In an attempt to address their state's high housing prices, the Colorado House of representatives passed two bills allowing denser housing development:

• House Bill 1114 prevents cities from having a minimum lot size larger than 2000 ft^2 for single-family homes.
• House Bill 1308 allows residential property owners to split their lots in two under certain conditions.

Both of these bills enhance private property rights, but the Republican minority in the legislature unanimously opposed them out of NIMBYism.

I would think this would drive up the prices of the established homes. As the smaller lots are built out, the larger lot homes do not sell at a premium.

Maybe they should let the property owners actually own the water.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I don't see it that way. Government that works best is government that's closest to the people. Cities should have the final say on minimum lot size in their city, not the state legislature -- which in reality -- is just a body dominated by people from bigger cities in the state trying to tell people in small cities and rural counties how to conduct their affairs.

I'm not really even a fan of cities telling landowners how big or small their lot can be... keep it even more local with the developer or HOA at a sub-city level. With the infrastructure considerations of city-supplied services like water, sewage, fire, and police, I can understand why the city wants some input into the process, but bureaucrats in the state capital need to stay out of it.

The only NIMBY here is the locals telling the out-of-towners to mind their own damn business.

Good for them.

---

They're being required to do this because every single up and coming suburban town in growing states have a rapidly growing percentage of NIMBYS. Most of them are people who moved out of the city to a more "rural" town within a 30 minute commute back to the big city for work. Those people get there and then try to immediately limit more people coming behind them, they do so by limiting current landowners private property rights at the city level by freaking out at rezoning council meetings every week.

This will be required in Texas in the near-future as well.

FWTXAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I don't see it that way. Government that works best is government that's closest to the people. Cities should have the final say on minimum lot size in their city, not the state legislature -- which in reality -- is just a body dominated by people from bigger cities in the state trying to tell people in small cities and rural counties how to conduct their affairs.

I'm not really even a fan of cities telling landowners how big or small their lot can be... keep it even more local with the developer or HOA at a sub-city level. With the infrastructure considerations of city-supplied services like water, sewage, fire, and police, I can understand why the city wants some input into the process, but bureaucrats in the state capital need to stay out of it.

The only NIMBY here is the locals telling the out-of-towners to mind their own damn business.

Good for them.

---

They're being required to do this because every single up and coming suburban town in growing states have a rapidly growing percentage of NIMBYS. Most of them are people who moved out of the city to a more "rural" town within a 30 minute commute back to the big city for work. Those people get there and then try to immediately limit more people coming behind them, they do so by limiting current landowners private property rights at the city level by freaking out at rezoning council meetings every week.

This will be required in Texas in the near-future as well.

---

That is the power of the local government and it's a good thing. It's called quality of life.

Good luck with Austin trying to tell cities in Texas how to live life. That dog won't hunt in Texas.

Colorado isnt growing anymore. Democrat rule ruined another great state.

They don't appear to enhance anything other than more government control.

Rocky Rider said:

---

"Both of these bills enhance private property rights, but the Republican minority in the legislature unanimously opposed them out of NIMBYism."

"House Bill 1114 prevents cities from having a minimum lot size larger than 2000 ft^2 for single-family homes."

How is placing more restrictions on property owners enhancing private property rights?

---

It's not restricting property owners. It's restricting cities from having zoning laws that prevent the construction of "starter homes".

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

Both of these bills enhance private property rights,

---

Not true.

You are telling a property owner who wants to develop their property in a certain fashion that they should not be allowed to employ some very common deed restriction provisions.

---

I am not seeing anything in the bill that prevents a developer from having bigger lots. The only thing I see is cities being prevented from blocking a developer from creating smaller lots if he wants to. The other bill would allow me as the owner of a lot to split it in two in many cases.

So how is this hurting property rights of the owner? Practically anything that restricts government from telling private owners on what they can do with their property is a good thing.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Colorado isnt growing anymore. Democrat rule ruined another great state.

---

The front range is expanding. On a clear day you can see the haze (pollution) from Limon

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Colorado isnt growing anymore. Democrat rule ruined another great state.

---

Colorado, like California, is absolutely beautiful (in some places), but their government deters far more than they attract. Colorado hasn't taxed the populace as much as Cali, but they're getting there.

Kansas Kid said:

---

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

Both of these bills enhance private property rights,

---

Not true.

You are telling a property owner who wants to develop their property in a certain fashion that they should not be allowed to employ some very common deed restriction provisions.

---

I am not seeing anything in the bill that prevents a developer from having bigger lots. The only thing I see is cities being prevented from blocking a developer from creating smaller lots if he wants to. The other bill would allow me as the owner of a lot to split it in two in many cases.

So how is this hurting property rights of the owner? Practically anything that restricts government from telling private owners on what they can do with their property is a good thing.

---

Exactly. Large lots and the houses on the aren't going away. This change merely lets people build on smaller lots if they want to.

Rocky Rider said:

---

"Both of these bills enhance private property rights, but the Republican minority in the legislature unanimously opposed them out of NIMBYism."

"House Bill 1114 prevents cities from having a minimum lot size larger than 2000 ft^2 for single-family homes."

How is placing more restrictions on property owners enhancing private property rights?

---

Because you don't understand how zoning regs work. Bill 1114 prevents cities from making larger minimum lot sizes. This allows for higher density, more flexibility, and then the market can decide what is the optimal lot size for a given set of factors.

Bill 1308 allows for splitting of lots where it previously wasn't allowed. Again, more flexibility and letting the market decide.

Colorado development codes are generally horrendous, but these bills are a step in the right direction. Republicans oppose them because…reasons.

These read like basic HOA provisions. If you are building on a lot that is only 2k sq ft or smaller then this is people throwing a trailer on a piece of land or throwing up some crappy ass cabin. The folks moving out of the city are probably trying to prevent stuff like that by increasing the minimum lot size and requiring setbacks, open space, etc (also outlawed in this bill as a further blocker to building something unappealing).

My parents last neighborhood in a golf/lake development had similar provisions. Your lot had to be a minimum size and you had to build at least 1800 sq ft single home. Division of lots not allowed.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Rocky Rider said:

---

"Both of these bills enhance private property rights, but the Republican minority in the legislature unanimously opposed them out of NIMBYism."

"House Bill 1114 prevents cities from having a minimum lot size larger than 2000 ft^2 for single-family homes."

How is placing more restrictions on property owners enhancing private property rights?

---

Because you don't understand how zoning regs work. Bill 1114 prevents cities from making larger minimum lot sizes. This allows for higher density, more flexibility, and then the market can decide what is the optimal lot size for a given set of factors.

Bill 1308 allows for splitting of lots where it previously wasn't allowed. Again, more flexibility and letting the market decide.

Colorado development codes are generally horrendous, but these bills are a step in the right direction. Republicans oppose them because…reasons.

---

Counterpoint is that higher density usually means more Democrats. The Democrats have an entire civic strategy to push high density building requirements and relocation of low income people out into the suburbs for a reason.

YouBet said:

---

These read like basic HOA provisions. If you are building on a lot that is only 2k sq ft or smaller then this is people throwing a trailer on a piece of land or throwing up some crappy ass cabin. The folks moving out of the city are probably trying to prevent stuff like that by increasing the minimum lot size and requiring setbacks, open space, etc (also outlawed in this bill as a further blocker to building something unappealing).

My parents last neighborhood in a golf/lake development had similar provisions. Your lot had to be a minimum size and you had to build at least 1800 sq ft single home. Division of lots not allowed.

---

Per subdivision/development that is absolutely fine and the right of the owner (developer). They can make minimum lot sizes 20 acres if they want, it wouldn't be smart ROI wise, but it's their property.

What this law does is tell cities and NIMBYS to pound sand, you're not going to limit the rights and value of private property and private property owners because you want to keep the "farm town" you moved to small.

This is a good law and one we will have in Texas within 10 years.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I don't see it that way. Government that works best is government that's closest to the people. Cities should have the final say on minimum lot size in their city, not the state legislature -- which in reality -- is just a body dominated by people from bigger cities in the state trying to tell people in small cities and rural counties how to conduct their affairs.

I'm not really even a fan of cities telling landowners how big or small their lot can be... keep it even more local with the developer or HOA at a sub-city level. With the infrastructure considerations of city-supplied services like water, sewage, fire, and police, I can understand why the city wants some input into the process, but bureaucrats in the state capital need to stay out of it.

The only NIMBY here is the locals telling the out-of-towners to mind their own damn business.

Good for them.

---

They're being required to do this because every single up and coming suburban town in growing states have a rapidly growing percentage of NIMBYS. Most of them are people who moved out of the city to a more "rural" town within a 30 minute commute back to the big city for work. Those people get there and then try to immediately limit more people coming behind them, they do so by limiting current landowners private property rights at the city level by freaking out at rezoning council meetings every week.

This will be required in Texas in the near-future as well.

---

That is the power of the local government and it's a good thing. It's called quality of life.

Good luck with Austin trying to tell cities in Texas how to live life. That dog won't hunt in Texas.

---

No, it's not, at all.

Farmers paid for that land with blood, sweat, and tears. His right is to find a buyer that will pay the most for their property, not to protect the city or anybody that just moved there 3 years ago and don't want it to grow. If they personally want to sell it to a developer that will do larger lots, then great, but the city and NIMBYS won't be able to tell him how much his property is worth. At least soon it will be that way when Texas passes a law just like this.

Both of these bills prevent cities from trying to prevent shanty towns. 2000 ft squared piece of land is not a large plot.

Democrats HATE single family dwellings and would prefer everyone live in sardine cans similar to what the Japanese are forced to live in.

YouBet said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Rocky Rider said:

---

"Both of these bills enhance private property rights, but the Republican minority in the legislature unanimously opposed them out of NIMBYism."

"House Bill 1114 prevents cities from having a minimum lot size larger than 2000 ft^2 for single-family homes."

How is placing more restrictions on property owners enhancing private property rights?

---

Because you don't understand how zoning regs work. Bill 1114 prevents cities from making larger minimum lot sizes. This allows for higher density, more flexibility, and then the market can decide what is the optimal lot size for a given set of factors.

Bill 1308 allows for splitting of lots where it previously wasn't allowed. Again, more flexibility and letting the market decide.

Colorado development codes are generally horrendous, but these bills are a step in the right direction. Republicans oppose them because…reasons.

---

Counterpoint is that higher density usually means more Democrats. The Democrats have an entire civic strategy to push high density building requirements and relocation of low income people out into the suburbs for a reason.

---

So do you think smaller lot sizes are going to make people vote D and larger vote R? Sorry but I would prefer to give land owners more rights because more undeveloped land owners, especially farmers, vote R.

If anything, moving people from renters to home owners is more likely to get people to switch to R because once you own assets, you start to realize how much the government takes (ie property taxes)

FWTXAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

These read like basic HOA provisions. If you are building on a lot that is only 2k sq ft or smaller then this is people throwing a trailer on a piece of land or throwing up some crappy ass cabin. The folks moving out of the city are probably trying to prevent stuff like that by increasing the minimum lot size and requiring setbacks, open space, etc (also outlawed in this bill as a further blocker to building something unappealing).

My parents last neighborhood in a golf/lake development had similar provisions. Your lot had to be a minimum size and you had to build at least 1800 sq ft single home. Division of lots not allowed.

---

Per subdivision/development that is absolutely fine and the right of the owner (developer). They can make minimum lot sizes 20 acres if they want, it wouldn't be smart ROI wise, but it's their property.

What this law does is tell cities and NIMBYS to pound sand, you're not going to limit the rights and value of private property and private property owners because you want to keep the "farm town" you moved to small.

This is a good law and one we will have in Texas within 10 years.

---

But how can a subdivision/development implement what they want with this overarching law? What I posted wouldn't be fine with this law. Aren't you being contradictory here?

This is why you do what I did and move to a spot that is naturally very hard to develop, backs up to a state park, and is above average expensive.

I'm buying distance and space away from the unwashed masses. Same philosophy we use for vacations.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Rocky Rider said:

---

"Both of these bills enhance private property rights, but the Republican minority in the legislature unanimously opposed them out of NIMBYism."

"House Bill 1114 prevents cities from having a minimum lot size larger than 2000 ft^2 for single-family homes."

How is placing more restrictions on property owners enhancing private property rights?

---

It's not restricting property owners. It's restricting cities from having zoning laws that prevent the construction of "starter homes".

---

Um, you can build a starter home on a lot larger than or smaller than 2000 ft^2. My first starter home in Cedar Park was on a 120'x60' lot. It had a great back yard!

YouBet said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

These read like basic HOA provisions. If you are building on a lot that is only 2k sq ft or smaller then this is people throwing a trailer on a piece of land or throwing up some crappy ass cabin. The folks moving out of the city are probably trying to prevent stuff like that by increasing the minimum lot size and requiring setbacks, open space, etc (also outlawed in this bill as a further blocker to building something unappealing).

My parents last neighborhood in a golf/lake development had similar provisions. Your lot had to be a minimum size and you had to build at least 1800 sq ft single home. Division of lots not allowed.

---

Per subdivision/development that is absolutely fine and the right of the owner (developer). They can make minimum lot sizes 20 acres if they want, it wouldn't be smart ROI wise, but it's their property.

What this law does is tell cities and NIMBYS to pound sand, you're not going to limit the rights and value of private property and private property owners because you want to keep the "farm town" you moved to small.

This is a good law and one we will have in Texas within 10 years.

---

But how can a subdivision/development implement what they want with this overarching law? What I posted wouldn't be fine with this law. Aren't you being contradictory here?

This is why you do what I did and move to a spot that is naturally very hard to develop, backs up to a state park, and is above average expensive.

I'm buying distance and space away from the unwashed masses. Same philosophy we use for vacations.

---

This law is only needed because of zoning laws/city ordinances to begin with so this is at least limiting those. But you're right, cities shouldn't have zoning/platting authority to begin with.


You did the right thing, If you want to have peace and quiet and make sure you don't have development going on around you move out to the middle of nowhere. Don't move to a suburb and try to freeze time.

Kansas Kid said:

---

YouBet said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Rocky Rider said:

---

"Both of these bills enhance private property rights, but the Republican minority in the legislature unanimously opposed them out of NIMBYism."

"House Bill 1114 prevents cities from having a minimum lot size larger than 2000 ft^2 for single-family homes."

How is placing more restrictions on property owners enhancing private property rights?

---

Because you don't understand how zoning regs work. Bill 1114 prevents cities from making larger minimum lot sizes. This allows for higher density, more flexibility, and then the market can decide what is the optimal lot size for a given set of factors.

Bill 1308 allows for splitting of lots where it previously wasn't allowed. Again, more flexibility and letting the market decide.

Colorado development codes are generally horrendous, but these bills are a step in the right direction. Republicans oppose them because…reasons.

---

Counterpoint is that higher density usually means more Democrats. The Democrats have an entire civic strategy to push high density building requirements and relocation of low income people out into the suburbs for a reason.

---

So do you think smaller lot sizes are going to make people vote D and larger vote R? Sorry but I would prefer to give land owners more rights because more undeveloped land owners, especially farmers, vote R.

If anything, moving people from renters to home owners is more likely to get people to switch to R because once you own assets, you start to realize how much the government takes (ie property taxes)

---

I'm mostly indifferent to this law. I was just reminding everyone that the Democrats had a national strategy to push high density housing and relocation of low income folks to suburbs and exurbs in order to dilute Republican votes and to turn areas blue. If this law allows for more high density housing which I don't think it actually does because a 2000 sq ft lot is tiny and doesn't have much use other than a very, very small home. Thus, I generally agree with you.

FWTXAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I don't see it that way. Government that works best is government that's closest to the people. Cities should have the final say on minimum lot size in their city, not the state legislature -- which in reality -- is just a body dominated by people from bigger cities in the state trying to tell people in small cities and rural counties how to conduct their affairs.

I'm not really even a fan of cities telling landowners how big or small their lot can be... keep it even more local with the developer or HOA at a sub-city level. With the infrastructure considerations of city-supplied services like water, sewage, fire, and police, I can understand why the city wants some input into the process, but bureaucrats in the state capital need to stay out of it.

The only NIMBY here is the locals telling the out-of-towners to mind their own damn business.

Good for them.

---

They're being required to do this because every single up and coming suburban town in growing states have a rapidly growing percentage of NIMBYS. Most of them are people who moved out of the city to a more "rural" town within a 30 minute commute back to the big city for work. Those people get there and then try to immediately limit more people coming behind them, they do so by limiting current landowners private property rights at the city level by freaking out at rezoning council meetings every week.

This will be required in Texas in the near-future as well.

---

That is the power of the local government and it's a good thing. It's called quality of life.

Good luck with Austin trying to tell cities in Texas how to live life. That dog won't hunt in Texas.

---

No, it's not, at all.

Farmers paid for that land with blood, sweat, and tears. His right is to find a buyer that will pay the most for their property, not to protect the city or anybody that just moved there 3 years ago and don't want it to grow. If they personally want to sell it to a developer that will do larger lots, then great, but the city and NIMBYS won't be able to tell him how much his property is worth. At least soon it will be that way when Texas passes a law just like this.

---

Yes, it absolutely is. If local people thru their elected government want to set a minimum lot size and other requirements to promote a certain quality of life that protects property values and quality of life (low crime, etc.), that is their right to do so. The politicians in the state capital can pound sand. They need to focus on state-level issues and stay out of local government affairs.

If some areas want to be un-zoned and have trailers next to big homes, that is their business.

If other areas want to require a minimum lot and home size, that is their business.

Zoning for residential, commercial, and industrial is common across the US and best left to the local folks.

That's the issue here...local control vs state. And to be clear, "state" control is simply the big cities telling all the others how to live life by nature of their representation dominance in the legislature. People leave the big cities because they tire of their local politics. They don't need or want the state telling them what "freedom" means to them.

BTKAG97 said:

---

Both of these bills prevent cities from trying to prevent shanty towns. 2000 ft squared piece of land is not a large plot.

Democrats HATE single family dwellings and would prefer everyone live in sardine cans similar to what the Japanese are forced to live in.

---

At least the Japanese have trains and bodies capable of walking the last mile home from the train station.

YouBet said:

---

I'm buying distance and space away from the unwashed masses. Same philosophy we use for vacations.

---

Seriously, you'd enjoy some of the resorts in Saudi Arabia. They've built it and nobody is coming.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

In an attempt to address their state's high housing prices, the Colorado House of representatives passed two bills allowing denser housing development:

• House Bill 1114 prevents cities from having a minimum lot size larger than 2000 ft^2 for single-family homes.
• House Bill 1308 allows residential property owners to split their lots in two under certain conditions.

Both of these bills enhance private property rights, but the Republican minority in the legislature unanimously opposed them out of NIMBYism.

---

I went back and read this because this thread is jacking with my head.

So, these laws allow denser housing development which you are stating enhances private property rights, so you are mad that Republicans opposed them.

I'm going back to my original point now....the reason Republicans opposed them is because denser housing development usually means more Democrats. That's why they opposed it. Republican are already on the run in that state so they are trying to protect what they still have left and now the state is going to override local municipalities regarding how housing can be done.

I'm not sure how removing local control "enhances property rights"; it certainly creates an opportunity for more people to cram into smaller spaces which is almost never a good thing in my book.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I'm buying distance and space away from the unwashed masses. Same philosophy we use for vacations.

---

Seriously, you'd enjoy some of the resorts in Saudi Arabia. They've built it and nobody is coming.

---

Sounds like my kind of place. We have become used to living with few people around us and enjoy it. HOWVER, we are actually moving away from where we are because (just one reason) even though there are few permanent residents around us it's a nonstop barrage of m'fing lawn crews with blowers, nonstop home renovations, etc. It's actually incredible the amount of activity and noise that happens here and there is no one here full-time within 20 homes of us. No exaggeration. Almost all second homes and you would think this place is grand central station for lawn crews and contractors.

It's wild.

FWTXAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

These read like basic HOA provisions. If you are building on a lot that is only 2k sq ft or smaller then this is people throwing a trailer on a piece of land or throwing up some crappy ass cabin. The folks moving out of the city are probably trying to prevent stuff like that by increasing the minimum lot size and requiring setbacks, open space, etc (also outlawed in this bill as a further blocker to building something unappealing).

My parents last neighborhood in a golf/lake development had similar provisions. Your lot had to be a minimum size and you had to build at least 1800 sq ft single home. Division of lots not allowed.

---

Per subdivision/development that is absolutely fine and the right of the owner (developer). They can make minimum lot sizes 20 acres if they want, it wouldn't be smart ROI wise, but it's their property.

What this law does is tell cities and NIMBYS to pound sand, you're not going to limit the rights and value of private property and private property owners because you want to keep the "farm town" you moved to small.

This is a good law and one we will have in Texas within 10 years.

---

Youre very wrong. We wont have a state wide law allowing such in texas unless dems take control of our govt.

They did it in Austin because they think it will lead to cheaper housing prices. That's absurd imo.

They really did it because they need to meet a certain density threshold to get funding for their trains for the feds.

YouBet said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

In an attempt to address their state's high housing prices, the Colorado House of representatives passed two bills allowing denser housing development:

• House Bill 1114 prevents cities from having a minimum lot size larger than 2000 ft^2 for single-family homes.
• House Bill 1308 allows residential property owners to split their lots in two under certain conditions.

Both of these bills enhance private property rights, but the Republican minority in the legislature unanimously opposed them out of NIMBYism.

---

I went back and read this because this thread is jacking with my head.

So, these laws allow denser housing development which you are stating enhances private property rights, so you are mad that Republicans opposed them.

I'm going back to my original point now....the reason Republicans opposed them is because denser housing development usually means more Democrats. That's why they opposed it. Republican are already on the run in that state so they are trying to protect what they still have left and now the state is going to override local municipalities regarding how housing can be done.

I'm not sure how removing local control "enhances property rights"; it certainly creates an opportunity for more people to cram into smaller spaces which is almost never a good thing in my book.

---

Isn't the cramming into smaller places how things were in the Golden age of the geriatric and maga, though?

Back then, according to the Google the average house was about 1,000 sq feet. Why wouldn't we want people to have the option to buy a starter home if this is, in fact, how this could be used? I mean, you don't think the housing market, or at least Wall Street, wouldn't like seeing growth and all that comes with it?

If people want to cram, that's on them. No one would be forcing them to live in those homes, so the market can decide.


Thoughts?

Who?mikejones! said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

These read like basic HOA provisions. If you are building on a lot that is only 2k sq ft or smaller then this is people throwing a trailer on a piece of land or throwing up some crappy ass cabin. The folks moving out of the city are probably trying to prevent stuff like that by increasing the minimum lot size and requiring setbacks, open space, etc (also outlawed in this bill as a further blocker to building something unappealing).

My parents last neighborhood in a golf/lake development had similar provisions. Your lot had to be a minimum size and you had to build at least 1800 sq ft single home. Division of lots not allowed.

---

Per subdivision/development that is absolutely fine and the right of the owner (developer). They can make minimum lot sizes 20 acres if they want, it wouldn't be smart ROI wise, but it's their property.

What this law does is tell cities and NIMBYS to pound sand, you're not going to limit the rights and value of private property and private property owners because you want to keep the "farm town" you moved to small.

This is a good law and one we will have in Texas within 10 years.

---

Youre very wrong. We wont have a state wide law allowing such in texas unless dems take control of our govt.

They did it in Austin because they think it will lead to cheaper housing prices. That's absurd imo.

They really did it because they need to meet a certain density threshold to get funding for their trains for the feds.

---

That's really the underlying issue driving the Dems here at the state level... increasing local population density to advance their political objectives and control. It's always about increasing control for them.

They already turned our big cities into urban ****holes. Now they want to transition the suburbs into a similar Dem stronghold.

How do you do that? Increase population density where people demand more government services and become more dependent on them. Thus, vote blue.

This attempt to challenge local zoning authority is largely being driven by Dems in blue states. They already drove up the cost of living in big cities and decreased quality of life with their insane policies.

Good for the local folks who are resisting. Keep up the good fight!