Quote:

---

I'm going back to my original point now....the reason Republicans opposed them is because denser housing development usually means more Democrats.

---

What do you think the cause-and-effect direction is?

FWTXAg said:

---

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.

---

Land Use Restrictions for Planning and Development is one of the main reasons to incorporate - Especially for Home Rule Cities.

The concept of individual property rights needs to be considered in the context of what type or individual property you are talmbout.

Uncontrolled density in urban areas is not so much about individual property rights but about city resource planning. Water, sewer, gas, power, buses, streets, fire, ambulance, police, etc all must be accounted for. 2000sf lot that is 30ft wide if only 67ft deep. Factor in any easements and setback and you are not putting much on that lot.

Same goes for splitting lots. Lots of impacts on various stakeholders that are neither NIMBYs nor property owners.

I think folks in the US really need to understand you have a long-term real property lease and you do NOT own the dirt. No matter where you own that dirt there are multiple layers of regulations on it that say when, what, how and why you can do such and such with that property.

No Spin Ag said:

---

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?

---

Yeah, maybe so. Again, I think this is likely just Republicans protecting what they have left; ie their current constituents who generally want larger lots with nicer homes on them and around them. Everything I read about CO says it's only getting more left wing so maybe they are just thinking that denser housing simply means more Democrats, right or wrong. I don't know what would actually happen with that as you move out into the suburbs with his law.

Not having affordable starter homes available the closer you get to urban cores is certainly a reality though so this might create an opportunity for more of those as you move further out.

But if you live in an established neighborhood that has some open lots that suddenly get carved up and and rinky dink homes are put on them changing the landscape of the existing neighborhood that seems like a bait and switch for the established residents. Does this law address that scenario or is this just for new development? I don't know.

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'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.

---

It's not just that. Expect more 100 year old, mature, single family neighborhoods to dramatically change and transform in a very short period of time. The more weathy, NIMBY neighborhoods will be able to politically resist the change but every one will succomb eventually.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm going back to my original point now....the reason Republicans opposed them is because denser housing development usually means more Democrats.

---

What do you think the cause-and-effect direction is?

---

Quoting Memphis for the desired effect since this was pushed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. It's also my original point stated more eloquently.

Will this be the actual effect? Dunno.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

It's not really needed in Texas anymore because we heavily curtailed the ability of of cities involuntary annex rural areas

YouBet said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

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?

---

Yeah, maybe so. Again, I think this is likely just Republicans protecting what they have left; ie their current constituents who generally want larger lots with nicer homes on them and around them. Everything I read about CO says it's only getting more left wing so maybe they are just thinking that denser housing simply means more Democrats, right or wrong. I don't know what would actually happen with that as you move out into the suburbs with his law.

Not having affordable starter homes available the closer you get to urban cores is certainly a reality though so this might create an opportunity for more of those as you move further out.

But if you live in an established neighborhood that has some open lots that suddenly get carved up and and rinky dink homes are put on them changing the landscape of the existing neighborhood that seems like a bait and switch for the established residents. Does this law address that scenario or is this just for new development? I don't know.

---

Good point. I would hope this only gets used for future spaces that are far enough away to not be an eyesore to those of us who live in the kind of places the starter home people hope to one day get to.

Something to keep an eye on, because if it does take off over there, it might get support from certain industries in Texas and other red states to boost economies.

flown-the-coop said:

---

The concept of individual property rights needs to be considered in the context of what type or individual property you are talmbout.

Uncontrolled density in urban areas is not so much about individual property rights but about city resource planning. Water, sewer, gas, power, buses, streets, fire, ambulance, police, etc all must be accounted for. 2000sf lot that is 30ft wide if only 67ft deep. Factor in any easements and setback and you are not putting much on that lot.

Same goes for splitting lots. Lots of impacts on various stakeholders that are neither NIMBYs nor property owners.

I think folks in the US really need to understand you have a long-term real property lease and you do NOT own the dirt. No matter where you own that dirt there are multiple layers of regulations on it that say when, what, how and why you can do such and such with that property.

---

"talmbout"

I never saw this word before and figured it was a Boomhaur-ism. The Google confirmed, and I just gotta say, gracias for adding a new word to my vocabulary.

No Spin Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

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?

---

Yeah, maybe so. Again, I think this is likely just Republicans protecting what they have left; ie their current constituents who generally want larger lots with nicer homes on them and around them. Everything I read about CO says it's only getting more left wing so maybe they are just thinking that denser housing simply means more Democrats, right or wrong. I don't know what would actually happen with that as you move out into the suburbs with his law.

Not having affordable starter homes available the closer you get to urban cores is certainly a reality though so this might create an opportunity for more of those as you move further out.

But if you live in an established neighborhood that has some open lots that suddenly get carved up and and rinky dink homes are put on them changing the landscape of the existing neighborhood that seems like a bait and switch for the established residents. Does this law address that scenario or is this just for new development? I don't know.

---

Good point. I would hope this only gets used for future spaces that are far enough away to not be an eyesore to those of us who live in the kind of places the starter home people hope to one day get to.

Something to keep an eye on, because if it does take off over there, it might get support from certain industries in Texas and other red states to boost economies.

---

Haven't been to Denver recently have you? The city has been actively transforming established neighborhoods for the last 2 decades.

Teslag 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.

---

It's not really needed in Texas anymore because we heavily curtailed the ability of of cities involuntary annex rural areas

---

Ah yes, the state's response to Kingwood's protests.

Since then, Houston has been careful to annex lots of commercial and industrial areas but not any residents who might complain.

Leading to city limits that are crazier than any Virginia legislator could make.

BTKAG97 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

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?

---

Yeah, maybe so. Again, I think this is likely just Republicans protecting what they have left; ie their current constituents who generally want larger lots with nicer homes on them and around them. Everything I read about CO says it's only getting more left wing so maybe they are just thinking that denser housing simply means more Democrats, right or wrong. I don't know what would actually happen with that as you move out into the suburbs with his law.

Not having affordable starter homes available the closer you get to urban cores is certainly a reality though so this might create an opportunity for more of those as you move further out.

But if you live in an established neighborhood that has some open lots that suddenly get carved up and and rinky dink homes are put on them changing the landscape of the existing neighborhood that seems like a bait and switch for the established residents. Does this law address that scenario or is this just for new development? I don't know.

---

Good point. I would hope this only gets used for future spaces that are far enough away to not be an eyesore to those of us who live in the kind of places the starter home people hope to one day get to.

Something to keep an eye on, because if it does take off over there, it might get support from certain industries in Texas and other red states to boost economies.

---

Haven't been to Denver recently have you? The city has been actively transforming established neighborhoods for the last 2 decades.

---

I go through there every couple of years, but only en route to Aspen and the mountains.

I abhor cities, red and blue ones, so I'll take your word for it.

SCOTUS needs to correct the misinterpretations of circa 1930 zoning rulings and rein in the trampling of our rights.

No Spin Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

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?

---

Yeah, maybe so. Again, I think this is likely just Republicans protecting what they have left; ie their current constituents who generally want larger lots with nicer homes on them and around them. Everything I read about CO says it's only getting more left wing so maybe they are just thinking that denser housing simply means more Democrats, right or wrong. I don't know what would actually happen with that as you move out into the suburbs with his law.

Not having affordable starter homes available the closer you get to urban cores is certainly a reality though so this might create an opportunity for more of those as you move further out.

But if you live in an established neighborhood that has some open lots that suddenly get carved up and and rinky dink homes are put on them changing the landscape of the existing neighborhood that seems like a bait and switch for the established residents. Does this law address that scenario or is this just for new development? I don't know.

---

Good point. I would hope this only gets used for future spaces that are far enough away to not be an eyesore to those of us who live in the kind of places the starter home people hope to one day get to.

Something to keep an eye on, because if it does take off over there, it might get support from certain industries in Texas and other red states to boost economies.

---

Alright I read the actual law and it seems to exempt existing neighborhoods and homes that are not tied into city services (eg water and sewer). It's been specifically created to enable more starter homes due to "housing unaffordability".

Or we get to tax incentivized kill dozers.

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.

---

You need to check your arrogance.
I understand very well how zoning regs work. Cheerleading the placement of more restrictions on property owners is NOT enhancing private property rights. Cities should be able to govern themselves without big government interference. If someone doesn't like the regs established by a city, then find another city to live in. One size fits all property rights enforced from the Capital infringe on liberty.

YouBet said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

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?

---

Yeah, maybe so. Again, I think this is likely just Republicans protecting what they have left; ie their current constituents who generally want larger lots with nicer homes on them and around them. Everything I read about CO says it's only getting more left wing so maybe they are just thinking that denser housing simply means more Democrats, right or wrong. I don't know what would actually happen with that as you move out into the suburbs with his law.

Not having affordable starter homes available the closer you get to urban cores is certainly a reality though so this might create an opportunity for more of those as you move further out.

But if you live in an established neighborhood that has some open lots that suddenly get carved up and and rinky dink homes are put on them changing the landscape of the existing neighborhood that seems like a bait and switch for the established residents. Does this law address that scenario or is this just for new development? I don't know.

---

Good point. I would hope this only gets used for future spaces that are far enough away to not be an eyesore to those of us who live in the kind of places the starter home people hope to one day get to.

Something to keep an eye on, because if it does take off over there, it might get support from certain industries in Texas and other red states to boost economies.

---

Alright I read the actual law and it seems to exempt existing neighborhoods and homes that are not tied into city services (eg water and sewer). It's been specifically created to enable more starter homes due to "housing unaffordability".

---

Cool. And thanks for doing the research.

How does a law that allows for more flexibility in development result in a situation that is more restrictive?

HTownAg98 said:

---

How does a law that allows for more flexibility in development result in a situation that is more restrictive?

---

Its a seperation of powers issue. Zoning is typically delegated to counties and cities. It allows residents of those municipalities the ability to determine how they want to manage development. While the state gives those municipalities zoning power, it typically does not dictate specific zoning ordinances. When municipalities aren't allowed to self govern then what's the point of incorporating?

If you want 100% individual freedom to use your land as you want without considering the impact on your neighbor then dont live or buy property within a city's boundary.

As already been stated, and basically confirmed by YouBet, this law is less about individual property rights and more about compelling political influence on lower density suburban communities like Castle Rock which are typically more conservative than more dense areas.

In essence, these are anti-community bills. And yes, you can still be pro-community while alao being anti-socialism and anti-union.

HTownAg98 said:

---

How does a law that allows for more flexibility in development result in a situation that is more restrictive?

---

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

Why is a state law which prevents cities from having a minimum lot size larger than 2000 ft^2 for single-family homes not restrictive?

Why should the state regulate lot sizes for every city in the state? The democrat majority in Denver loves to flex their muscle, but they are very out of touch with many cities and counties across the state. They cater to urban dwellers and those that live in, or want to live in, places like Boulder County and Aspen.

zephyr88 said:

---

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.

---

Yep. I'd move to our Denver office tomorrow if it wasn't for the politics.

So the Republicans are acting like 'Karens' by voting against legislation offered by 4 of the most liberal/progressive legislators in the general assembly? Google Rep. Stephen Woodrow and Donald Trump and see the type of legislator/public servant he is. Yeah, I think the Republicans voted right on these.

harge57 said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

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.

---

Yep. I'd move to our Denver office tomorrow if it wasn't for the politics.

---

I've had opportunities over my 40 year career to move to both Irvine, California and Denver, Colorado. Each time, I took the opportunity seriously and weighed the pros/cons. The politics and the cost of living (and the politics) were the detractors in both cases. Guess I'm tethered to my roots here anyhow. It may be hot as hades in this summer, but Texas is home.

zephyr88 said:

---

harge57 said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

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.

---

Yep. I'd move to our Denver office tomorrow if it wasn't for the politics.

---

I've had opportunities over my 40 year career to move to both Irvine, California and Denver, Colorado. Each time, I took the opportunity seriously and weighed the pros/cons. The politics and the cost of living (and the politics) were the detractors in both cases. Guess I'm tethered to my roots here anyhow. It may be hot as hades in this summer, but Texas is home.

---

Western Slope is where its at. I live in Meeker and love it, but I imagine we will be outta here in 3-4 years when her oldest is out of HS. Politics dont really affect our day to day life to be honest since we are so far from the Denver area. It will take dynamite to get me to leave, but I think that unless an R can get back in the Governors seat this time around, the state is lost.

This law sounds similar to what Gavin Newsom and the Dems did in California.

When I was a homeowner in Burbank, there were some restrictions on the creation of an "ADU" (Additional Dwelling Unit). You had to jump through a bunch of hoops to get it permitted and there were certain situations where it wasn't allowed.

I think it was in 2019, they passed legislation at the State level, superseding City Laws, which basically said that everybody can build an ADU. In my neighborhood, this spurred a lot of new construction.

Since I moved out and sold my house in 2023, the first thing the new owner did was build an ADU in the back.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

This law sounds similar to what Gavin Newsom and the Dems did in California.

When I was a homeowner in Burbank, there were some restrictions on the creation of an "ADU" (Additional Dwelling Unit). You had to jump through a bunch of hoops to get it permitted and there were certain situations where it wasn't allowed.

I think it was in 2019, they passed legislation at the State level, superseding City Laws, which basically said that everybody can build an ADU. In my neighborhood, this spurred a lot of new construction.

Since I moved out and sold my house in 2023, the first thing the new owner did was build an ADU in the back.

---

Interesting. My tiny hood only allows ADU's if you have at least a 2.5 acre lot.

Hoyt Ag said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

harge57 said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

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.

---

Yep. I'd move to our Denver office tomorrow if it wasn't for the politics.

---

I've had opportunities over my 40 year career to move to both Irvine, California and Denver, Colorado. Each time, I took the opportunity seriously and weighed the pros/cons. The politics and the cost of living (and the politics) were the detractors in both cases. Guess I'm tethered to my roots here anyhow. It may be hot as hades in this summer, but Texas is home.

---

Western Slope is where its at. I live in Meeker and love it, but I imagine we will be outta here in 3-4 years when her oldest is out of HS. Politics dont really affect our day to day life to be honest since we are so far from the Denver area. It will take dynamite to get me to leave, but I think that unless an R can get back in the Governors seat this time around, the state is lost.

---

I've lived in Boulder and Jefferson counties for 22 years. I lived in TX for about 40 years before moving to CO. When I lived in TX I'd save money all year to vacation in Colorado for 1 week. Now the mountains are outside my back door and things will have to get much worse before I consider moving to TX or FL. Easy access to CO, WY, UT, ID, MT, and the rest of the mountain west is my priority. I've learned to live amongst the dims and even become friends with the more moderate dims. Politics aren't affecting my quality of life, yet.