K.G. Moore

November 1, 2000

Population growth and urban sprawl is of strong concern to many citizens and communities across the nation.  Reductions in open space, agricultural areas and increases in aggressive commercial prosperity have caused alarm among the general public during the past decade.  As a result, various land use tools have been proposed and implemented in several metropolitan areas to manage growth and curb sprawl.  For example, Urban Growth Boundaries limit growth in Portland, OR, and Smart Growth programs direct development resources to existing city/town centers in Maryland.  On November 7th, citizens of Colorado will have an opportunity to vote on amending their state constitution with one such initiative, an initiative that does not exist in any other state.[1]

Amendment 24, aptly named Citizen Management of Growth, would require most counties and cities to prepare maps of future growth areas, describe the projected impacts of development and then submit the maps to voters for approval.[2]  Although many towns already have comprehensive plans in place, the "Growth Maps" would show the general locations and types of land uses for any proposed growth area, including a general range of densities, agriculture, commercial areas, parks, and open space.[3]  Counties with fewer than 10,000 residents and towns with less than 1,000 residents are excluded, while counties with populations between 10,000 and 25,000 residents may vote to exempt themselves for periods of up to four years at a time.[4]  All counties with populations greater than 25,0000 residents would be required to adhere to the Amendment's mandate.[5]  The proposed Amendment appears to be a reasonable step to ensure both a high local standard of living and environmental integrity for the front-range, and to also allow local municipalities to control their own growth and economic development.  However, a vigorous debate currently surrounds the feasibility of such a measure.

Even in the face of this debate and while several groups posit differing consequences should the amendment survive the November ballot, sixty percent of Denver area residents named growth, traffic, and sprawl as the biggest problems facing the region.[6]  This is due in part to the unprecedented amount of growth that the front-range has experienced in the past decade.  To illustrate this concern, the Town of Superior, a suburb of Denver, grew from a population of just 255 in 1990 to 7,399 in 1999.[7]  Statewide, Colorado is also losing 250 acres of farmland per day to growth and development.[8]

Since 1990, the population in the Denver metro area has increased by 500,000 people, and is expected to increase by another 1,000,000 people by the year 2020.[9]  Without significant controls in place, these projections indicate that rapid residential growth and commercial development in the front-range will continue unchecked over the coming decades.  Instead of ignoring the growth and development trends, Colorado has chosen to address the issue in terms of how the front-range will grow.[10]  To date, voters remain evenly divided as to whether or not the initiative is right for Colorado's future.

Opponents of Amendment 24 opine that it will "invite economic chaos, wipe out affordable housing, bring a bureaucratic nightmare and create unintended consequences."[11]  These fears are primarily grounded in two unfounded conclusions.  First, that the Amendment would ensure a moratorium on development that would halt economic prosperity, and second, that affordable housing would be unavailable to middle and lower class incomes within the communities where they work.  Proponents, however, disagree.  They argue that the initiative does not stop growth.  On the contrary, they say it promotes responsible growth.  Proponents are of the position that because local citizens will have a say about what growth in their community will look like and be able to foresee and plan for adequate roads, busses, and other transportation to accommodate the needs of new growth, it will actually be easier and less expensive to provide transportation services and housing within a defined growth area than to unchecked sprawling development.[12]  Amendment 24, with very clear goals and procedures, will not unleash a "bureaucratic nightmare."  Through its planning process, it will locally manage inevitable growth by giving citizens, and not developers, the final say.

Amendment 24 is not a moratorium on development.  It is a planning tool to be used to manage that development.  "Growth moratoriums enact restrictions on the total supply of housing potentially creating greater demand for available housing and thereby, causing prices to rise.  Amendment 24 merely alters the development process to be more responsible and efficient to reflect the visions of local voters."[13]  Even a leading Colorado developer with a multi-million dollar state business agrees that "this amendment will require us to think more and reflect more on our future."[14]  Amendment 24 would mandate careful planning, not a halt on economic prosperity.

Most developers do not agree.  The contributions to the "Vote No" campaign have been staggering.  Opponents to Amendment 24 have raised about $3.5 million, 10 times more than the group supporting the ballot measure.[15]  More than 75 percent of the contributions to the campaign have come from builders or development-related interests.[16]  This provides perspective to the differing definitions of growth and responsible development.

One of the most powerful arguments against the Amendment is the alleged dramatic increase in housing costs across the state that would occur should voters approve the measure.  Although opponents support smart growth and local governments being able to create growth areas and boundaries they argue "the problem with 24 is that not only will it shut down the economy but it will drive up the cost of housing so that no one in the state can afford housing."[17]  Chris Paulson, chair of the opponent drive to vote down the Amendment says, "you will absolutely shut down any new growth, initially, housing prices will go up as the market anticipates the impending scarcity of new units.  But then prices will plummet as a faltering economy shuts off growth and kills the demand for housing."[18]  Not so, say groups in favor of the Amendment.

Housing prices fluctuate according to the law of supply and demand, and many communities in Colorado are currently experiencing expensive and rising housing costs as Colorado's population and housing demand continues to increase.[19]  Furthermore, as indicated by the predicted population growth in decades to come, the demand for housing may continue to induce rising housing costs.  Some city administrations believe that by curbing growth, costs to taxpayers and the burden of providing affordable housing will in fact be reduced by the Amendment.  "By redirecting growth into existing urban areas and discouraging costly, sprawling development, the initiative promotes a more compact pattern of development that will benefit the development of affordable housing and decrease the burden of infrastructure costs on local taxpayers."[20]

Boulder, CO is often used as an example of a community that has instituted progressive land use controls to curb growth and development and preserve open spaces to show that such progressive measures will lead to higher housing costs throughout the state should Amendment 24 pass the ballot.  However, the rising costs of housing during the past decade in Boulder have been parallel to that of many communities in Colorado.  "During the statewide boom of the past decade, Boulder housing prices went up as quickly as prices in every other community.  The price of the average single-family house in Boulder increased by 106 percent from 1990 to 1999, to $304,000, but during the same period, a house in Denver increased in price by 103 percent to $208,000, while home values in Douglas County jumped by 110 percent, to $267,000."[21]  Should Amendment 24 be adopted, any rising housing prices that follow could logically be attributed to the current trend in housing prices absent 24's proposed regulations.

In addition, it may also be useful to look at how housing prices have been affected in other communities that have adopted responsible growth policies.  Housing costs throughout the country have actually been rising due mainly to the increased costs of homebuilding, not the increased costs of land, as opponents of Amendment 24 would lead one to believe.[22]  Even an Oregon Building Industry Association's lobbyist admitted during his opposition to Portland's initial and ongoing implementation of progressive land use measures to curb sprawl that "there's no good information linking growth management tools and home prices."[23]

As evidenced by its recent explosion in population and no signs of reversing its current course, Colorado is taking the right step to manage growth and development by proposing a requirement that communities plan for the future and allow respective citizens to be the final judge of the future of their communities.  Opponents to Amendment 24 argue that cost in planning and housing prices render this proposal too dangerous for Colorado's future.  Correctly stated, planning costs something, but although planning does require expenditure of taxpayer funds, the dire need to address population growth and development today, renders the danger of not expending those funds far greater.  In the end, costly reclamation efforts can be avoided by responsible community growth through citizen approved planning, and in the process ensure both the economic stability of that community and the integrity of the surrounding environment.

_______________

[1] See generally Berny Morson, Sprawl: The Right Moves?, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, Oct. 1, 2000, available at http://www.insidedenver.com/election/1001grow0.shtml.

[2] Associated Press, Amendment 24 Backers Rally at Mint, DAILY CAMERA, Oct. 4, 2000 at 7B.

[3] See Amendment 24, State of Colorado, available at http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/2000/ballot/Growth_text&title.pdf (last visited Oct. 10, 2000).

[4] See id.

[5] See id.

[6] See Jennifer Pitt, et al., Sprawl in the Denver Region, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, Oct. 2000, at 2.

[7] Id. at 4.

[8] Id. at 11.

[9] Id. at 2.

[10] Id.

[11] Vote No on Amendment 24, at http://www.voteno24.com/vote.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2000).

[12] See Vote Yes on Amendment 24!, Protect Colorado for Future Generations, at http://www.voteyes24.com/protectco.shtml (last visited Oct. 10, 2000).

[13] Vote Yes on Amendment 24!, How 24 Affects Affordable Housing, at http://www.voteyes24.com/affhousing.shtml (last visited Oct. 10, 2000).

[14] See Jason Blevins, Developer Favors Smart-growth Measure, available at http://www.denverpost.com/business/biz1012f.htm (Oct. 12, 2000).

[15] Morson, supra note 1.

[16] See supra note 11.

[17] Blevins, supra note 14.

[18] Morson, supra note 1.

[19] See Berny Morson, Boulder Tires of Flak Over Land Use, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, available at http://www.insidedenver.com/election/1020imag1.shtml (last visited Oct 24, 2000).

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] See Morson, supra note 1.

[23] See Bob Young, Portland's Housing Myth, WILLAMETTE WEEK, at http://www.wweek.com/html/politics011399.html (last modified Jan. 13, 1999).