Senate Bill 23-273 is bad public policy, and it’s bad for Colorado.

Designed to derail one specific real estate development project in Loveland, the bill will have the effect of stifling new housing and economic development in communities statewide, and it sets a dangerous precedent of fighting local projects at the state level. Colorado House members should vote no on SB 23-273.

About SB 23-273

Colorado Senate Bill 23-273, introduced on April 10, attacks urban renewal in Colorado. Urban renewal is a common, proven and sensible tool that communities use to tackle barriers to development by publicly financing much-needed infrastructure and roadways.
This bill seeks to rescind a subsection of the state’s urban renewal law that allows agricultural land to be part of an urban renewal plan if the land was part of an urban renewal authority before 2010.
The bill aims to stop cities, municipalities and real estate developers from adding former agricultural land to a new urban renewal plan, even if the land was included in a previous one.

Map is not to scale and is intended for informational and illustrative purposes only. Plans, uses, zoning, amenities, features, availability, acreage, sizes, dates, vehicle counts, listed owners/tenants, and other elements are subject to change by McWhinney Real Estate Services, Inc. or its affiliates without notice, and shall not be relied upon.

Bad Public Policy, Bad for Colorado

It's counterproductive to much-needed housing in Colorado.

The bill is counterproductive to efforts to enable much-needed housing and other development in Colorado, and will stifle economic development in urban, rural and suburban communities statewide. About 65 Colorado communities use urban renewal to address their unique issues, including rural communities such as Craig, Dacono, Delta, Firestone, Frederick, Fort Lupton, Lamar, La Junta, and Sterling.
It sets a dangerous precedent.

The bill sets a dangerous precedent that will harm local communities. If local elected officials take issue with including a specific project in an urban renewal plan, they should vote against it at the local level. If passed, this change will embolden local leaders to stop local projects by amending state statute to suit their needs.
It could have unintended consequences.

This statewide bill appears to be special legislation designed to derail a proposed development in Loveland (Centerra South), without regard to the statewide unintended consequences. This bill is moving quickly without adequate analysis, and without comment by those most affected.