State law would preempt local growth management of residential developments

Cross Currents

As mentioned before, the Colorado State Legislature and Gov. Polis are pressing ahead with their hell-bent intent to usurp local government decisions on growth, land use and new residential housing units throughout the state under the banner of an affordable home for ere are two bills being pushed on these topics. e rst one, House Bill 23-1255, has a single purpose: It would prohibit any current or future municipal caps on regulating or managing new residential dwelling construction. Currently, the Cities of Boulder, Golden and Lakewood would be a ected. ese key factors vary from one governmental entity to the other. However, the state legislators and the governor have totally ignored these obvious factors with their “one size ts all” approach. e subject legislation was amended in the House Transportation Committee spelling out relief from the construction cap in the case of a disaster as well as changing the name of the bill to “antigrowth.”

What a scam and how misleading this campaign is!

Local elected city councils would be preempted on growth caps and the mandating of residential construction regardless of city comprehensive land use plans and local zoning designations.

Previously, it would have a ected Westminster’s Growth Management Plan when it was in e ect for approximately 30 years which focused on serving new homes WITHIN the city’s water and sewer capabilities and capacities.

Jeopardizing service and quality to existing customers is is a key consideration for municipalities, water districts and sewer districts when granting water and sewer taps for new residential development. To ignore such facts can compromise the service and quality to existing utility customers.

Certainly, the amount of unencumbered water resources is a fundamental decision point on whether the water provider has su cient resources to serve the new development. Both water and wastewater treatment plant capacities are another key factor.

A second argument against this bill is it destroys home rule powers of municipalities which are found in the state constitution. is is a fundamental legal argument and raises the