Limitations on Local Anti-Growth Land Use Policies
HB1093 limits certain local land use policies that are characterized as “anti-growth laws.” The bill revises Colorado’s statutory definition of an anti-growth law to cover generally applicable land use laws that explicitly cap population growth or the number of residential development or building permit applications, and it adds a second category for census urban areas where a local law explicitly reduces permitted residential density or residential uses below what was allowed as of July 1, 2025, without providing a corresponding increase elsewhere in the jurisdiction. It also clarifies the meaning of “land use law” broadly to include statutes, ordinances, plans, policies, procedures, standards, and similar government actions regulating property use or division.
The bill creates an exception for land containing or directly adjacent to a wildlife crossing structure, defined by reference to Colorado Parks and Wildlife mapping and Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission regulations. In addition, it authorizes a municipality, before an election is ordered on an initiated land use ordinance, to seek a judicial ruling on whether the proposed ordinance is lawful under the U.S. Constitution, the Colorado Constitution, Article 68 of Title 24, or the anti-growth law statute. Property owners affected by the proposal and designated petition representatives may intervene, and the election/ordinance timeline is tolled while the court case is pending.
The bill’s impact is to strengthen state-level limits on local governments’ ability to adopt growth-restricting land use rules, especially those that directly reduce residential density or cap housing-related permits. It also gives municipalities a pre-election court review mechanism for proposed initiated ordinances that restrict land development or use, which could affect local ballot measures and land use initiative campaigns. The measure amends existing statutes in Title 29 governing local government land use authority and preemption.
Overall sentiment in the recorded votes appears generally favorable but not unanimous. The bill advanced through committee and floor votes with clear majorities, including unanimous committee votes on amendments in some instances, but it also drew meaningful opposition on third reading in both chambers. That pattern suggests broad support among proponents of housing supply and state preemption, alongside resistance from members concerned about local control.
The main point of contention is the balance between statewide housing-growth policy and municipal home rule or local zoning authority. Supporters appear to favor preventing local restrictions that limit housing production, while opponents likely object to state interference with local land use decisions and the potential for litigation over proposed ordinances. The wildlife crossing exception also indicates an effort to carve out environmentally sensitive areas from the bill’s reach.
HB1093 amends Colorado’s local government land use statutes to preempt certain local policies that cap growth or reduce residential density, and it broadens the statutory definition of “land use law” for purposes of that preemption. It also adds a judicial review process for proposed initiated land use ordinances before an election is ordered, allowing affected property owners and petition representatives to participate and pausing the election timeline during litigation. The bill therefore changes the legal framework governing local zoning, housing-related permit limits, and land use initiatives.
The bill appears to have received generally positive treatment in committee and on the floor, with several votes to advance amendments and the bill itself passing both chambers. However, the final floor votes show notable minority opposition, indicating that while the measure had enough support to pass, it remained politically divisive. The voting pattern suggests a split between legislators prioritizing housing growth and those wary of state preemption of local land use authority.
The central controversy is whether the state should limit local governments’ ability to restrict housing growth and residential density. Supporters likely view the bill as a tool to address housing shortages and prevent exclusionary zoning, while opponents likely see it as an erosion of municipal control over zoning and planning. A secondary point of contention is the bill’s new court-review process for initiated ordinances, which could be seen either as a safeguard against unlawful measures or as a procedural hurdle that could delay local ballot initiatives. The wildlife crossing carveout is a narrower issue, but it reflects concern about protecting specific environmental infrastructure from unintended effects of the preemption language.