A “yes” on Amendment 74 means just compensation

Re: “Voters should reject Amend. 74,” Sept. 16 editorial

The editorial entitled “Voters should reject Amend. 74” has given us an excellent teaching moment.

Amendment 74 would require that rule changes that diminish the value of a property must be compensated by the government as a “taking.”

The Post opposes this. To prove its case, the editorial cites a recent change to the building code to ban “slot” homes (that is, units that face an alley rather than the street).

With the amendment, such a change would require compensation and therefore probably never happen.

Yes. That’s exactly the point. Lesson 1: There is absolutely no reason why a developer should not be allowed to build a “slot” home. And absolutely no reason why a willing buyer should not be allowed to buy one.

Lesson 2: This is exactly the type of pointless regulation that keeps the supply of housing down and prices high.

Lesson 3: If the Denver City Council decides that banning “slot” homes is beneficial for “the community,” then why should its cost fall entirely on the developers who happen to own properties suitable for “slot” homes? Why shouldn’t the entire community pay this cost since the entire community is allegedly benefiting?

The editorial claims that “[w]e are staunch advocates of property rights...” but this is pure eyewash. True staunch advocates of property rights, and the freedoms they entail, would see Amendment 74 for exactly what it is: a curative for capricious government policies and a just allocation of the costs of actions which allegedly benefit the broad public. Roger Barris, Evergreen