Land bills advance, lawmakers try to avert doom
At this time last year, Colorado lawmakers were preparing to gut Gov. Jared Polis’ massive and marquee land-use bill that would have reshaped zoning across the state, spurring a stalemate that preceded the proposal’s death.
Now, after reviving most of that proposal in smaller pieces as part of a new strategy, reform supporters see a finish line in sight. Hurdles remain, but backers hope to avoid brick walls like the one that doomed last year’s effort.
One measure, a ban on most occupancy limits, has already being signed into law. Other legislation has crossed between chambers, including bills that would encourage — and then require — denser residential development in transit-rich areas; eliminate minimum parking requirements; require housing studies by all local governments; and allow for accessory dwelling units to be built on single-family lots.
Unlike last year’s failed proposal, which had been introduced to a cheering crowd, the bills are advancing without lawmakers publicly sharpening their pencils for planned rewrites.
But the underlying tensions surrounding how to require or incentivize local governments to undertake long-term planning and denser development along transit corridors haven’t been erased, either.
The three bills that passed the House and now are headed to the Senate each include limitations on local governments’ ability to control land-use decisions — a major source of tension last year, particularly in the Senate. Another bill is on the opposite track, moving to the House.
With two weeks left in the legislative session, which is set to end May 8, negotiations in each chamber will determine whether any of the policies pass, get rewritten or die once again. The House and Senate, while both controlled by large Democratic majorities, also have disagreed markedly on how to address the state’s housing crisis, adding complications.
The House passed the density-near-transit measure, House Bill 1313, with key and controversial provisions in place. That was a way for representatives to strengthen their hand heading into negotiations with the more moderate Senate in the coming days.
In a nod to the politicking ahead, lawmakers, advocates and lobbyists involved in the discussions have struck an even, careful tone in recent days when describing their expectations for the bills. Officials on either side of the debate praised their opponents and spoke openly about working together to bridge disagreements.
“It seems like the differences between the House and Senate are less severe this year, on this issue,” said
Senate President Steve Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat. “I think part of the problem last year was (that) it’s all one bill.”
That meant some people who supported, say, the provision allowing more accessory dwelling units may have hated the transit-oriented development piece or another component.
“It’s different when they’re separate policies — you can digest each individual policy on its own, and it creates a clearer debate,” Fenberg said.
The four remaining bills, which mostly would apply to Front Range cities, aren’t guaranteed to pass. All will almost certainly change.
“It’s a better process” — but concerns linger
Lawmakers have now had a more than a year to consider the broader idea of state-led zoning reform and to work on building consensus.
Supporters have taken pains to be more open about the bills’ contents. That’s in marked contrast from last year, when the details of the larger reform bill were kept under wraps until March and local government officials protested that they were learning about its contours from reports in the media.
The new approach has cleared some barriers and made for a smoother debate so far. But it hasn’t assuaged a fundamental disagreement about land-use reform and who should handle it.
That is a gap that likely can’t be bridged, no matter how many Zoom meetings or stakeholder discussions lawmakers and backers organize.
“It’s a better process, which I think is why you’ll see that we’re trying to work (supporters) a little bit more on getting something passed — because we do want to see something passed with housing,” said Heather Stauffer, the legislative advocacy manager for the Colorado Municipal League. It represents cities and towns around the state and has opposed many of the reforms.
“We’re not in a position to say, ‘Nothing should pass around housing,’ ” she said. “We just want to make sure, structurally, that it works for local governments as well.”
The league has had particular concerns about the density bill. It broadly would require local governments on the Front Range to come up with a minimum housing density goal near transit areas and then pursue strategies to hit that goal.
The state would offer tens of millions of dollars in tax credits and grants — while threatening to withhold millions more in tax money from local governments that don’t comply.
That threat has been a sticking point. Though several House Democrats conditioned their support on that provision being cut in the Senate, the bill cleared the House with the language intact. That was seen as key for future negotiations in the Senate.
“We’ve seen far too often what happens when you bid against yourself and you negotiate (away) everything on the front end,” said Rep. Steven Woodrow, a Denver Democrat and another of the bill’s sponsors, in an interview. “You end up with a weaker policy than you should have.”
Senate negotiations have moderating effect
During an initial committee hearing Tuesday, Sen. Faith Winter, a bill sponsor who’s a Broomfield Democrat, said she planned to strip that penalty from the proposal in a bid to smooth concerns from local governments.
Similar negotiations have altered — and may continue to change — Senate Bill 174, which would require local governments to conduct housing needs assessments every six years. The bill is sponsored by four legislators who openly opposed last year’s approach over concerns about preempting local control.
Initially opposed by environmental groups and viewed warily by housing advocates because it was light on mandates and penalties, the bill’s backers have smoothed over some of that opposition. The measure cleared the Senate with near-unanimous support.
“We went all the way up to the line that we felt was appropriate, where we were taking into consideration everybody’s viewpoints,” said Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat. “But we refused to cross the line over into preemption, which was always a very clear principle for us from the very beginning.”
It was a point echoed by Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Broomfield Republican and co-sponsor of the measure.
The two, unified by their backgrounds in local government, fought the 2023 proposal fiercely because they saw it as trampling on local control. But they wanted to resurrect the portion focused on local planning and shape it to their philosophy.
The Southwest Energy Efficiency Project is one of the groups advocating for penalties if local governments don’t follow legislative land use reforms. Matt Frommer, a senior transportation associate at SWEEP, sees the housing policies as too important to rely on carrots alone.
But his group also has moved from firm opposition to an “amend” position — a significant shift signaling an openness to supporting a bill — on the housing assessment measure after sponsors added strategic growth to the list of criteria for the assessments.
“We know there’s a direct relationship between zoning capacity and stable rents and lowering housing costs, and I think all these bills get at that,” Frommer said. “We’ve had another year to experience the pain of the housing crisis and to educate legislators on real solutions, so I think that should give us some confidence.”