Lakewood, a city in Colorado, has passed growth restrictions to prioritize affordable housing. This decision comes as a response to a new state law that explicitly prohibits cities from limiting population growth or the number of residential units. While the state law will take effect on Tuesday, Lakewood’s City Council voted 8-3 to amend its growth ordinance in order to comply with the law.
Under the amended ordinance, Lakewood’s growth will be limited for the next two years, after which the restrictions will be permanently lifted. The initial growth restrictions were approved by Lakewood voters during a special election in July 2019, with the aim of allowing the city to prioritize the kind of housing the community needs.
Lakewood Councilwoman Anita Springsteen expressed her outrage at the state’s interference in local housing decisions. She believes that the state law takes away the local government’s authority and infringes on democracy. Springsteen argues that the city should defend its citizens and protect the progress made with the growth restrictions, which were achieved through a constitutional petition.
The goal of Lakewood’s ordinance is to preserve affordable housing options and prevent families from being pushed out due to high housing costs. The focus is on building housing that meets the needs of families, including those who may have been displaced, and creating opportunities for affordable housing. The aim is to strike a balance between current and future housing demands while ensuring that the right type of housing is available based on demand.
In addition to Lakewood, other cities in Colorado, such as Golden and Boulder, also have growth restrictions in place. The Golden City Council will receive legal advice on the growth restriction ban during an executive session.
The passing of growth restrictions in Lakewood highlights the ongoing debate between local and state authorities when it comes to housing decisions. While the state law aims to eliminate growth restrictions to balance housing demands, critics argue that it takes away the power of local governments to prioritize affordable housing and address specific community needs.
