Several media articles last week focused on Initiative 66 -- the limited-growth measure being proposed for the 2018 ballot -- and led to the Denver Post's editorial board coming out early in opposition to the measure by voicing concerns about the deficit in housing in Colorado and "arbitrary caps" like those in Initiative 66.  

 

In its editorial "How to make the housing crunch worse", the Denver Post writes about the role government should play in addressing Colorado's housing "crunch":

 

"Well, there's one obvious answer to what shouldn't happen. A proposed ballot measure to cap home and apartment construction along Colorado's Front Range would make the recovery from this housing crunch take even longer.

 

We believe homebuilders who said at the Colorado Association of Realtors' Economic Summit on Wednesday that the ballot measure would have 'devastating consequences in an already constrained market.'"

 

It's not surprising the Denver Post opposes Initiative 66 -- the state's leading newspaper has routinely opposed wrongheaded measures put forward by special interests and proponents with questionable or hidden motives -- and that might be the case with Initiative 66's backers. 

 

The Denver Post also featured Initiative 66's backer, Daniel Hayes, in an article -- "Daniel Hayes is trying to get a measure on the ballot that would cap Front Rage growth at 1 percent" -- the article noted that Hayes, "a real estate broker who owns 20 rental properties," supported the successful 1995 limited-growth measure in Golden and is the backer of last year's Lakewood initiative. Hayes was quoted in the article describing his position on growth limitations:

 

"I think the slower growth would be a great benefit. Cities with slow growth have highest-paying jobs. Look at Denver and Boulder. Rapid growth raises the price of land and makes it hard for industry to move in. Amazon would be a lot more likely to settle here if we are controlling growth."

 

And there was more from Hayes in a Denverite online article in which he vowed to spend as much as $400,000 of his own money on the initiative. According to the article, Hayes made some sweeping statements about 66's impact on Colorado:

 

"The housing limit would drive away 110 percent of the population, off the bat," he said. That, he theorizes, would keep housing prices stable while keeping Colorado the same. ...

 

"Unprompted, Hayes noted that such a move would heavily affect unauthorized immigrants.

 

'Everybody knows that 60 percent of the labor to build a house is undocumented,' he said. '...They don't do anything for the economy, no,' he added, before changing the topic. 'I don't want to get into some racist argument - because that's what it will turn into.'"

 

The HBA of Metro Denver, Colorado Association of Homebuilders, along with many industry and business-community partners, is leading the effort against Hayes' Initiative 66. HBA of Metro Denver and CAHB filed a challenge to 66 with the Colorado Supreme Court and is expecting the court's decision within a few weeks. The association will keep its members up to date as we fight this economically disastrous initiative.