Latest news with #DenverDistrictCourt
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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
Yahoo
22-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
MedRide granted temporary resumption of medical transport
(COLORADO) — A Denver District Court has granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) filed by MedRide, allowing MedRide to resume providing Non-Emergent Medical Transportation (NEMT) services. The TRO became effective on Feb. 20 and allows MedRide to resume NEMT services for a 14-day period until March 6. MedRide shared a statement on its website, 'We are truly relieved to announce that a state court judge has granted MedRide the ability to resume service for all Health First Colorado patients, starting on February 21.' Andy Boian for MedRide said the company is confident it will continue service past March 6, filing with the court to continue past the 14-day deadline or get an extension of the TRO. Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing (HCPF) is advising anyone who needs NEMT services after March 6 to be aware the TRO does not authorize MedRide to provide services after that date. If you need NEMT services after March 6, HCPF has a list of all NEMT providers on its website. Those in need of services can contact (800) 221-3943 to get help finding a NEMT provider in their area as well. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CBS News
14-02-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Judge partially grants limited King Soopers' restraining order amid Colorado workers' strike
On Friday, a judge partially granted a limited restraining order for King Soopers against the union representing striking workers in Colorado. The day before, the judge dismissed some of King Soopers' claims leveled against those on the picket lines. The grocery giant filed a lawsuit in Denver District Court seeking a restraining order against United Food & Commercial Workers Local 7, the union representing striking workers across Colorado. In court, King Soopers' attorneys said striking workers were engaged in "unlawful" activity and used "violence," accusing them of intimidating customers. The union previously called the lawsuit "frivolous." Denver District Judge Sarah Wallace dismissed some alleged customer complaints about accusations of racist and sexist language as "hearsay." She released her ruling on Friday afternoon. According to the ruling issued on Friday, the judge said that "peaceful labor protests and picketing are in the public interest" and the "court intends to protect the public interest." It also stated that union members are restrained from impeding the way of delivery vehicles, erecting temporary structures, or piles of trash on the sidewalk in front of King Soopers. The judge made the ruling after reviewing video security cameras provided by King Soopers. "Regrettably, we've seen more than 300 instances of picketers making choices that compromise safety over the last 9 days. We appreciate the court's decision to grant critical elements of our temporary restraining order, that supports our commitment to safety for everyone," said Joe Kelley, President of King Soopers and City Market in a statement. "To be clear, the decision to seek a temporary restraining order was not made lightly and is certainly not intended to silence associates. We've said from the beginning that we respect our associates' right to peacefully assemble. However, it is crucial that we maintain an environment of mutual respect." "Our ULP strike was announced after the grocery store members voted by 96% in late January and early February to authorize the strike. And then they have followed up their vote with 10,000 workers going out on strike and on picket lines to get the message of King Soopers' unfair labor practices to shoppers and the public," stated Kim Cordova, President of UFCW Local 7, in a statement. The two-week strike began on Feb. 6 and included approximately 10,000 workers in total covered by the strike. click here. For those wishing not to cross the workers' picket lines, you can see several other grocery stores and local chains here.
CBS News
14-02-2025
- CBS News
Decision expected on King Soopers' restraining order request amid Colorado workers' strike
Things were tense in a Denver courtroom Thursday afternoon after a judge dismissed some of King Soopers' claims leveled against striking workers. The grocery giant filed a lawsuit in Denver District Court, seeking a restraining order against United Food & Commercial Workers Local 7, the union representing striking workers across Colorado. In the courtroom, King Soopers' attorneys said striking workers were engaged in "unlawful" activity and used "violence," accusing them of intimidating customers -- including when one worker allegedly wore a clown mask -- blocking crosswalks, delaying deliveries, blocking handicapped spots, and one instance of alleged physical violence. They went on to say that propane tanks, tents, and other personal belongings issues created safety issues for those in the area. The company made similar claims in public statements earlier this week but fleshed those claims out in the courtroom, where cameras were not allowed. The union previously called the lawsuit "frivolous." The judge dismissed some alleged customer complaints about accusations of racist and sexist language as "hearsay." The union's attorneys said that while there might have been one instance of violence, the union itself and the rest of the striking workers can't be legally responsible for the actions of an individual. The union disputed the company's claims and defended its workers, saying they did not create an unsafe environment for customers. Denver District Judge Sarah Wallace said she wanted to rule on the matter as quickly as possible, since the two-week strike is already on its 7th day, and could issue a ruling as early as Thursday night or Friday morning. This lawsuit comes just days after the company filed a separate federal lawsuit claiming that the union used "threatening, coercive, and restraining actions, taken for unlawful purposes in violation of the National Labor Relations Act."
