family neighborhoods. It’s offensive and not needed.

Third, fix the problems that the state itself is creating. Prevent OEDIT and other state entities from granting tax credits or other incentives for business expansion, except in locations that are actually losing jobs; the state should not be pushing (or even allowing) rapid job growth where there’s already a housing issue. Remove statutory limits on development impact fees; these fees are needed to address the impact of growth on transportation and other required facilities. Repeal the law that makes regulation of mobile home parks a “matter of statewide concern”; then local jurisdictions can more easily preserve them for affordable housing.

Fourth, figure out the costs of preserving the quality of life here in Colorado in the face of more growth. Give cities and counties the power to address those issues using development impact fees, like for transportation, schools, parks, etc., where the level of investment needed directly relates to the amount of development. Then require housing plans to not exceed the ability to provide adequate services; if they don’t, the state should then impose the impact fees itself.

Fifth, regarding affordable housing, the state could put a real estate transfer tax on the ballot; then use the proceeds to help pay for enough affordable housing to prevent gentrification. This percentage, when combined with locally-imposed jobs-housing linkage fees, should help preserve the current population’s income distribution.

Sixth, for finite resources, like water supply, natural areas, etc., figure out what population is sustainable long-term with a decent quality of life; absolutely limit total development to that level.

In summary, the state should set essential ground rules clearly and quantitatively. Then let “local control” determine what gets done within those limits. Otherwise, it’s just top-down, and locals will just throw up their hands and abandon any efforts to address their own needs.

Finally, let’s hope the politicos that generated this bill behind the curtain of silence learned that it’s better to bring people into the game early to get needed feedback. And that our elected representatives remember that, per the 2022 Rasmussen survey, 90% of Coloradans want little or no more growth!

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