Newsroom: Housing Colorado News

Information on 2018 Ballot Amendments

Wednesday, October 10, 2018   (0 Comments)
Posted by: Rose Haag
Share |

To promote an engaged citizenry and support the affordable housing community, it is important to know the upcoming amendments that may impact the industry and in what ways they would change the landscape moving forward. Housing Colorado has identified the following amendments as important to track as election day nears. More information on these amendments appears in the Blue Book that will be arriving at your home soon, but here we provide some initial information and thoughts on the impact each amendment will have on affordable housing should they pass in November. 

Amendment 74

This constitutional amendment would require state and local governments to provide just compensation if private property has suffered “reduced fair market value by government law or regulation."

Affordable Housing Impact:  Even projects with broad community support could be thwarted by expensive and time-consuming lawsuits brought by a few individuals.  For example, if a municipality re-zones an area to encourage affordable housing, an individual owning adjacent property could sue because the re-zoning reduces the fair market value of his or her property.  

For more information: and


Proposition 109
(formerly Initiative 167, "Fix Our Damn Roads")

This statutory initiative asks voters to approve a $3.5 billion bonding measure to fund transportation projects using existing revenue and without raising taxes or fees.   All proceeds are to be used on state highway projects; there is no funding for local projects, nor for multi-modal options.  Opponents fear the $3.5 billion bonding measure does not provide significant funding to address the $9 billion backlog of projects identified across the state by the Colorado Department of Transportation. 

Impact on Affordable Housing:  As the initiative does not raise new monies, the bonds will have to be paid back from the General fund – leaving fewer general fund dollars to fund affordable housing funding.  

For more information:

Proposition 110 (formerly Initiative #153)

A statutory change that seeks to increase the state sales tax rate by .62 percent (about 6 cents on a $10 purchase) as a dedicated funding stream for state, municipal, county and multimodal transportation infrastructure.

The proposition would distribute 45% of the revenue to the State Highway Fund for bond repayments for state projects and maintenance and pay-as-you-go projects. The next 40% of the revenue would be allocated between cities (50%) and counties (50%), with complete flexibility to spend these dollars on any transportation related project.  The proposition allocates the final 15% of the revenue to local and state multimodal projects (including transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and services).  The initiative includes a 20-year sunset.

Affordable Housing Impact: Housing and transportation are sister issues – success in one area is critical for success in the other. A well-maintained transportation system that offers choices and access allows households to access education, employment and health.  By bringing new dollars to the state budget, the proposition frees up general fund and local dollars for affordable housing activities.  

For m
ore information:

Proposition 112

This statutory change requires new oil and natural gas development not on federal land to be located at least 2,500 feet from an “occupied structure” (any building intended for human occupancy) or “vulnerable area” (including playgrounds, permanent sports fields, amphitheaters, public parks, public open space, public and community drinking water sources, irrigation canals, reservoirs, lakes, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, creeks, and any other such locations as may be designated by the state or a local government).  

Affordable Housing Impact: Opponents fear this measure will stymie most housing development along the Front Range, given the proximity of human habitation and oil and gas extraction activity.  The preemptive nature of a distance limit less than 2,500 feet could restrict both local control and limit the ability of municipalities to negotiate smaller “setbacks” in exchange for other land use and zoning considerations. 

For more information:

Subscribe To Our Newsletter