After a raucous hearing on Gov. Jared Polis’ housing plan, opponents of Senate Bill 213 have loudly proclaimed their opposition and highlighted everything they think is wrong with the measure.
Polis' office isn't taking that lying down, rallying supporters to speak up on its behalf.
In the last several days, news releases are flying out of the governor's office and from supporters of the measure, advocating for the bill just as loudly.
Supporters aim to counter pointed criticisms, notably that the measure is a top-down approach, that it wrestles away control from local governments, that it shuts out community voices on land-use decisions, and that it lacks real affordability requirements.
Conor Cahill, the spokesman for Gov. Jared Polis, pointed out in an email Thursday that, "while there has been some interest in the folks who have taken an opposing stance to the bill, there has been a small amount of focus on the diverse coalition of business, labor, education, housing and environmental support for the bill, which is pretty interesting, considering many of the folks backing SB213 don't always agree on issues."
Those odd bedfellows include several chambers of commerce and so-called "YIMBY" — Yes in My Backyard — groups in Denver and Fort Collins.
A press release from a coalition to back the bill said business leaders, health groups, climate activists, advocates on the issue of race, and other organizations "representing Colorado’s essential workforce, and more are sharing their support for recently introduced Senate Bill 213, which creates a statewide solution to help address Colorado’s severe affordable housing crisis."
"This growing range of organizations publicly supports SB23-213 because this crisis is too big for any one community to solve alone," the statement from Colorado Builds Better said.
Ray Rivera, a spokesman for Colorado Builds Better and a Democratic party operative with experience in the Obama administration, said, “This crisis affects Coloradans in every region of the state and at every age and stage of life and doesn’t stop at city or county lines." Rivera serves as board member of the Bell Policy Center.
Colorado Builds Better is funded in part by Healthier Colorado, Rivera told Colorado Politics.
Rivera outlined the housing challenges cited both by those who support and oppose the measure — workers being priced out of their communities and small business owners struggling to hire workers because housing for the latter is too expensive.
"Colorado families are feeling these impacts every day, and we can no longer wait," Rivera said. "That is why we have a growing list of organizations eager to help get this bill across the finish line. The time for action is now."
He pointed out that more than 150 organizations and people testified in support of SB 213 in its April 6 hearing at the Senate Local Government and Housing Committee.
Another 150 testified against it, with 50 more saying they want the measure amended.
But, so far, the statements from supporters don’t include how SB 213 will result in more affordable housing, given that the measure doesn't require it.
Jonathan Pira is a leader with YIMBY Denver and part of a coalition of advocates engaging in the area of housing and the environment that is pushing for more inclusive and sustainable housing. He also submitted language that became part of the introduced version of SB 213.
Pira acknowledged one of the chief criticisms of the bill: While it is intended to generate more affordable housing and even defines the term as 30% of household income, it doesn't actually require any of the housing built to be affordable.
"There are a lot of layers to how (SB213) supports the development of affordable housing," he told Colorado Politics.
The first, he said, is in its housing needs assessments for municipalities. It won't have the most immediate effect, Pira said, as municipalities need time to develop those assessments, along with the housing plans that go with it. But the bill's requirements for assessments are essential, he said, because they create a unified methodology for judging housing needs.
Otherwise, municipalities would self-assess out of any need for housing. He pointed to testimony in the hearing on SB 213 on April 6, in which a representative of Vail said the city has determined it doesn't need any more affordable housing, as it has been working on it for 30 years. Pira said that conflicts with stories that Vail's workforce is still unable to find affordable housing where they work.
The assessments required under SB 213, Pira said, will be sorted by income levels, unit size and types, with consideration given to income levels, beginning with very low-income, housing stability, local employment and wages.
That will be followed by housing plans developed by municipalities that will be submitted to the state for review, Pira said. Those plans will bring in the public process, an issue raised by opponents that the bill would cut off local input in land use decisions.
The bill also draws from lessons learned in a failed process from California, Pira said. That's around an expectation tied to upzoning, when a plot of land for a single-family house is instead used for multiple units, such as duplexes, triplexes and more.
The California experience showed that only about one in 10 properties that were upzoned actually got developed. That means the localities will have to assess what is realistic for development, Pira said.
Pira believes amendments will strengthen much of what's already in the bill, including clear language around affordability.
He also addressed why the state needs to step in with mandates to local governments.
"Political incentives at the very local level are always in favor of blocking new housing development because the largest voting bodies in counties and cities are homeowners, who frankly benefit a lot from housing scarcity. It means their property values go up," he said.
Pira likened it to a "very cruel musical chairs of sorts where we keep trying to push people to different municipalities" and there's no incentive for any one county or one city to do better.
He doesn't believe SB 213 guts local control.
"It sets minimum standards to make sure that everyone is at least doing a minimum segment of their part to house their workers and their residents," Pira said, "but it still gives incredible leeway as to how to do it."
Pira also addressed the role of accessory dwelling units, such as so-called granny flats, which are separate units that can be built on existing single-family housing property. Opponents have noted that some communities have allowed ADUs for years, but they aren't being built because of high costs, such as tap fees — water and sewer fees — that can add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of building an ADU.
Pira said ADUs are great for providing market rate housing, although it isn't always deed-restricted (a way to keep housing at below-market rates). Some units can be offered at rates that are below 30% of income, and in California, after the kinks were worked out, developers were able to build about 60,000 units in a five-year period, he said.
That's an opportunity for parents to rent to children or to older family members, with a minimal impact on the neighborhood, he said.
The better solution, also contained within the bill, is manufactured housing, Pira indicated.
As to middle housing — duplexes, triplexes and the like — Pira said, "We might see one house destroyed and turned into four," which can draw a lot of pushback.
Some will claim those new units are more expensive than the home that was torn down. But that's not the right comparison, he said.
The proper comparison is to what a new standalone home would cost, which will be far more expensive than any of the multiple units built on the same property, he sad, adding that reduces one of the biggest costs tied to housing, which is the price of land.
The last piece Pira addressed dealt with getting rid of occupancy limits based on family status. That's key for serving the very lowest income population and for people on the verge of homelessness, he said, adding that affordable housing providers lean on single-room occupancy structures to serve those at the lowest income levels, but those are currently illegal to build in Colorado.
SROs provide living and sleeping space for the exclusive use of the occupant, but bathrooms and kitchen facilities are shared among the occupants, according to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The Senate Local Government and Housing Committee will work on amendments to the measure when it comes up for action next Tuesday.
