Heads up RE-1 Valley School District voters. Weigh in on CDOT's Active Transportation Plan. Denver builder goes to court over Inclusionary Zoning.
Heads up RE-1 Valley School District voters
If you live in the RE-1 Valley School District (or know someone who does), per the Sterling Journal Advocate article linked at bottom, this coming election you'll have a chance to weigh in on some changes to the district.
One of the ballot questions is set to fix what has been (sadly) a perennial problem in RE-1 Valley: it has been, and continues to be, a struggle to find people to fill the board seats.
Quoting the article:
"RE-1 would like to reduce its board membership from seven to five and change from all director districts to four at-large seats, meaning they could be filled by anyone living in the school district, and one director district representing the Caliche area. Bingham will interview eight or 10 people about what is generally considered to be the Caliche area to determine boundaries for that seat. The board wants to make these changes due to ongoing struggles in filling empty seats. Right now, there are two empty seats. The District 7 seat has remained vacant since February 2023 due to a lack of interest and at Wednesday’s meeting, the board moved to postpone interviews for a vacancy in District 4 until a future date and to reopen the application process to attract more candidates. If someone is selected, they would serve until November, when they would have to run for election."
2023? That's startling. Clearly the vacancies are not a recent problem, nor does this appear to be gamesmanship by the board.
I'm not usually in favor of diluting the power of citizens, but it would be ignoring reality to not face up to the fact that the voters in RE-1 are not too concerned. I'm inclined to think (pending further thought prior to the election -- and if you have thoughts please add them) I'd be a yes here. If we don't have butts in the seats, reducing their number sure doesn't seem like it would change much.
The second issue for the ballot will be a bond. This is where this story intersects with a recent issue I've been watching closely: RE-1 Valley had tried to get a BEST (Building Excellent Schools Today -- see the second link below) grant to do some upgrades on school facilities, but failed. BEST is one of the programs funded in part by revenues generated from leasing public lands through the State Land Board.
With the failure to get the RE-1 grant, the school board seemed wary about asking voters for a bond, but decided to go ahead. There was some back and forth, some minor disagreement, among the board members over putting this on the ballot (interestingly, didn't seem to be any about the redistricting), which I will leave to you to read in the article.
I'm inclined to be a yes on this one as well. I'm not averse to paying taxes, I am a parent in this district, but I do want to be asked. I also want to make sure that any increase I pay goes to something I want (not a slush fund), and that once that program is paid up, the money-taking stops. If this ballot measure satisfactorily meets this criteria, I'm on board.
I'll have more on this issue once we're closer to November and the actual text of both measures is released. One last heads up, remember that you, via TABOR, have the right to weigh in on local ballot issues related to money in the "Grey Book" (the local ballot issue guide). I've posted in the past about that and will likely touch on it again prior to November. If you want to weigh in, be watching.
https://www.journal-advocate.com/2025/06/05/re-1-valley-seeking-voter-approval-for-bond-change-in-board-makeup/
https://www.cde.state.co.us/capitalconstruction/best
Weigh in on CDOT's Active Transportation Plan
CDOT recently released a draft version of their Statewide Active Transportation plan. If you're wondering what exactly "active transportation" is, check out screenshot 1. This is how, per CDOT's page linked first below, they define it.
Both due to state law and a desire on their part, CDOT is working their hardest to incorporate transportation and active transportation into their planning.
Quoting their page (with links intact), CDOT's active transportation draft plan "... works alongside other major statewide efforts — like the Statewide Transportation Plan, the Strategic Transportation Safety Plan, and the Governor’s Colorado Transportation Vision 2035 — to make sure walking and biking are included in big-picture transportation decisions. By coordinating with these efforts, CDOT ensures that active transportation is part of the broader conversation about improving mobility, safety, equity, sustainability, and accessibility across the state."
You could reasonably argue whether or not we need this plan and/or where it ought to fit on the list of priorities for transportation in this state, but wherever you land on this, now is your chance to weigh in.
I'd say this is doubly important if you are NOT a rabid public transportation fan and/or bicyclist because I can assure you that there will be plenty of comment from that crowd in CDOT's files. Some balance, in other words, is needed.
The first link at bottom has both the draft plan and also the links for you to send in comment.
I have a reader who runs their own Substack (Green Leap Forward). They commented on a previous newsletter and brought it to my attention, including a detailed rundown of their issues on CDOT's plan. If it is helpful to you and/or if you want to see their perspective on it, I included a link to that comment second below.
https://www.codot.gov/programs/bikeped/planning/Bike_Ped_Plan
https://coloradoaccountabilityproject.substack.com/p/it-kind-of-looks-like-science-if/comment/127248435?utm_source=activity_item#comment-127724154?utm_source=activity_item
Denver builder goes to court over Inclusionary Zoning.
Per the Complete article linked below, a Denver builder has sued the city over its Linkage Fee ordinance. Before looking in on the suit, let's do a quick bit of spadework on what inclusionary zoning is and the history behind Denver's effort.
Inclusionary zoning is a term for a municipality requiring developers to build some type of affordable housing alongside their market rate housing. This can take the form of actual units built, or paying for an indulgence to cover the sin of building your building on your land (said indulgences being collected by the municipality to fund affordable housing at an alternate location). The graphic heading this post provides a visual if it's helpful.
How is it that something like this is legal? Doesn't Colorado have a statewide prohibition on rent control, etc.?
Colorado did. But in 2021, see the second link below (check out that roster of progressives all stars!) the Dems passed, and our "libertarian-leaning" governor signed, a bill ending the statewide prohibition against some types of rent control. Screenshot 1 attached is a summary of the legislation from the bill's fiscal note.
Having never seen a form of social control that they it didn't like, the City of Denver voted in its own version of inclusionary zoning in 2022. Denver's program site is linked third below. Their history in brief is in screenshot 2 (taken from this site).
Screenshot 3 attached is Denver's overview of their policy from that same site. Matching what is in the 2021 bill's fiscal note, you'll note Denver's alternative to building affordable housing on site. This is the indulgence I mentioned earlier. You'll also note that, in keeping with the graphic heading this post, Denver offers incentives to builders to include on site affordable housing units.
On top of all of this (per bullet point 2 in the screenshot), Denver charges an increasing fee on development to further advance their goal of funding housing.
Back to the lawsuit in the Complete article.
Quoting from that article, "A Denver-based home builder has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the City and County of Denver for what the company says is unconstitutional 'inclusionary zoning.' Nathan Adams, founder and CEO of redT Homes is challenging 'Denver’s permitting scheme, which forces builders to either set aside units to sell at below-market prices or pay huge fees to help create affordable housing,' according to a news release from Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a public interest law firm which is representing Adams free of charge. At issue in this case is Denver’s Linkage Fee ordinance, which was passed in 2022, that Adams’ attorneys refer to as 'an exorbitant ransom for permission to build much-needed homes and exacerbates the problem the fee is trying to solve.'"
I wish Mr. Adams luck. He and his attorneys are right, despite the cheery language on the Denver page and the repeated references to working together with everyone while singing kumbaya, this is a government taking. I'm glad to see (and not surprised) that he's taking his suit to Federal court. He'll stand a better chance there since it won't run through the rubberstamp mill for Democrat policy that Colorado's courts have become.
I couldn't find a link (and I can't remember), but in looking over the bill summary in the fiscal note, I couldn't help but think that this has Polis' hands all over it. This is a quintessential example of his modus operandi: tone down progressive excess so he can tell one group he stood up for reason and can tell another that he's working to bring Colorado into their glorious future. Probably tossed in a few words about alternatives, incentives, his Colorado Way (TM), and local choice too.
The end result, regardless of the intent or rhetoric, is what you see here. The government forcing private industry to fund subsidies to the people it favors. All the alternatives offer is the excitement of handing over money in lieu of the government telling you what to build.
If inclusionary zoning were merely what the graphic at the top of this post hints at; that is, if it were an incentive program, it would be easier to swallow.
It's not, however. Inclusionary zoning as the Colorado Dems (Polis, legislators, Denver politicians included) have it is anything but voluntary or incentive driven. It's the coercive power of the government applied to its citizens.
https://completecolorado.com/2025/06/12/homebuilder-takes-denver-to-court-inclusionary-zoning/