 |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 27, 2001
Urban Growth Key Issue In Colorado
By Dan Luzadder
|
|
EVERGREEN, Colorado -- As the nation's economy slips deeper into recession, one thing hasn't changed in Colorado. The sound of saws, hammers and heavy equipment still jars the air as development widens its footprint in urban corridors along the Front Range.
While unchecked sprawl spurred environmentalists to pack legislative hearings earlier this year and to buttonhole lawmakers in the halls of the state capitol, it took two special sessions to produce four modest growth bills that citizen groups now condemn as timid.'
Elise Jones, executive director of the Colorado Environmental Coalition, insists that Colorado is "backward" when compared to land use planning in other states.
"That there is no enforceable land use planning in Colorado borders on the absurd," Jones said.
Yet among western states, where growth management has taken root at a pace far slower than the influx of new residents, Colorado's new measures are the most aggressive since the Arizona legislature passed growth restrictions in 1998.
"There has been very little activity in this area for the last ten years," said Larry Morandi, director of environment, energy and transportation programs for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
"The exception has been Arizona, a state that, like Colorado, has a conservative Republican governor, a Republican House and a Democrat Senate. Nevada, also a conservative state, also passed a moderate grown bill in 1998, based loosely on Maryland's smart growth legislation in 1997."
Lawmakers in Oregon and Washington were the first in the west to initiate tough growth regulation more than a decade ago, creating growth boundries and enforcing land use planning.
But in Arizona, lawmakers didn't move until they were threatened with a ballot initiative that would have imposed far more severe restrictions than the legislature eventually agreed upon. The Arizona measures are the strongest since Oregon's ground-breaking laws on land use that surfaced to the late 1970s.
Colorado's potent coalition of public interest and environmental groups say anti-sprawl forces were frustrated that they could not get lawmakers to buck equally powerful development and banking interests to order to move major growth legislation forward last year.
But they plan to resume the fight in January when the General Assembly reconvenes with urban growth still a major issue on its agenda.
New political pressures promise to add some dimension to the debates. The Democrats hold a one-vote advantage in the Senate. But Senate president Stan Matsunaka is laying plans to challenge incumbent Gov. Bill Owen next fall.
That could affect the stalemate that has existed between a Republican-controlled House and a Democrat-controlled state Senate this year.
To add fuel to the flames, Colorado's Attorney General, Ken Salazar, a Democrat, says he will push for a referred ballot measure asking voters to approve a plan he calls the "Crown Jewels," which would preserve farm land, ranches and some of Colorado's more spectacular Rocky Mountain vistas.
"Colorado needs to have a workable and effective legal framework to address the challenges of growth," Salazar said in announcing his initiative earlier this year. "A part of that legal framework is providing monetary incentives to protect Colorado's farms, ranches, and open spaces...(the) precious and irreplaceable legacies that should be preserved by Colorado citizens for current and future generations."
Colorado's new growth legislation allows cities and counties to impose some limited impact fees, regulate "flagpole" annexations, require master plans for 30 counties and 76 municipalities, and provide for mediation between communities over growth disputes.
But Jones says those measures fall far short of state needs, noting that the new master plan requirements "are not binding, nor enforceable through local zoning regulations," and don't require developers to foot the bill for new infrastructure.
Still, she predicts better success for advocates of land use restrictions in the year ahead.
"When (lawmakers) were debating the baby steps' they took in the second special session, their rationale was that they would tackle the harder stuff in January. We plan to hold them to that promise," Jones said.
"Next year is an election year," she said, "and one in which we are going to see some very major traffic jams along the Front Range. I think we'll get lawmakers' attention." ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Comment on this story in the space below by registering with Stateline.org.
|
|
There are no comments yet, would you like to add one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | Stateline.org has put together a list of state public policy resources organized by issue. Here, you will find useful links to essential information from government, academia, and think tanks. If you have a link to add, please email us.
|
| |
|
|
Powered by