Ballot Measure 2B protects renters
Ballots have arrived in Boulder County mailboxes, and most voters are understandably focused on state and national contests. But with vulnerability and uncertainty so resonant this year, it’s also important to support social justice and economic security locally. And Boulder’s Ballot Measure 2B — No Eviction Without Representation (NEWR) — provides an opportunity to do just that.
NEWR proposes providing free lawyers for tenants facing eviction, essentially creating a version of the public defender program for this critical branch of the civil courts. Funding would come from a $75/ unit annual tax levied on landlords, with program surpluses paid out in direct rental assistance to households in need.
It’s a powerful proposal for renter protection that reflects a deep understanding of the eviction process and its aftermath.
First, NEWR addresses the long-term negative impacts of involuntary moves. Evictions, especially when accomplished by court judgements, not only disrupt daily life, but make it more difficult for people to find housing and work in the future. It’s easy to think of eviction prevention as a response to housing emergencies, but it’s also a long-term investment in people and the communities in which they live.
NEWR’S approach also recognizes that legal support can help tenants land upright, even when it’s clear they will ultimately lose their homes. Skilled lawyers can negotiate extra time to move, the dismissal of formal complaints, or even compensation for tenants’ contributions to repairs and maintenance. Eviction cases can yield a spectrum of outcomes, and programs like NEWR have significantly reduced the number of default decisions and forced removals in other cities.
Boulder voters are no strangers to left/liberal politics and groundbreaking ballot initiatives, but we’re less accustomed to seeing strong working class organizing locally. And the NEWR campaign has definitely ruffled some feathers in town.
The Boulder Area Rental Housing Association (BARHA) is predictably opposed, and the Daily Camera’s editorial board — indulging some of the landlords’ most patronizing arguments — has also urged a “no” vote.
To start, they’ve raised the specter of higher rents. Passing along the $75/unit annual tax might not be enough, because increasing tenant protections raises the cost of doing business. That might be true, though in a tight market, NEWR’S effect would be hard to isolate.
But making that threat the centerpiece of opposition suggests an incomplete understanding of renters’ housing struggles. Affordability matters, but it means much less in the absence of security. And denying renter protections because of other local policy failures will not solve either problem.
Opponents have also latched onto potential abuses, warning of well-paid professionals in luxury apartments who might casually skip rent and then draw on the public purse. Never mind that a NEWR lawyer couldn’t save such scofflaws. Even suggesting that people of means might seek this path trivializes the entire experience of eviction.
Arguments against universal access to social programs are frequently used to divide and conquer, so it’s no surprise to see them circulating here. But in practice, means testing creates burdens for intended beneficiaries at their moment of greatest need. And as so many people have learned during the COVID-19 recession, a history of steady income doesn’t guarantee housing stability.
Finally, the opposition makes a plea for civility, lamenting that expanding tenant rights will bring cases to court that were previously settled informally. Like the threat of higher rents, this might in fact occur. But to call it an “unintended consequence” again ignores how vulnerable renters are in unmediated housing disputes. The courts shouldn’t be the exclusive domain of aggrieved property owners.
Publicly, most objections to NEWR are framed as concern for renters, some version of “don’t let them inflict a damaging program on themselves.” But what’s truly “dangerous” about the initiative is that it challenges the power differential between tenants and landlords.
When 98 percent of renters lack representation, and most evictions are granted by default in a matter of minutes, property owners are used to obtaining quick and uncontested results in court. The addition of tenants’ lawyers removes that certainty. This realignment shifts costs, to be sure, but the loss of structural advantage is what’s really at stake.
In a more just world, equal access to due process in the housing courts would already be guaranteed, and without a special tax. But the idea that housing is a human right is new in mainstream politics, and it will take a concerted effort to embed it in our legal system. NEWR is a part of that work, and you can support it by voting “yes” on 2B.