Proposed Initiative-66 to limit new housing on Front Range ignites fears in real estate industry (Denver: fit in, sales)

[Vision67]

Proposed initiative to limit new housing on Front Range ignites fears in real estate industry

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/0...g-real-estate/

"Ballot initiative No. 66, which is awaiting a review from the Colorado Supreme Court, would limit permits for homes and apartments to 1 percent of the existing housing stock in 2019 and 2020 in Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer and Weld counties.

After two years, the caps would remain in place unless 5 percent of the voters in a jurisdiction put a successful initiative to a vote. Denver, Douglas and Weld counties, which have seen new construction rates above 2 percent, could face some of the most severe reductions under the measure."

This is certainly a provocative idea. Control housing supply for the entire Front Range? I doubt it will go very far.

Seems to me it's an extension of the controlled growth policy enacted by Boulder years ago. It is NIMBY to the extreme.

However, I can understand the motivation. If you are already well suited in your own house, additional development just creates too much traffic, pollution, noise, and congestion. I can see how you feel that you have nothing to gain from that development.

Also, if the lack of housing supply forces the value of your house up, what's not to like?

I think that as long as developers pay the full costs for the additional infrastructure needed for that additional growth, they should be allowed to develop.

What do you think?

[LHS79]

As someone who grew up here but will cash out and retire elsewhere I say GREAT!

Been on the roads lately?

[brown_dog_us]

Originally Posted by Vision67

Seems to me it's an extension of the controlled growth policy enacted by Boulder years ago. It is NIMBY to the extreme.

Boulder's problem isn't really the Danish Plan (limited population growth) because they stopped adhering to it after the recession and the number of college kids has jumped. So, Boulder did grow significantly more than their target.

Boulder's problem is they added way more jobs than they added housing.

[bluescreen73]

It's a shortsighted idea that'll do way more harm than good. The comments on the DP site are equally ignorant. You're either growing or you're dying. I'd much rather deal with the former than live in a bleak, miserable hellhole like Buffalo, New York or Dayton, Ohio.

[BornintheSprings]

I would be in favor of limiting tract low density housing and focusing more on mid and high density developments coupled with more transit investment.

[DrDog]

Originally Posted by Vision67

Proposed initiative to limit new housing on Front Range ignites fears in real estate industry

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/0...g-real-estate/

"Ballot initiative No. 66, which is awaiting a review from the Colorado Supreme Court, would limit permits for homes and apartments to 1 percent of the existing housing stock in 2019 and 2020 in Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer and Weld counties.

After two years, the caps would remain in place unless 5 percent of the voters in a jurisdiction put a successful initiative to a vote. Denver, Douglas and Weld counties, which have seen new construction rates above 2 percent, could face some of the most severe reductions under the measure."

This is certainly a provocative idea. Control housing supply for the entire Front Range? I doubt it will go very far.

Seems to me it's an extension of the controlled growth policy enacted by Boulder years ago. It is NIMBY to the extreme.

However, I can understand the motivation. If you are already well suited in your own house, additional development just creates too much traffic, pollution, noise, and congestion. I can see how you feel that you have nothing to gain from that development.

Also, if the lack of housing supply forces the value of your house up, what's not to like?

I think that as long as developers pay the full costs for the additional infrastructure needed for that additional growth, they should be allowed to develop.

What do you think?

“An environmentalist is someone who already has a house with a view.”

[SkyDog77]

Terrible idea

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Vision67

Seems to me it's an extension of the controlled growth policy enacted by Boulder years ago. It is NIMBY to the extreme.

The author of this was behind Golden's growth controls that were enacted in 1996 as well as last years attempt to restrict Lakewood's growth via the Lakewood Strategic Growth Initiative.

[Mike from back east]

Here's a key point in the Denver Post article: "If the entire Front Range is limited, that would restrict housing supply in the region seeing almost all of the state’s population growth and push that growth outward."

Push outward. As in east or north, all the way to Kansas and Wyoming. Or south, to Pueblo. Pity the poor road systems!

Saw this back in the DC area over time. Two large wealthy suburban counties, Fairfax County VA and Montgomery County MD both put caps on building permits for residential units BUT did not cap office and commercial building permits. So lots of jobs went into those two counties where the populations were/are well educated middle-aged types with higher incomes. With housing supply tightened, up went the price of housing. But office parks do not require new schools (Hold that thought).

Younger folks with lower incomes couldn't afford those two "prime" counties so outward they went, to Loudoun and Prince William Counties in VA and to Frederick and Howard Counties in MD. We all know what younger people do, they make babies, sometimes lots of babies, those young families are the ones whose children load up public schools. Those outward counties saw major increases in their school construction/operation budgets .... and their road building/maintenance budgets .... and their police and fire department budgets .... on and on went ballooning budgets. Taxes rose in outward counties to pay for it all; roads into DC job areas were gridlocked. The term for this deliberate planning method is "beggar thy neighbor" and I saw it first hand.

So, if this passes in CO, outward counties will see all these areas of growth, commutes will get longer for those living in the exurbs, and infrastructure build-out costs will soar. Some of this will conflict with TABOR. Perfect storm.

Biggest issues for this scheme are water, roads, and schools for those outward counties.

Side issue / hunch: Is this the Front Range saying NO to Amazon's search to locate HQ2 in Denver? Does this change Amazon's view of the Denver area as a possible location? Inquiring minds....

One miscellaneous thought; I'm encouraged so see a multi-county effort on a regional basis and not one county playing itself against the others. IMO there's a crying need for region-wide planning and cooperation. Local governments need to prevent developers playing the jurisdictions off against one another. An example would be in COLO SPGS where you have a higher sales tax in the "city" and a much lower sales tax "across the street" outside of city limits. Big box stores lined Powers Blvd (not in the city) and though the city is why people live there and work in the city they live across the city line where taxes are cheaper and the city suffers from a lack of revenue to keep the streets paved for all those county residents who travel into the city for work and other activities/business.

I imagine the counties outside of the immediate Front Range counties are fuming at being played like this.

I've an old thread on all this for those whose eyes haven't glazed over yet....

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by Vision67

Proposed initiative to limit new housing on Front Range ignites fears in real estate industry
....If you are already well suited in your own house,... if the lack of housing supply forces the value of your house up, what's not to like?

...
What do you think?

I think you will be in for additional property tax increases, which may force you out of your lifelong home (so happened to my family in Colorado during 1970's)

I see no benefit in increased valuations for a home which you have finally arranged to be "Well Suited" / sustained residence.

I fled to another desirable state.
results... my property taxes on my personal residence (new state) have gone from <$3/ day to currently $46/ day. Income has diminished to zip... (retired). Similar (but not as bad YET!!) on my CO props...

but... my Home is much more worn out (should be de-valued).

My simple 'place to sleep', has become a significant tax obligation (non-discretional spending).

No win, unless you sell out and move to Arkansas (tough to do with a farm and extended family). Takes many yrs to develop soils, shed, fences, water, orchards. Elderly do not have the time remaining to accomplish this. They are 'displaced' (this has been so in CO since 1960's, probably earlier).

I expect this type of restriction will and must happen in resource constrained CO... It will be difficult for the elderly / fixed income / non-wage earners. Everyone else will have significantly increased CoL, but possibly a better QoL.

Sad... but happens.