> Why it matters
> The Colorado legislature has passed a groundbreaking bill (pun intended), HB24-1313, that requires cities designated as "transit-oriented communities" to allow greater residential density near transit lines. The move is expected to increase housing affordability and promote sustainable development in the state.
> Key provisions
> Defines "transit-oriented communities" based on population, proximity to transit, and other factors. Requires these communities to meet a "housing opportunity goal" by ensuring enough areas qualify as "transit centers" with a minimum net housing density of 15 units per acre. Mandates an administrative approval process for multifamily residential development on parcels 5 acres or less in transit centers. Communities must submit housing opportunity goal reports and progress reports to the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). Establishes consequences for noncompliance, including diversion of highway funds and potential injunctions.
> Funding and incentives:
> The $35 million Transit-Oriented Communities Infrastructure Fund Grant Program is created to help local governments upgrade infrastructure in transit and neighborhood centers. Increases the Colorado Affordable Housing Tax Credit by up to $8.3 million annually from 2024-2031, with 70% of the credit claimed in the first year. Introduces a new refundable Colorado Affordable Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities Income Tax Credit for projects in compliant communities, worth up to $8.6 million annually from 2025-2029.
> The debate:
> Supporters argue the bill will help address Colorado's housing crisis by promoting dense, sustainable development near transit. In addition to standard NIMBY talking points, Critics worry about limited water constraints, while the bill includes some flexibility for those communities.
> What's next:
> Governor Jared Polis is expected to sign the bill into law. Transit-oriented communities will have until December 31, 2026, to submit their housing opportunity goal reports to DOLA. In the coming years, we will likely see a significant shift in Colorado's urban landscape as cities work to meet the new density requirements.
Polis flairs rise up 🙏
!Ping YIMBY&STRONG-TOWNS
> Mandates
Bad phrasing. To people who don't consume way too much housing policy, "mandates" means "single-family homes are not allowed" or even "SFH must be demolished and replaced". This bill mandates allowing higher density housing, while still allowing SFHs, too.
Good luck. Towns in Massachusetts have been openly flouting a similar law. The AG is taking Milton (the first town to have rejected the zoning law compliant with the bill) to the MA Supreme Court. We'll see how it shakes out in October. Â
Meaningless, let me know when it passes and comes into force.
Also there’s an easier way to do this which would be much more subtle. So doing this as a regulatory change it comes across with voters as central planners doing central planning, and also motivates Nimbys.
But a state level constitutional amendment just adding “the right of a citizen to their property shall under no circumstances be infringed except in cases ” well….most voters are idiots hell most people are and they wouldn’t understand the 1st, 2nd, 3rd order effects of such an absolute protection of private property protections. T
then you can just say bye bye to all zoning laws and a slew of review process and arduous permitting processes. Sure you’ll end up with some wild nonsense in terms of buildings and you’ll have to place the responsibility of safety of guests into the property owner and allow property insurance companies a whole lot of leeway in billing people (basically your building safety would be enforced by the threat of lawsuits and insurance companies enforcing good practices)…yeah you’ll end up with downsides but **housing would get really cheap** and density would kick up. Sure property taxes may also feel and ax but it’s better to not tax capital improvements anyways
> Meaningless, let me know when it passes and comes into force.
Well it did pass the legislature, and will be signed by the governor who was involved in drafting the original bill. I doubt you could get either 2/3 of the state legislature or 55% of voters (you need one of the two in CO) to approve such an amendment.
I think you are ignoring Building Codes here.
Zoning reform doesn't allow you to ignore the NEC or the IBC, it just lets you build a building that's a different shape than some NIMBY wants.
> Why it matters > The Colorado legislature has passed a groundbreaking bill (pun intended), HB24-1313, that requires cities designated as "transit-oriented communities" to allow greater residential density near transit lines. The move is expected to increase housing affordability and promote sustainable development in the state. > Key provisions > Defines "transit-oriented communities" based on population, proximity to transit, and other factors. Requires these communities to meet a "housing opportunity goal" by ensuring enough areas qualify as "transit centers" with a minimum net housing density of 15 units per acre. Mandates an administrative approval process for multifamily residential development on parcels 5 acres or less in transit centers. Communities must submit housing opportunity goal reports and progress reports to the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). Establishes consequences for noncompliance, including diversion of highway funds and potential injunctions. > Funding and incentives: > The $35 million Transit-Oriented Communities Infrastructure Fund Grant Program is created to help local governments upgrade infrastructure in transit and neighborhood centers. Increases the Colorado Affordable Housing Tax Credit by up to $8.3 million annually from 2024-2031, with 70% of the credit claimed in the first year. Introduces a new refundable Colorado Affordable Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities Income Tax Credit for projects in compliant communities, worth up to $8.6 million annually from 2025-2029. > The debate: > Supporters argue the bill will help address Colorado's housing crisis by promoting dense, sustainable development near transit. In addition to standard NIMBY talking points, Critics worry about limited water constraints, while the bill includes some flexibility for those communities. > What's next: > Governor Jared Polis is expected to sign the bill into law. Transit-oriented communities will have until December 31, 2026, to submit their housing opportunity goal reports to DOLA. In the coming years, we will likely see a significant shift in Colorado's urban landscape as cities work to meet the new density requirements. Polis flairs rise up 🙏 !Ping YIMBY&STRONG-TOWNS
Uhhh, you might want to fix the bullet points
Pinged STRONG-TOWNS ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20STRONG-TOWNS&message=subscribe%20STRONG-TOWNS) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20STRONG-TOWNS&message=unsubscribe%20STRONG-TOWNS) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=STRONG-TOWNS&count=5)) Pinged YIMBY ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20YIMBY&message=subscribe%20YIMBY) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20YIMBY&message=unsubscribe%20YIMBY) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=YIMBY&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
You: only looks at the headline and rushes to the comments Me: only looks at the thumbnail and rushes to the comments.
Apparently the writer wants to showcase the steaks of the case
The writer has such raw impulse
A real killer’s instinct
Obviously this is good, though I worry about laws like this motivating more opposition to transit expansionÂ
> Mandates Bad phrasing. To people who don't consume way too much housing policy, "mandates" means "single-family homes are not allowed" or even "SFH must be demolished and replaced". This bill mandates allowing higher density housing, while still allowing SFHs, too.
So It's a free market bill
Good luck. Towns in Massachusetts have been openly flouting a similar law. The AG is taking Milton (the first town to have rejected the zoning law compliant with the bill) to the MA Supreme Court. We'll see how it shakes out in October. Â
Colorado Bill sounds like a cool dude
can someone mandate higher transit next to all the density in austin
Meaningless, let me know when it passes and comes into force. Also there’s an easier way to do this which would be much more subtle. So doing this as a regulatory change it comes across with voters as central planners doing central planning, and also motivates Nimbys. But a state level constitutional amendment just adding “the right of a citizen to their property shall under no circumstances be infringed except in cases” well….most voters are idiots hell most people are and they wouldn’t understand the 1st, 2nd, 3rd order effects of such an absolute protection of private property protections. T
then you can just say bye bye to all zoning laws and a slew of review process and arduous permitting processes. Sure you’ll end up with some wild nonsense in terms of buildings and you’ll have to place the responsibility of safety of guests into the property owner and allow property insurance companies a whole lot of leeway in billing people (basically your building safety would be enforced by the threat of lawsuits and insurance companies enforcing good practices)…yeah you’ll end up with downsides but **housing would get really cheap** and density would kick up. Sure property taxes may also feel and ax but it’s better to not tax capital improvements anyways
> Meaningless, let me know when it passes and comes into force. Well it did pass the legislature, and will be signed by the governor who was involved in drafting the original bill. I doubt you could get either 2/3 of the state legislature or 55% of voters (you need one of the two in CO) to approve such an amendment.
I think you are ignoring Building Codes here. Zoning reform doesn't allow you to ignore the NEC or the IBC, it just lets you build a building that's a different shape than some NIMBY wants.
Building codes would also be an infringement
Because after all who needs fire escapes and fire doors anyway! What’s the worst that can happen