I have been talking, writing, screaming, and freaking out about this legislation since way before it passed, and I have been shocked and outraged at the amount of apathy about it and even support for it. Something that would nearly triple the size of our city population, hike our taxes, deplete our resources and services, and decimate the quality of life for our current residents, and there were mostly crickets as the governor and the state legislature rammed this bill through without any insight into it’s disturbing consequences. The absolute audacity of lawmakers to choose to completely over run small communities and decide to turn them into monstrosities as some kind of solution, to what? Low transit use? Lack of affordable housing? This “plan” is well beyond anything our small city could possibly even attain, much less tolerate. I’m wondering what the consequences would be to just completely ignoring the whole bill and going about our merry way, especially in comparison to the devastating and irreversible consequences of giving in to this dictatorial and inane legislation. I say we tell them to go F themselves and let the chips fall where they may!!
Lafayette should coordinate with other cities that are impacted negatively by this absurd legislation and sue the state. This is asinine, dictatorial, usurption of excellent local planning that Lafayette has accomplished!
I was very disappointed with the lack of pushback on this bill from across the state. Maybe other communities aren't going to be impacted the way we are.
You might recall the council passed a strongly worded resolution in opposition to the bill.
CITY OF LAFAYETTE RESOLUTION NO. 2024-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE, COLORADO, IN OPPOSITION TO PREEMPTIONS AND BURDENS IN HOUSE BILL 24-1313 REGARDING HOUSING IN TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, for a century, the State of Colorado has committed both in statute and in the state constitution to the local control of land use planning and zoning because local governments are closest to the land and to the people that occupy it; and
WHEREAS, for nearly as long, the State of Colorado has dedicated various revenues collected with respect to the operation of motor vehicles and motor fuel “exclusively for the construction, maintenance, and supervision of the public highways of this state,” as provided in Section 18 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution, referred to as the “Highway Users Tax Fund” (HUTF) that is shared with local governments that have a responsibility to maintain safe roads; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 24-1313 would require the City of Lafayette to commit City funds and staff resources to rezone substantial areas near existing and planned rail and bus transit to accommodate a potential density set by the state, change local laws to meet state criteria, and establish programs to meet state goals relating to affordability and the mitigation of displacement, all subject to state approval; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 24-1313 will punish communities that do not satisfy the state’s demands by withholding and reallocating HUTF funds for other purposes and authorizing the Department of Local Affairs, a longtime partner of local governments, to sue municipalities to enforce the state’s mandate; and
WHEREAS, City staff estimates that House Bill 24-1313 would require the City of Lafayette to enact zoning to enable up to 72,000 housing units; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 24-1313 would undermine the work that the City of Lafayette and its residents have done to promote responsible development and affordable housing, despite limited support and a lack of sufficient transit opportunities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lafayette, Colorado, as follows:
1. It is the position of the City of Lafayette that the state should partner with local governments and provide meaningful support to improve transit opportunities and to promote affordable housing development instead of threatening local governments with punishment; and
2. The City of Lafayette opposes House Bill 24-1313 and strongly urges its legislators to vote NO on this legislation unless it is amended to address:
Collaboration: The bill should focus on collaboration with local communities and offer incentives for achieving shared goals, as opposed to threats of litigation and the withholding of critical road maintenance funds.
Legislate for outcomes: The bill should set objective outcomes and provide local governments flexibility in how to achieve them.
Focus on fixed transit: The bill should focus on areas around fixed rail and bus rapid transit, not local bus routes that change based on factors beyond the city's control.
Funding: The bill should either remove or provide funding to implement mandates that impose financial burdens on local governments, like affordable housing and displacement strategies.
Context matters: The bill needs to consider local context. The one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate for all communities.
Timing matters: The bill should tie requirements to the actual construction of new transit infrastructure like bus rapid transit or rail projects.
Complexity: The bill is overly complex and should be simplified.
Water limitations: The bill should acknowledge that water resources are not unimitated and consider the impact of increased development on water usage.
This is a great thought for some reason I did not have. The punishment regarding the highway dollars was removed from the final bill but you made me go looking to see if there were other penalties. I reached out to staff and will share what I was told soon.
Thanks for this, Karen, I wasn't aware of the bill. I think I see this as a positive - we need more housing, and more affordable housing, and unless/until RTD decides to give us a train, BRT is the best mass transit option we have. But I sense that there's concern - is it that this is unrealistic to implement in the timeframe? Are people worried about the development changing the character of downtown Lafayette? Also, how many of those units are going to be available for rent versus own? I'd love to see this issue fully.
I'm going to be blunt here, yes there is concern as there should be. This is setting us up to go from a community of 12,718 dwelling units in less than 10 square miles to 48,718 and it is insane. We don't have the infrastructure, water, staffing, police, fire, or other support systems to handle that kind of increase.
We are a home rule city, that gives us the ability to make these decisions for our own community. This is a huge overstep by the state to overrule what each community can do in a way that works for them. It is a one-size-fits-all method that is ridiculous.
Lafayette has done a lot of work on affordability. We have invested what will be around $11M in the Willoughby Corner project when it is built out. We have taken other actions to work on affordability including helping residents of a mobile home park buy their park and become owners instead of renters. We are walking the walk, this forced action by the state does not help us.
We don't even have enough water resources for current residents, We have no magic wand to create more water to support that number of residences.
Ahh, this makes a lot of sense, thanks for being specific. And Lafayette's not even that sprawling of a suburb, compared to some other areas in the Denver metro. I think I see the principle behind the law on a regional scale, but like you say, it doesn't seem particularly adaptable to each municipality's needs and capacity.
Thanks! I decided to answer guided by what I know and how it will affect us rather than just facts. 😉
Adding more affordable housing is a good goal. But this bill isn't about affordable, it's about numbers. All those additional dwellings could still be expensive. Sometimes there needs to be a discussion with those who know what's going on, like city managers and planners who understand the cost of something like this. There are many costs.
We not only have a growth boundary but we are surrounded by other municipalities or open space. Sprawl is not a concern for Lafayette.
Your questions and reply do give me some guidance as I continue to write about this and what kind of information to include. Thanks for that!
This is a housing development bill, plain and simple. It doesn’t solve any problems, but it sure creates a lot of new ones. When Governor Polis gets every city in this state to build and open an affordable housing project the size of Willoughby, then he can come and try to tell us what to do to contribute to affordable housing. Until then, he needs to butt out! Not surprisingly, I said those exact words to him, and not surprisingly, he didn’t listen or care.
I am writing a new post at this moment, including an update on the city council action and some info on who to contact to express your thoughts about the bill. It should go live today!
They are also tying it to affordability but the focus around RTD puts pressure on Lafayette as a small community. I am still working on the next part of this, I have to find the time to finish it! 😊
Boulder County voted on a local tax for light rail development and passed this a few years ago. We were promised a rapid transit system of light rail, and then, after passage, this goal was put off until some time on the order of 2045 as I recall. How does all this mess of legislation now fit in with the prior promises of a tax I assume we still pay, and the fact of no rapid transit now?
Thanks. More promises, but the articles point to those involved are now not merely asking when, but IF. Boulder County taxpayers pay for Denver's RTD rail line and get bupkis. The rail line initiative being imposed on Lafayette and others is nothing but a politician's scam about climate change dangers. They get votes, and power, and maybe some uptick in their fortunes, and the population gets soaked in public debt. Also, maybe affordable housing is not working in asset rich Boulder, so they are also looking to place needed workers in Lafayette via more affordable housing there. The bottom line: Lafayette gets gutted.
Polis and the Dems are Soviet style governance. Even Rs are not up to the task of reacting with common sense. It takes the populace to vote better people into political power. A failing public transit system planned by our central planners, they screw up, and the idea here is to double down on their screwup because they don't want to admit they were wrong in the first place. Why? Look for their money and employment to answer that, and their desire to project political power. They will make our lives worse.
That transit system didn't work out the way we were told did it? It's crazy to me that their answer is build huge amounts of housing near places where buses run so they get more riders. What a costly way to get more riders.
More housing = more busing = false premise with no data to support the assumption. Where are the equivalencies? Also, I'm far from apathetic, but I am suffocating under the burden of contemporary politics and haven't kept up with my town's challenges. I'll pay closer attention going forward.
Hi Karen, I've been following some of your posts. Thank you for your work on sorting out these thorny issues. On the RTD issue, we obviously don't have the population density to support the current system. We should be looking for cost effective transportation solutions that might better serve the existing population. Simply adding density to support RTD sounds absurd.
Does this insanity mean that I can put 30 ADUs .(auxillary dwelling units or mother in law quarters) in my backyard and rent them out to Denverites fleeing the city by bus?
The truth is they are not looking for more riders. I believe what they are looking for is a way to get the Denver Metro Area out from the crushing weight of the massive influx of people who can now live anywhere because they work from home. They want to export their problems with housing, crime, drugs, etc. while still maintaining the workforce required to keep the city afloat. If they push high density development near transit, all of their problems can be pushed out into the suburbs and those people can still easily commute to Denver to work. Whatever is happening in Denver and surrounding Metro areas is what will dictate the political future of these legislators, including Polis, who I believe would like to be president. If Denver is infested with crime, drugs, homelessness and poverty, that doesn’t look good on the governor and his abilities to govern. This is the quickest and easiest way they could think of to transform the dumpster fire that Denver has become… to dilute the problems and spread them out into areas where it won’t cost them their workforce.
Even Rs??? As much as I am incensed with this bill and the legislators who passed it, I would never even consider handing the state I love so passionately over to “Rs.” As I look around in horror at what is unfolding in the few short weeks that they have held us hostage at a national level, I would sooner burn the whole place to the ground than turn it into an autocracy. Hard Pass!!
While the Regional Council of Governments has a good point about bus ridership they don’t seem to grasp that small or medium cities have a culture their inhabitants value which is not the same as big urban areas.
This was driven by the state legislature not DRCOG so one would think they would have a grasp on how many different communities there are in the state and how this would impact each one in a different manner. Both our state senator and state representative voted in favor of this bill.
Yes, I remember Lafayette’s excellent response to the State. Lafayette should get this issue on this year's Colorado Municipal League's Annual Meeting to develop a strategy to repeat this legislation.
I have been talking, writing, screaming, and freaking out about this legislation since way before it passed, and I have been shocked and outraged at the amount of apathy about it and even support for it. Something that would nearly triple the size of our city population, hike our taxes, deplete our resources and services, and decimate the quality of life for our current residents, and there were mostly crickets as the governor and the state legislature rammed this bill through without any insight into it’s disturbing consequences. The absolute audacity of lawmakers to choose to completely over run small communities and decide to turn them into monstrosities as some kind of solution, to what? Low transit use? Lack of affordable housing? This “plan” is well beyond anything our small city could possibly even attain, much less tolerate. I’m wondering what the consequences would be to just completely ignoring the whole bill and going about our merry way, especially in comparison to the devastating and irreversible consequences of giving in to this dictatorial and inane legislation. I say we tell them to go F themselves and let the chips fall where they may!!
Stay tuned I have been checking into the consequences of not complying after Ralph's comment in this thread. 😉
Lafayette should coordinate with other cities that are impacted negatively by this absurd legislation and sue the state. This is asinine, dictatorial, usurption of excellent local planning that Lafayette has accomplished!
I was very disappointed with the lack of pushback on this bill from across the state. Maybe other communities aren't going to be impacted the way we are.
You might recall the council passed a strongly worded resolution in opposition to the bill.
CITY OF LAFAYETTE RESOLUTION NO. 2024-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE, COLORADO, IN OPPOSITION TO PREEMPTIONS AND BURDENS IN HOUSE BILL 24-1313 REGARDING HOUSING IN TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, for a century, the State of Colorado has committed both in statute and in the state constitution to the local control of land use planning and zoning because local governments are closest to the land and to the people that occupy it; and
WHEREAS, for nearly as long, the State of Colorado has dedicated various revenues collected with respect to the operation of motor vehicles and motor fuel “exclusively for the construction, maintenance, and supervision of the public highways of this state,” as provided in Section 18 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution, referred to as the “Highway Users Tax Fund” (HUTF) that is shared with local governments that have a responsibility to maintain safe roads; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 24-1313 would require the City of Lafayette to commit City funds and staff resources to rezone substantial areas near existing and planned rail and bus transit to accommodate a potential density set by the state, change local laws to meet state criteria, and establish programs to meet state goals relating to affordability and the mitigation of displacement, all subject to state approval; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 24-1313 will punish communities that do not satisfy the state’s demands by withholding and reallocating HUTF funds for other purposes and authorizing the Department of Local Affairs, a longtime partner of local governments, to sue municipalities to enforce the state’s mandate; and
WHEREAS, City staff estimates that House Bill 24-1313 would require the City of Lafayette to enact zoning to enable up to 72,000 housing units; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 24-1313 would undermine the work that the City of Lafayette and its residents have done to promote responsible development and affordable housing, despite limited support and a lack of sufficient transit opportunities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lafayette, Colorado, as follows:
1. It is the position of the City of Lafayette that the state should partner with local governments and provide meaningful support to improve transit opportunities and to promote affordable housing development instead of threatening local governments with punishment; and
2. The City of Lafayette opposes House Bill 24-1313 and strongly urges its legislators to vote NO on this legislation unless it is amended to address:
Collaboration: The bill should focus on collaboration with local communities and offer incentives for achieving shared goals, as opposed to threats of litigation and the withholding of critical road maintenance funds.
Legislate for outcomes: The bill should set objective outcomes and provide local governments flexibility in how to achieve them.
Focus on fixed transit: The bill should focus on areas around fixed rail and bus rapid transit, not local bus routes that change based on factors beyond the city's control.
Funding: The bill should either remove or provide funding to implement mandates that impose financial burdens on local governments, like affordable housing and displacement strategies.
Context matters: The bill needs to consider local context. The one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate for all communities.
Timing matters: The bill should tie requirements to the actual construction of new transit infrastructure like bus rapid transit or rail projects.
Complexity: The bill is overly complex and should be simplified.
Water limitations: The bill should acknowledge that water resources are not unimitated and consider the impact of increased development on water usage.
The penalty is far less than the cost to populate. Especially when we consider the time to litigate.
This is a great thought for some reason I did not have. The punishment regarding the highway dollars was removed from the final bill but you made me go looking to see if there were other penalties. I reached out to staff and will share what I was told soon.
Thanks for this, Karen, I wasn't aware of the bill. I think I see this as a positive - we need more housing, and more affordable housing, and unless/until RTD decides to give us a train, BRT is the best mass transit option we have. But I sense that there's concern - is it that this is unrealistic to implement in the timeframe? Are people worried about the development changing the character of downtown Lafayette? Also, how many of those units are going to be available for rent versus own? I'd love to see this issue fully.
I'm going to be blunt here, yes there is concern as there should be. This is setting us up to go from a community of 12,718 dwelling units in less than 10 square miles to 48,718 and it is insane. We don't have the infrastructure, water, staffing, police, fire, or other support systems to handle that kind of increase.
We are a home rule city, that gives us the ability to make these decisions for our own community. This is a huge overstep by the state to overrule what each community can do in a way that works for them. It is a one-size-fits-all method that is ridiculous.
Lafayette has done a lot of work on affordability. We have invested what will be around $11M in the Willoughby Corner project when it is built out. We have taken other actions to work on affordability including helping residents of a mobile home park buy their park and become owners instead of renters. We are walking the walk, this forced action by the state does not help us.
We don't even have enough water resources for current residents, We have no magic wand to create more water to support that number of residences.
Ahh, this makes a lot of sense, thanks for being specific. And Lafayette's not even that sprawling of a suburb, compared to some other areas in the Denver metro. I think I see the principle behind the law on a regional scale, but like you say, it doesn't seem particularly adaptable to each municipality's needs and capacity.
Thanks! I decided to answer guided by what I know and how it will affect us rather than just facts. 😉
Adding more affordable housing is a good goal. But this bill isn't about affordable, it's about numbers. All those additional dwellings could still be expensive. Sometimes there needs to be a discussion with those who know what's going on, like city managers and planners who understand the cost of something like this. There are many costs.
We not only have a growth boundary but we are surrounded by other municipalities or open space. Sprawl is not a concern for Lafayette.
Your questions and reply do give me some guidance as I continue to write about this and what kind of information to include. Thanks for that!
This is a housing development bill, plain and simple. It doesn’t solve any problems, but it sure creates a lot of new ones. When Governor Polis gets every city in this state to build and open an affordable housing project the size of Willoughby, then he can come and try to tell us what to do to contribute to affordable housing. Until then, he needs to butt out! Not surprisingly, I said those exact words to him, and not surprisingly, he didn’t listen or care.
I’m new to this issue, but want to join the opposition. We need to actively oppose the implementation of this legislation.
I am writing a new post at this moment, including an update on the city council action and some info on who to contact to express your thoughts about the bill. It should go live today!
This is insane. We need a transportation system that serves the population. Adding density to fill RTD is nonsense.
They are also tying it to affordability but the focus around RTD puts pressure on Lafayette as a small community. I am still working on the next part of this, I have to find the time to finish it! 😊
Boulder County voted on a local tax for light rail development and passed this a few years ago. We were promised a rapid transit system of light rail, and then, after passage, this goal was put off until some time on the order of 2045 as I recall. How does all this mess of legislation now fit in with the prior promises of a tax I assume we still pay, and the fact of no rapid transit now?
Good question. I found some info online. The vote for FasTracks was in 2004. The price tag is now $1.5 billion completion 2042.
https://www.denver7.com/news/360/the-infamous-and-elusive-b-line-to-boulder-and-beyond
Yes, we are still paying for it.
https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/rtd-front-range-passenger-rail-partnership-could-get-train-service-from-denver-to-boulder-back-on-track
Thanks. More promises, but the articles point to those involved are now not merely asking when, but IF. Boulder County taxpayers pay for Denver's RTD rail line and get bupkis. The rail line initiative being imposed on Lafayette and others is nothing but a politician's scam about climate change dangers. They get votes, and power, and maybe some uptick in their fortunes, and the population gets soaked in public debt. Also, maybe affordable housing is not working in asset rich Boulder, so they are also looking to place needed workers in Lafayette via more affordable housing there. The bottom line: Lafayette gets gutted.
I am concerned about the "gutted" part for sure.
Polis and the Dems are Soviet style governance. Even Rs are not up to the task of reacting with common sense. It takes the populace to vote better people into political power. A failing public transit system planned by our central planners, they screw up, and the idea here is to double down on their screwup because they don't want to admit they were wrong in the first place. Why? Look for their money and employment to answer that, and their desire to project political power. They will make our lives worse.
That transit system didn't work out the way we were told did it? It's crazy to me that their answer is build huge amounts of housing near places where buses run so they get more riders. What a costly way to get more riders.
More housing = more busing = false premise with no data to support the assumption. Where are the equivalencies? Also, I'm far from apathetic, but I am suffocating under the burden of contemporary politics and haven't kept up with my town's challenges. I'll pay closer attention going forward.
There's a lot going on, it's hard to keep up!
Hi Karen, I've been following some of your posts. Thank you for your work on sorting out these thorny issues. On the RTD issue, we obviously don't have the population density to support the current system. We should be looking for cost effective transportation solutions that might better serve the existing population. Simply adding density to support RTD sounds absurd.
Hi Alfons. Cost effective transportation solutions that might better serve the existing population? Well, that sounds reasonable!
Does this insanity mean that I can put 30 ADUs .(auxillary dwelling units or mother in law quarters) in my backyard and rent them out to Denverites fleeing the city by bus?
The truth is they are not looking for more riders. I believe what they are looking for is a way to get the Denver Metro Area out from the crushing weight of the massive influx of people who can now live anywhere because they work from home. They want to export their problems with housing, crime, drugs, etc. while still maintaining the workforce required to keep the city afloat. If they push high density development near transit, all of their problems can be pushed out into the suburbs and those people can still easily commute to Denver to work. Whatever is happening in Denver and surrounding Metro areas is what will dictate the political future of these legislators, including Polis, who I believe would like to be president. If Denver is infested with crime, drugs, homelessness and poverty, that doesn’t look good on the governor and his abilities to govern. This is the quickest and easiest way they could think of to transform the dumpster fire that Denver has become… to dilute the problems and spread them out into areas where it won’t cost them their workforce.
Even Rs??? As much as I am incensed with this bill and the legislators who passed it, I would never even consider handing the state I love so passionately over to “Rs.” As I look around in horror at what is unfolding in the few short weeks that they have held us hostage at a national level, I would sooner burn the whole place to the ground than turn it into an autocracy. Hard Pass!!
While the Regional Council of Governments has a good point about bus ridership they don’t seem to grasp that small or medium cities have a culture their inhabitants value which is not the same as big urban areas.
This was driven by the state legislature not DRCOG so one would think they would have a grasp on how many different communities there are in the state and how this would impact each one in a different manner. Both our state senator and state representative voted in favor of this bill.
Yes, I remember Lafayette’s excellent response to the State. Lafayette should get this issue on this year's Colorado Municipal League's Annual Meeting to develop a strategy to repeat this legislation.
Repeal it? That would be great.
Yes, REPEAL it.🤪
🤣 I knew that was what you meant!