Another example of the top-down approach to zoning reform just cropped up in our neighbor to the east.  Colorado Governor Jared Polis last week unveiled a proposal that has several bill sponsors in the state legislature.

The Polis administration has laid out a sweeping plan that would explicitly allow more dense housing across Colorado’s increasingly expensive metropolitan areas and resort communities, even if residents and local elected officials object to it.

The “More Housing Now” proposal, revealed Wednesday, would be a significant shift in how Colorado’s cities and towns grow, and who has the ultimate power to shape that growth.

Similar to such measures in a number of other states, the Polis proposal would mandate certain zoning provisions in most metropolitan communities, and would require local plans to accommodate new affordable housing.

Those communities would have to allow the construction of “middle housing,” defined as townhomes and multiplexes with up to six units, as well as accessory dwelling units, on lots in all residential neighborhoods.

There are specific caveats included in the bills as well.

Cities could still customize their codes, for example by adding design requirements. … Cities would not (however) be allowed to require parking for any of the denser “middle” housing types. Rather, the amount of parking per unit would be left to developers to decide. “Why would we be … forcing people to pay for parking who don’t even have a vehicle themselves?” Polis said.

If a local government fails to meet the “minimum standards” of the bill, the state would override local zoning rules and implement a standardized code instead. That standardized code would be developed by the state’s Department of Local Affairs.

Some support among local government leaders for the proposal has been expressed:

“Housing is a crisis all over Colorado,” Glenwood Springs Mayor Jonathan Godes said in a statement. “Mountain communities have been leading on this issue for years, and we are happy that there is potential for statewide goals that align the entire state, while still respecting the differences in communities.”

But the collaborative efforts that have been somewhat apparent here in Utah don’t quite seem to be in place in Colorado.

“We just got the bill last night, so we’re still going through the details,” Colorado Municipal League Executive Director Kevin Bommer said in an interview. “But … we know just from what has already been presented to us that it represents the most sweeping preemption of local land use and zoning authority that Colorado’s probably ever seen. And certainly the biggest one in modern history.”

If local leaders hope and expect to not have mandates for local planning shoved on them from state level leaders, they must show a willingness to make accommodations for the problems that have been on full display for some time now.  Sometimes, however, local leaders are still dragging their feet.  A good example of this comes from a story in yesterday’s SL Trib.

Evelyn Miller is all-in on supporting more affordable housing in Washington County, but her support comes with a caveat: She doesn’t want multifamily homes anywhere near her home. “I don’t want to sound politically incorrect,” Miller said, “but that kind of housing is incompatible with the look of my neighborhood. Affordable housing projects are often not aesthetically pleasing, and I don’t want to see something built that could lower my property values or lead to more crime.”

A survey city officials conducted in December in nearby Ivins shows residents there don’t want to see town homes or duplexes cropping up in their neighborhoods, either. More than 70% of respondents in the survey opposed more high-density housing such as town homes and condominiums in their city, and 81% were not in favor of additional apartment complexes and other rentals.

I don’t mean to pick on Ivins or Washington County here, as this is an issue in many, if not most, communities around the state.  And these attitudes are what often drive the actions of local elected leaders.  Not always, I have to say.  There are a number who, after they get into office and learn about what the issues really are and how it all works, are supportive of changing land use and housing policies and ordinances.

The problem is summed up well by Shirlayne Quayle, housing strategies and policy manager for St. George City:

“Educating the public is the biggest gap we face right now in moving forward,” Quayle said. “Even if we put all these strategies for moderate-income housing in place, if the public comes back and says ‘No, we don’t want that in our backyard,’ then elected officials have to deal with that.”

Or maybe state leaders will.  But I must say, from what I heard from a number of local officials in last fall’s growth workshops, and saw in the buildup to the legislative session, there is a pretty good attitude about dealing with this among those officials – not all of them, but many.  Keep it up!