Front Range cities, claiming home rule violations, sue Colorado over housing policies
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed an executive order May 16 that pushes local governments to comply with certain state housing laws as a condition of receiving state grant funding, at the Colorado Capitol in Denver. (Lindsey Toomer/Colorado Newsline)
Six cities in the Front Range filed a lawsuit against Colorado and Gov. Jared Polis claiming recently approved state housing laws violate the Colorado Constitution's home rule provisions.
The 86-page lawsuit filed in Denver District Court Monday says Colorado courts have established that matters of land use and zoning are 'core matters of local concern,' and that home rule cities are 'not inferior' to the Colorado Legislature. Colorado has 105 municipalities with home rule power, meaning they can make laws on matters of local concern instead of being directed by the state.
The General Assembly approved two laws in 2024 that are subject to the lawsuit: one that allows for denser housing close to transit stops and another that prohibits minimum parking requirements. The lawsuit also challenges an executive order Polis signed Friday to incentivize municipalities to comply with new state housing laws if they want to receive discretionary grant funding.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Housing availability and affordability has been a growing crisis in Colorado that state legislators have sought to address since 2023, when a major land use package failed on the last day of the legislative session. A 2023 housing executive order Polis signed said the state is short tens of thousands of housing units, and his latest order said the same concerns continue to escalate.
Plaintiff cities include Greenwood Village, Arvada, Aurora, Glendale, Lafayette and Westminster. The lawsuit outlines each of the cities' zoning and land use approval processes and how they have increased their own efforts to build more affordable housing, and how abiding by the new state laws would disrupt their approval processes.
The cities argue the new laws won't immediately lead to an increase in affordable housing and that a one-size-fits-all approach to zoning isn't appropriate for the cities in the Denver metro area. They also said the laws' requirements take away a citizen's right to be heard on land use issues as each new potential development is reviewed at the city level.
The lawsuit says provisions of the Colorado Constitution mandate court declarations that the two new laws 'have neither force nor effect in the Cities,' and it asks for injunctive relief barring enforcement of the laws. In particular, it says House Bill 24-1313 — related to transit-oriented housing — 'departs from time-tested approaches to resolving local land-use decisions' in Colorado.
'In a move without precedent in Colorado's history of planning and zoning, the General Assembly mandated site-specific zoning changes in select urban Colorado communities, including the Cities, that the General Assembly dubbed 'transit-oriented communities,'' the lawsuit says.
Defendants include the state, Polis, the Department of Local Affairs and DOLA Executive Director Maria De Cambra. Polis spokesperson Shelby Wieman said Polis is 'confident' a court will rule in favor of the state, and he is proud to have worked together with many local governments to work toward solving the state's housing shortage.
'It's disappointing to see certain local governments that have among the priciest homes in Colorado use taxpayer money on a lawsuit that could go toward lowering the cost of housing,' Wieman said in a statement. 'It's clear this lawsuit is about preventing more housing from being built that Coloradans can afford. Rather than standing in the way of more housing being built, Governor Polis and the General Assembly have passed common-sense laws that break down barriers to housing.
The lawsuit seeks declarations that both laws violate certain articles of the Colorado Constitution, violate due process, and that Polis' executive order exceeds the governor's powers.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Colorado put on notice by military deployment against civilians
Poncho Espino, an organizer with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, speaks to the crowd during an anti-ICE protest at the Colorado Capitol on Tuesday. (Quentin Young/Colorado Newsline) The threat that the Trump administration would illegally deploy military forces in Colorado to advance its authoritarian agenda has loomed over the state for months. Now that the president has ordered troops into action against protests in California that local authorities insist were already under control, Colorado is increasingly at risk of similar federal incursions. But while the likelihood of such escalation has gone up, the state appears no better prepared to do anything to stop it. Trump administration officials, including the president, have openly said since before the November election they would deploy military units for domestic law enforcement purposes, including immigration enforcement and against protesters. They weren't bluffing. In recent days, the administration deployed active duty Marines and thousands of California National Guard troops, against the will of the state's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, in response to protests in Los Angeles. Protesters object to the escalating and cruel tactics used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents as part of a mass deportation program. Though some violence and vandalism has accompanied the protests, local authorities say they were mostly peaceful and that they can handle the situation without the help of war-trained fighters. But President Donald Trump appeared eager to pounce on this pretext. He used L.A. as a 'test case for what happens when the federal government moves in and takes the authority away from the state, or away from local government,' said Mayor Karen Bass. That means Colorado is on notice. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Trump during his campaign and in his second term in office often has singled out Colorado as a target for aggressive immigration enforcement. His administration has sued Colorado and Denver, alleging they have enacted unconstitutional 'sanctuary' policies for immigrants, and ICE has conducted multiple raids and other operations in the state. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, who is commander-in-chief of the Colorado National Guard, in some instances has said he would not condone National Guard troops, from Colorado or another state, being used for immigration enforcement. Last month he said he would have 'deep reservations' about such a deployment, a statement that fell short of a refusal. This week a spokesperson for Polis told Newsline that 'the Governor has been clear that he would not support federal overreach to activate the National Guard outside of regular order.' But if his preparation for a possible showdown over military deployments in Colorado goes beyond statements, it's not public. In contrast, at least one other Democratic governor, Bob Ferguson in Washington, met with his state's National Guard commander to discuss the situation in L.A. and how leaders could respond to such abuses in their state. And Polis' posture on immigration abounds in contradiction. The Democrat has aligned himself with aspects of Trump's mass deportation efforts. A state official this month alleged in a lawsuit that Polis improperly directed the state Labor Department to release the personal information of sponsors of unaccompanied immigrant children to ICE. Polis too often lets his inner MAGA show, and that leaves Colorado residents with little confidence he'll effectively resist if Trump sics military forces against them. A memo that Trump issued Saturday federalizing thousands of National Guard members and authorizing use of the regular military around ICE operations does not limit its scope to L.A., and it covers any 'violence and disorder' that might 'threaten to continue.' ICE is preparing to escalate tactics, starting in five Democratically run locations — Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia, Northern Virginia and New York — MSNBC reported Tuesday. Newsom, in a defiant televised address Tuesday, warned, 'California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next.' U.S. Rep. Jason Crow, a Democratic resident of Centennial, who represents a district that includes the ICE detention center in Aurora, sounded a similar warning this week. 'The President's order doesn't even mention California, and authorizes the use of ANY personnel, in ANY location, for ANY length of time,' Crow wrote on social media. 'This is a dangerous slippery slope that should concern Americans everywhere.' Meanwhile, Republican state representative and Colorado governor candidate Scott Bottoms promises to deploy military units against fellow Coloradans if he's elected, and Trump sycophant U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert of Windsor has repeatedly cheered the domestic military deployments in California. Opposition to ICE in Colorado is growing. On Tuesday, protesters clashed briefly with Denver police, who fired chemical munitions to clear a street and arrested 17 people. The presence of military units almost certainly would have exacerbated the conflict. And Coloradans have little assurance state leaders would do much to preclude a military presence in the first place. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Comptroller's Office issues guidance to help businesses brace for 3% ‘tech tax'
Maryland will implement a new 3% tax on technology services on July 1. (Photo courtesy U.S. Department of Energy) Comptroller Brooke Lierman (D) issued guidance Wednesday to help businesses preparing for a 3% tax set to take effect next month on the sale and use of several informational technology services. 'As we implement the new tax changes from this year's General Assembly session, my team and I are focused on ensuring that business owners have the information and guidance they need to collect and remit the tax as simply as possible,' Lierman said in a written statement. Sometimes referred to as the 'tech tax,' the 3% tax on IT services is a result of the General Assembly's efforts this past session to raise revenue amid a $3 billion state budget deficit. It is projected to raise about $500 million as part of $1.6 billion in new taxes and fees approved for fiscal 2026. Vice chair of House panel says tech tax drove decision to move business to Virginia To help businesses prepare for the tax hike, the Comptroller's Office issued a 'technical bulletin' Wednesday explaining the ins and outs of the sales tax, and which IT programs will be affected. A lot, according to the bulletin: cloud storage, data entry, data processing, media streaming data storage and technical support, telephone-based recorded information services, cryptocurrency mining, news and press clipping services, media archives such as for film and music, computer software design services, and dozens more. The tax passed over the objections of Republican lawmakers and business owners who argued that it will drive IT businesses away from Maryland, even as Gov. Wes Moore (D) says he's trying bring more businesses into the state. Even some Democrats were skeptical: Del. Brian M. Crosby (D-St. Mary's) made waves when he announced on the House floor that the specter of the tax was the deciding factor to move his small businessd, which would have been subject to the tax, out of Maryland and into Virginia. Ultimately, the tax, originally proposed as a business-to-business tax, was expanded to include IT sales to consumers as well, and passed. The tax does not apply to sales to tax-exempt organizations, including government agencies, and to businesses in the University of Maryland's Discovery District in Prince George's County. The Comptroller's office has also submitted emergency regulations to implement the 3% IT tax, which are under final review by the Office of the Attorney General.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
United Nations to vote to demand immediate Gaza ceasefire over US, Israel opposition
By Michelle Nichols UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -The United Nations General Assembly will vote on Thursday on a draft resolution that demands an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in the war in Gaza after the United States vetoed a similar effort in the Security Council last week. The 193-member General Assembly is likely to adopt the text with overwhelming support, diplomats say, despite Israel lobbying countries this week against taking part in what it called a "politically-motivated, counter-productive charade." General Assembly resolutions are not binding but carry weight as a reflection of the global view on the war. Previous demands by the body for an end to the war between Israel and Palestinian militants Hamas have been ignored. Unlike the U.N. Security Council, no country has a veto in the General Assembly. Thursday's vote also comes ahead of a U.N. conference next week that aims to reinvigorate an international push for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians. The United States has urged countries not to attend. In a note seen by Reuters, the U.S. warned that "countries that take anti-Israel actions on the heels of the conference will be viewed as acting in opposition to U.S. foreign policy interests and could face diplomatic consequences." The U.S. last week vetoed a draft U.N. Security Council resolution that also demanded an "immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire" and unhindered aid access in Gaza, arguing it would undermine U.S.-led efforts to broker a ceasefire. The other 14 countries on the council voted in favor of the draft as a humanitarian crisis grips the enclave of more than 2 million people, where the U.N. warns famine looms and aid has only trickled in since Israel lifted an 11-week blockade last month. 'FALSE AND DEFAMATORY' The draft resolution to be voted on by the General Assembly on Thursday demands the release of hostages held by Hamas, the return of Palestinian prisoners detained by Israel and the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. It demands unhindered aid access and "strongly condemns the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and the unlawful denial of humanitarian access and depriving civilians ... of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supply and access." "This is both false and defamatory," Israel's U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon wrote in a letter to U.N. member states, sent on Tuesday and seen by Reuters. Danon described the General Assembly draft resolution as an "immensely flawed and harmful text," urging countries not to take part in what he said was a "farce" that undermines hostage negotiations and fails to condemn Hamas. In October 2023 the General Assembly called for an immediate humanitarian truce in Gaza with 120 votes in favor. In December 2023, 153 countries voted to demand an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. Then in December last year the body demanded - with 158 votes in favor - an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire. The war in Gaza has raged since 2023 after Hamas militants killed 1,200 people in Israel in an October 7 attack and took some 250 hostages back to the enclave, according to Israeli tallies. Many of those killed or captured were civilians. Israel responded with a military campaign that has killed over 54,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities. They say civilians have borne the brunt of the attacks and that thousands more bodies have been lost under rubble.
