Support t e groupliving proposal
The animosity between the two loosely organized groups is reaching a fever pitch as Denver City Council prepares to vote Feb. 8 on a proposal to change the city ordinances surrounding group living.
Opponents contend the ordinance will harm homeowners, especially those whose homes are near commercial or mixed-use zoning and therefore could have a community corrections facility built next door under the new ordinance. Proponents respond that the ordinance will help relieve the burden that disproportionately falls on low-income communities, home to most of Denver’s community corrections and shelter facilities.
After weighing both considerations, we support the changes being proposed as a way to expel archaic and unenforcible laws from the books while also spreading the burden of negatively perceived housing needs across a broader swath of the city.
The changes are complex regulations that deal with land use laws, have evolved considerably since they were first proposed, and involve innumerable scenarios. As such, the proposal has been subject to considerable misinformation. Denver’s city council and staff have done an admirable job of listening to concerns and scaling back the original proposal.
First, the proposed ordinance does away with a law that prevented more than two unrelated individuals from living together. The law was laughably restrictive and flaunted by many college students, young professionals, and low-income earning families seeking relief from Denver’s high cost of living by sharing a single residence.
The proposal would increase the number of unrelated adults who can live together to five, plus any and all minor children, and would limit the number of cars permissible at such a residence to one per licensed adult plus one additional per household.
We think this change in law will have very little impact on communities, given it was largely unenforced, to begin with, and it will make housing accessible as folks save up for their own place or seek better employment prospects.
However, the changes to the city’s group home laws for community corrections could impact some homeowners.
The proposal adds commercial and mixed-use zoning lands to the allowable areas where a community corrections facility could be located – we are talking here about alternatives to prison or reentry programs where offenders are able to live and work in the community under supervision. The program’s goals are to help reduce recidivism by giving offenders a head start on their return to society.
Of course, someone who lives near a mixed-use area or whose home is adjacent or very near to commercially zoned property would rather have a high-end condominium be built on available land, but we also know these facilities work hard to reduce the impact on the nearby community.
It could reduce property values if a facility were to move in right next door, but it is also entirely unfair that for generations these types of land uses were forced into areas that had also been reserved for minorities historically through zoning, discrimination and redlining lending practices. Spreading the impact of these facilities throughout the city in a more equitable way going forward, even at such a late date, is the right thing to do.
Right now the city is in need of more community corrections beds, and we think dispersing those facilities throughout the entire city, rather than continuing to concentrate them in one or two neighborhoods is the right and equitable thing to do.