I'm confused. Much of the S. Boulder Rd corridor is already developed. So where does the State expect us to put up high rises to accommodate such an increase in population? Perhaps I'm not understanding what they expect us to do.
The state said we have to rezone all the areas within the transit corridor to allow for 40 dwelling units per acre. That means that single family neighborhoods' zoning within the corridor will be changed going forward if council agrees. A developer can build multi-story buildings if they can get land within that corridor or if there is a redevelopment project. The city can also transfer some of those densities to other parts of town not in the corridor.
There is a requirement to create a Housing Opportunity Goal to reflect this. That's what the staff just completed and where the numbers came from.
The way to look at this is that it's a terrible bill that doesn't work for Lafayette.
Let's say this moves forward. Does that mean the owner of one of the mobile home parks could sell to a developer, who could then build multiple-story buildings?
Sorry, just trying to understand all of the nuances.
Hopefully when the new code update is finished there will be a mobile home zone to provide more protection. There might be something in the bill about them but I can't say with certainty that there is.
I just looked at the Colorado Municipal League Annual Meeting Agenda for Wednesday, June 25 DOLA (Department of Local Affiars) and DOLA has nothing on the new state laws that impact the local home rule planning and zoning process. Looks like no local discussion on this, sad!
Being a long time Vermont resident, I am more than a little appalled at the haphazard planning that seems to exist here. In Vermont, there are no unincorporated area, every square foot of land, agricultural, forest, rural is in within a municipality. Development is based on sustainability and our famous Act 250, so this whole process still has me confused. May I shouldn't have any say because I've only lived here 13 years, so I should just shut up.
But in any case, I have questions. Just because something is zoned for high density housing doesn't guarantee that it will be built does it? I would think that zoning to allow for 100,000 residents doesn't mean that 70,000 new residences will be built and it doesn't guarantee that the ones that are built will be occupied. What tells us that there is demand for that many new residents? What basis has been used to determine that this is a transit oriented region - In Vermont we had very little transit, but to me, my experience in using transit tells me that transit service is not good. Bus service is infrequent compared to transit service I am familiar with in the Metro areas in the Northeast and the only mode of transit is the bus, no rail service, so how did someone determine that (apparently existing) transit could serve that many residents. Something does not add up for me.
Is the 100,000+ figured on "if we build it they will come logic" or on some statistically sound modeling (I'm a retired professor of math and statistics). Looking at demographic projections Boulder COUNTY is projected to grow by 50,000 in the next 10 years. Apparently 70,000 people out of the 50,000 will be in Lafayette. This does not add up. The demand isn't going to be there.
"Just because something is zoned for high density housing doesn't guarantee that it will be built does it?"
If developers don't build, their business ceases to exist. We have developers here right now from Texas and Illinois wanting to build on land that isn't even part of the city yet. Why? They have to build to exist. Money.
The state is saying over and over that we don't have enough housing, that building more and more will bring the cost of the housing down and make it more affordable.
"What basis has been used to determine that this is a transit oriented region"
Transit areas are defined by this bill as being 1/4 mile from transit stations and transit corridors.
In the first draft of the bill, there was a threat to withhold highway dollars as punishment.
The bill said if we don’t submit to these requirements, we won’t get any more highway funding, and some legal action could be taken.
The argument in the bill went something like this: look, we’ve spent a lot of money on transit, but people aren’t using it enough, so you have to build more housing near these transit areas to get us more riders. It used numbers from Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle to show their ridership was higher. Here’s a quote from the bill. “Allowing higher density residential development near transit is important for increasing transit ridership
and improving the cost effectiveness of transit services”
"Something does not add up for me. "
Now you are getting it. It's a terrible bill!
"Is the 100,000+ figured on "if we build it they will come logic" or on some statistically sound modeling"
We have been told by the state to rezone 1/4 mile around transit areas to allow for 40 dwelling units per acre. Staff used that formula and voila.
If a developer can suddenly add many more units to a piece of land, he gets more profit. This is a developer's dream bill, IMHO. Building 8-story apartments instead of 4-story? That's a good deal for him.
I’ll be showing up to speak in Tuesday. There should be nothing more important for those of us who plan to be long term residents of our jewel of a city. Let’s not take an anti growth approach to this. That will only get us shot down. I think we need to demand that council do two things: 1) ignore HB24-1313 and consider the consequences of that as the price of saving our city and maintaining our Home Rule Authority. Request that they join forces with other affected communities to Sue the state to abolish this dictatorial bill. 2) urge council to adopt and stay adamant about policies that require the needed resources and services be developed PRIOR TO approving permits for any residential development moving forward (including but not limited to water, infrastructure, police, traffic mitigation, first responders, schools/teachers, electrical grid requirements, etc). These policies can provide a solid leg to stand on before the state in refusing an to overdevelop our city as current residents would face unacceptable hardships and living conditions if resources and services are stressed and thrown into shortages. If we prioritize adequate resources and services over development, then these high density projects will not be eligible for approval because there is literally no way the resources and services for a population that size could be accessed here. The state cannot possibly make a winning case that our city should be forced to build and fill developments that would far exceed our ability to sustain them. Resources and services must be in place first before permits can be approved. We need to demand they enact this common sense policy to protect our quality of life. Come to the meeting on Tuesday and speak to them! Bring a friend! Whatever else is on your schedule, reschedule or cancel it and show up for our city. It’s now or never!
Update on the CML Annual Meeting Agenda. On Wednesday, June 25 at 2:15 p.m. - 3:15 p.m. "What's Happening at DOLA" is the topic. "Look for more information soon!" DOLA is the Department of Local Affairs who needs to hear the concerns from Lafayette and our cities.
Karen, as I said earleir when this legislation passed and staff briefed the City Council, "SUE the State!" Lafayette and other cities need to band together. At a previous City Council meeting or Workshop (I can't remember which), I suggested that the City request this legislation be made an agenda topic at the Colorado Municipal Laegue Meeting in Breckenridge which is being held 6/24/2025 - 6/27/2025 at the Beaver Run Resort. I don't know if it will be discussed. Thank you once again for keeping the community informed on a very contorversial issue!
This is what I read to council in March 2024 when this topic came up.
Good Evening,
I’m here to talk about House Bill 24-1313 tonight and the continued actions from the state government which are diluting our home rule status. What I’m hoping to see from you tonight is a plan to push back.
We’re the good kid here and it feels like the bully is coming for us. We need to say stop, and loudly.
I have watched Lafayette work for decades to address affordable housing. We are looking at a contribution from our small city of over 11 million dollars to help build the largest net zero affordable development in the state and possibly the country, Willoughby Corner. We just gave half a million dollars to the La Luna Collective to help them buy their mobile home park. We are walking the walk and we need to tell those at the statehouse so and in no uncertain terms.
We just spent thousands of dollars to write our community’s vision document our comprehensive plan, which will guide us over the next 20 years. These continued demands from the state will overrule that.
It’s a delicate balance to provide services to the community with a large portion of the funding coming from sales taxes not property taxes. Rooftops don’t pay for themselves, the more of them you add the more services you need, more police and fire, more city staff, a larger library and rec center, more wear and tear on everything and let’s not forget water. There is more to water than just having a supply, we must store it, and clean it and dispose of the waste, this all comes with a cost to the city and of course the residents. You heard our CFO mention this balance during your retreat.
We have to prevent getting to the point where the balance tips and the only solution to funding the needs of the community becomes property tax increases which puts more of a burden on the residents and pushes more people on the lower end of the economic scale out of town, displacement as the bill calls it. But I doubt the bill’s authors are thinking about it in those terms.
I checked out the bios and background of the sponsors of this bill and they all seem like decent people with the best of intentions. But except for one I don’t see any experience in local government and I think they need to be schooled in that.
They are not looking at the big picture but focusing on one part when everything is connected. And they are threatening to take our milk money if we don’t comply. So let’s take action and show them our big picture.
Back in the day our local representatives would come to council on an annual basis to talk about what’s happening at the state level and to give council a chance to discuss the effect on the city. We need to reinstate that immediately. Don’t forget our local representatives voted to take away our managed growth amendment and we have done nothing about that. That growth amendment was in place and Willoughby Corner still happened. Let’s also invite the sponsors of this bill. I am confident our staff can put together an excellent presentation of who we are and what we have accomplished.
We should be touting ourselves as an example of what can be done. We shouldn’t be sitting back and letting the state tell us how to develop our city and threatening to withhold highway funding while claiming low transit ridership is because there isn’t enough adjacent housing. They are comparing ridership to Minneapolis, Portland and Seattle. We are nothing like those cities.
Please do not sit meekly by and say yes to everything that will no doubt be coming down the pike. Fight for us to be the home rule city we are and show them what we have done without bending to their threats of penalties. This is not how this issue should be handled. They should be helping and praising us not coming for us.
I look forward to your discussion tonight and hope you agree you must take a stand on behalf of those you represent as a home rule city.
Thanks again for these updates. I am following this and will try to attend the meeting. I live off Burlington near the proposed development on the eastern entrance to Lafayette at Baseline and 119th and couldn’t attend that recent meeting but had emailed the developer with comments and concerns. Of course I got non answers and word salad in response. I’m interested in being educated on these proposals and on how to advocate for our city, but full disclosure, I am a beneficiary of some of the newish builds in the Old Town and I don’t want to be a hypocrite. I do want to support affordable housing that our city can reasonably absorb as opposed to a mindless over saturation without accompanying infrastructure. How are we even considered a “transit community” when our bus system is mediocre, no light rail, and there is barely any transit directly to Denver? SMH. 🤦♀️
We have 400 units of affordable housing in progress at the end of Emma in the Willoughby project. On the north side of Baseline, we have Josephine Commons, another project, like Willoughby, built by the Boulder County Housing Authority. Next to Josephine Commons is Aspenwall, also a BCHA project. So we are doing what we can to support it.
Transit areas are defined as being 1/4 mile from transit stations and transit corridors.
Thanks for the clarification. I live close to many of these developments and am familiar with them. Regardless of the legal definition of a transit community, I still think we need better public transportation, especially into Denver, to help accommodate all the recent growth and continued growth. And when I reached out, I didn’t get a clear response from the builders as to what they are planning for the eastern corridor in my neighborhood, so am skeptical.
Within the bill, the state makes the case that a lot of money has been invested in public transportation, but not enough people are using it. The solution is to build more housing next to transit corridors so they get more riders.
It is. Willoughby Corner is only partly built too. Eventually it will come to Emma. I saw that piece about issues with filling all the units. It's happening in Longmont too.
Hey Karen, I'm a 28-year resident of the Centaur Village North neighborhood between So. Boulder Rd and Waneka Lake. We have a pretty tight neighborhood. My wife follows you and earlier alerted me to this discussion on HB241313. One of our residents went to the city council meeting last night and emailed me this morning. He was very distressed saying that we may lose our homes through the "displacement mitigation process" as a consequence of this bill. I do understand everything you have clarified here, answering questions about developer's motivations and now, possible opportunities for them with the mandatory rezoning. But is there a reasonable possibility that existing neighborhoods could be replaced, residents forced to sell, by such developments? That seems truly crazy. On the face of it, the cost to buy out the residents would seem preclude a project from being economically viable. If I have it right from what I read here, it seems that developers would have to build on land that could be bought, if not already vacant. Many thanks for your focus and expertise. This, of course, transcends any single neighborhood to irrevocably change what has become--through a lot of dedicated efforts and planning--one of Boulder County's crown-jewel towns.
Hi Paul! I was at the meeting and I saw someone speak who sounds like the person you mention.
I don't know what could come and I don't want to surmise only to be wrong and upset someone. I need to look for more information about this. I know there is some in the bill. I do plan on following up on it because I am kind of enraged over the very idea that the state would even imply that it was ok to kick people out and build a new development. Thus the need for a displacement plan.
I could see perhaps a developer buying an apartment building, tearing it down and building something with more stories. It does seem that buying out a neighborhood of single-family homes would be difficult.
Councilor Barnes questioned the planning staffer who was presenting this agenda item about the displacement part of the bill, and he looked quite incredulous.
Could you take a look at the bill and see what it says about that? It's almost 50 pages long. I want to get to it, but I am a bit overwhelmed trying to keep up with everything that's going on and then finding time to report back. I've been to city meetings 4 nights in a row this week and I'm not done yet! Maybe you could find something to help your neighbor not be so worried. If you do, I hope you'll let me know too. 😊 Thanks!
Thanks for the link to the full bill, Karen, and for all your efforts on behalf of the citizens who live in Lafayette. Because of the ultimate impacts if this, everyone in the city will be impacted in some way.
You are welcome! I know how hard it can be to find information beyond something someone told you they heard. If we at least know what's happening, it's a start to act if we are so inclined.
The impacts of this bill will be citywide, no doubt.
No
I'm confused. Much of the S. Boulder Rd corridor is already developed. So where does the State expect us to put up high rises to accommodate such an increase in population? Perhaps I'm not understanding what they expect us to do.
The state said we have to rezone all the areas within the transit corridor to allow for 40 dwelling units per acre. That means that single family neighborhoods' zoning within the corridor will be changed going forward if council agrees. A developer can build multi-story buildings if they can get land within that corridor or if there is a redevelopment project. The city can also transfer some of those densities to other parts of town not in the corridor.
There is a requirement to create a Housing Opportunity Goal to reflect this. That's what the staff just completed and where the numbers came from.
The way to look at this is that it's a terrible bill that doesn't work for Lafayette.
Let's say this moves forward. Does that mean the owner of one of the mobile home parks could sell to a developer, who could then build multiple-story buildings?
Sorry, just trying to understand all of the nuances.
Hopefully when the new code update is finished there will be a mobile home zone to provide more protection. There might be something in the bill about them but I can't say with certainty that there is.
I just looked at the Colorado Municipal League Annual Meeting Agenda for Wednesday, June 25 DOLA (Department of Local Affiars) and DOLA has nothing on the new state laws that impact the local home rule planning and zoning process. Looks like no local discussion on this, sad!
Thanks for checking. That is disappointing.
The meeting is at 5:30?
Yes! Sorry, I forgot to include that important piece of info. I have corrected that oversight. 😊
Oh goodness Karen! This post has SO much info that the time of meeting is relatively insignificant.
I appreciate you pointing it out though, it's a tad bit useful. 🤣
Being a long time Vermont resident, I am more than a little appalled at the haphazard planning that seems to exist here. In Vermont, there are no unincorporated area, every square foot of land, agricultural, forest, rural is in within a municipality. Development is based on sustainability and our famous Act 250, so this whole process still has me confused. May I shouldn't have any say because I've only lived here 13 years, so I should just shut up.
But in any case, I have questions. Just because something is zoned for high density housing doesn't guarantee that it will be built does it? I would think that zoning to allow for 100,000 residents doesn't mean that 70,000 new residences will be built and it doesn't guarantee that the ones that are built will be occupied. What tells us that there is demand for that many new residents? What basis has been used to determine that this is a transit oriented region - In Vermont we had very little transit, but to me, my experience in using transit tells me that transit service is not good. Bus service is infrequent compared to transit service I am familiar with in the Metro areas in the Northeast and the only mode of transit is the bus, no rail service, so how did someone determine that (apparently existing) transit could serve that many residents. Something does not add up for me.
Is the 100,000+ figured on "if we build it they will come logic" or on some statistically sound modeling (I'm a retired professor of math and statistics). Looking at demographic projections Boulder COUNTY is projected to grow by 50,000 in the next 10 years. Apparently 70,000 people out of the 50,000 will be in Lafayette. This does not add up. The demand isn't going to be there.
A few thoughts.
"Just because something is zoned for high density housing doesn't guarantee that it will be built does it?"
If developers don't build, their business ceases to exist. We have developers here right now from Texas and Illinois wanting to build on land that isn't even part of the city yet. Why? They have to build to exist. Money.
The state is saying over and over that we don't have enough housing, that building more and more will bring the cost of the housing down and make it more affordable.
"What basis has been used to determine that this is a transit oriented region"
Transit areas are defined by this bill as being 1/4 mile from transit stations and transit corridors.
In the first draft of the bill, there was a threat to withhold highway dollars as punishment.
I wrote about it here: https://apoliticalhobbyistinlafayetteco.substack.com/p/an-update-on-72000-more-housing-units
THE PUNISHMENT
The bill said if we don’t submit to these requirements, we won’t get any more highway funding, and some legal action could be taken.
The argument in the bill went something like this: look, we’ve spent a lot of money on transit, but people aren’t using it enough, so you have to build more housing near these transit areas to get us more riders. It used numbers from Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle to show their ridership was higher. Here’s a quote from the bill. “Allowing higher density residential development near transit is important for increasing transit ridership
and improving the cost effectiveness of transit services”
"Something does not add up for me. "
Now you are getting it. It's a terrible bill!
"Is the 100,000+ figured on "if we build it they will come logic" or on some statistically sound modeling"
We have been told by the state to rezone 1/4 mile around transit areas to allow for 40 dwelling units per acre. Staff used that formula and voila.
If I may say it again, it's a terrible bill!
If a developer can suddenly add many more units to a piece of land, he gets more profit. This is a developer's dream bill, IMHO. Building 8-story apartments instead of 4-story? That's a good deal for him.
I’ll be showing up to speak in Tuesday. There should be nothing more important for those of us who plan to be long term residents of our jewel of a city. Let’s not take an anti growth approach to this. That will only get us shot down. I think we need to demand that council do two things: 1) ignore HB24-1313 and consider the consequences of that as the price of saving our city and maintaining our Home Rule Authority. Request that they join forces with other affected communities to Sue the state to abolish this dictatorial bill. 2) urge council to adopt and stay adamant about policies that require the needed resources and services be developed PRIOR TO approving permits for any residential development moving forward (including but not limited to water, infrastructure, police, traffic mitigation, first responders, schools/teachers, electrical grid requirements, etc). These policies can provide a solid leg to stand on before the state in refusing an to overdevelop our city as current residents would face unacceptable hardships and living conditions if resources and services are stressed and thrown into shortages. If we prioritize adequate resources and services over development, then these high density projects will not be eligible for approval because there is literally no way the resources and services for a population that size could be accessed here. The state cannot possibly make a winning case that our city should be forced to build and fill developments that would far exceed our ability to sustain them. Resources and services must be in place first before permits can be approved. We need to demand they enact this common sense policy to protect our quality of life. Come to the meeting on Tuesday and speak to them! Bring a friend! Whatever else is on your schedule, reschedule or cancel it and show up for our city. It’s now or never!
I will see you there!
Update on the CML Annual Meeting Agenda. On Wednesday, June 25 at 2:15 p.m. - 3:15 p.m. "What's Happening at DOLA" is the topic. "Look for more information soon!" DOLA is the Department of Local Affairs who needs to hear the concerns from Lafayette and our cities.
Karen, as I said earleir when this legislation passed and staff briefed the City Council, "SUE the State!" Lafayette and other cities need to band together. At a previous City Council meeting or Workshop (I can't remember which), I suggested that the City request this legislation be made an agenda topic at the Colorado Municipal Laegue Meeting in Breckenridge which is being held 6/24/2025 - 6/27/2025 at the Beaver Run Resort. I don't know if it will be discussed. Thank you once again for keeping the community informed on a very contorversial issue!
This is what I read to council in March 2024 when this topic came up.
Good Evening,
I’m here to talk about House Bill 24-1313 tonight and the continued actions from the state government which are diluting our home rule status. What I’m hoping to see from you tonight is a plan to push back.
We’re the good kid here and it feels like the bully is coming for us. We need to say stop, and loudly.
I have watched Lafayette work for decades to address affordable housing. We are looking at a contribution from our small city of over 11 million dollars to help build the largest net zero affordable development in the state and possibly the country, Willoughby Corner. We just gave half a million dollars to the La Luna Collective to help them buy their mobile home park. We are walking the walk and we need to tell those at the statehouse so and in no uncertain terms.
We just spent thousands of dollars to write our community’s vision document our comprehensive plan, which will guide us over the next 20 years. These continued demands from the state will overrule that.
It’s a delicate balance to provide services to the community with a large portion of the funding coming from sales taxes not property taxes. Rooftops don’t pay for themselves, the more of them you add the more services you need, more police and fire, more city staff, a larger library and rec center, more wear and tear on everything and let’s not forget water. There is more to water than just having a supply, we must store it, and clean it and dispose of the waste, this all comes with a cost to the city and of course the residents. You heard our CFO mention this balance during your retreat.
We have to prevent getting to the point where the balance tips and the only solution to funding the needs of the community becomes property tax increases which puts more of a burden on the residents and pushes more people on the lower end of the economic scale out of town, displacement as the bill calls it. But I doubt the bill’s authors are thinking about it in those terms.
I checked out the bios and background of the sponsors of this bill and they all seem like decent people with the best of intentions. But except for one I don’t see any experience in local government and I think they need to be schooled in that.
They are not looking at the big picture but focusing on one part when everything is connected. And they are threatening to take our milk money if we don’t comply. So let’s take action and show them our big picture.
Back in the day our local representatives would come to council on an annual basis to talk about what’s happening at the state level and to give council a chance to discuss the effect on the city. We need to reinstate that immediately. Don’t forget our local representatives voted to take away our managed growth amendment and we have done nothing about that. That growth amendment was in place and Willoughby Corner still happened. Let’s also invite the sponsors of this bill. I am confident our staff can put together an excellent presentation of who we are and what we have accomplished.
We should be touting ourselves as an example of what can be done. We shouldn’t be sitting back and letting the state tell us how to develop our city and threatening to withhold highway funding while claiming low transit ridership is because there isn’t enough adjacent housing. They are comparing ridership to Minneapolis, Portland and Seattle. We are nothing like those cities.
Please do not sit meekly by and say yes to everything that will no doubt be coming down the pike. Fight for us to be the home rule city we are and show them what we have done without bending to their threats of penalties. This is not how this issue should be handled. They should be helping and praising us not coming for us.
I look forward to your discussion tonight and hope you agree you must take a stand on behalf of those you represent as a home rule city.
Thank you
Thanks again for these updates. I am following this and will try to attend the meeting. I live off Burlington near the proposed development on the eastern entrance to Lafayette at Baseline and 119th and couldn’t attend that recent meeting but had emailed the developer with comments and concerns. Of course I got non answers and word salad in response. I’m interested in being educated on these proposals and on how to advocate for our city, but full disclosure, I am a beneficiary of some of the newish builds in the Old Town and I don’t want to be a hypocrite. I do want to support affordable housing that our city can reasonably absorb as opposed to a mindless over saturation without accompanying infrastructure. How are we even considered a “transit community” when our bus system is mediocre, no light rail, and there is barely any transit directly to Denver? SMH. 🤦♀️
We have 400 units of affordable housing in progress at the end of Emma in the Willoughby project. On the north side of Baseline, we have Josephine Commons, another project, like Willoughby, built by the Boulder County Housing Authority. Next to Josephine Commons is Aspenwall, also a BCHA project. So we are doing what we can to support it.
Transit areas are defined as being 1/4 mile from transit stations and transit corridors.
Thanks for the clarification. I live close to many of these developments and am familiar with them. Regardless of the legal definition of a transit community, I still think we need better public transportation, especially into Denver, to help accommodate all the recent growth and continued growth. And when I reached out, I didn’t get a clear response from the builders as to what they are planning for the eastern corridor in my neighborhood, so am skeptical.
Being skeptical of developers is the way to go!
Within the bill, the state makes the case that a lot of money has been invested in public transportation, but not enough people are using it. The solution is to build more housing next to transit corridors so they get more riders.
Wow that’s a huge increase! I can’t imagine Willoughby Corner being 2.5x the density!
I just read the other day they were not only struggling to fill Willoughby Corner but it’s nearly 2k/month for a 2bd/1bath!
It is. Willoughby Corner is only partly built too. Eventually it will come to Emma. I saw that piece about issues with filling all the units. It's happening in Longmont too.
Hey Karen, I'm a 28-year resident of the Centaur Village North neighborhood between So. Boulder Rd and Waneka Lake. We have a pretty tight neighborhood. My wife follows you and earlier alerted me to this discussion on HB241313. One of our residents went to the city council meeting last night and emailed me this morning. He was very distressed saying that we may lose our homes through the "displacement mitigation process" as a consequence of this bill. I do understand everything you have clarified here, answering questions about developer's motivations and now, possible opportunities for them with the mandatory rezoning. But is there a reasonable possibility that existing neighborhoods could be replaced, residents forced to sell, by such developments? That seems truly crazy. On the face of it, the cost to buy out the residents would seem preclude a project from being economically viable. If I have it right from what I read here, it seems that developers would have to build on land that could be bought, if not already vacant. Many thanks for your focus and expertise. This, of course, transcends any single neighborhood to irrevocably change what has become--through a lot of dedicated efforts and planning--one of Boulder County's crown-jewel towns.
Hi Paul! I was at the meeting and I saw someone speak who sounds like the person you mention.
I don't know what could come and I don't want to surmise only to be wrong and upset someone. I need to look for more information about this. I know there is some in the bill. I do plan on following up on it because I am kind of enraged over the very idea that the state would even imply that it was ok to kick people out and build a new development. Thus the need for a displacement plan.
I could see perhaps a developer buying an apartment building, tearing it down and building something with more stories. It does seem that buying out a neighborhood of single-family homes would be difficult.
Councilor Barnes questioned the planning staffer who was presenting this agenda item about the displacement part of the bill, and he looked quite incredulous.
Could you take a look at the bill and see what it says about that? It's almost 50 pages long. I want to get to it, but I am a bit overwhelmed trying to keep up with everything that's going on and then finding time to report back. I've been to city meetings 4 nights in a row this week and I'm not done yet! Maybe you could find something to help your neighbor not be so worried. If you do, I hope you'll let me know too. 😊 Thanks!
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024a_1313_signed.pdf
Thanks for the link to the full bill, Karen, and for all your efforts on behalf of the citizens who live in Lafayette. Because of the ultimate impacts if this, everyone in the city will be impacted in some way.
You are welcome! I know how hard it can be to find information beyond something someone told you they heard. If we at least know what's happening, it's a start to act if we are so inclined.
The impacts of this bill will be citywide, no doubt.