Some food for thought. And still I ask: is it about affordable housing or is it about government control?
Some food for thought...
One pattern I see in math and physics is how fruitful it can be to test and inquire into basic assumptions we all have. A look at what it means to count things alongside a look at infinity leads one to the intriguing idea that there is more than one kind of infinity, for example.
The RM Voice piece linked below was also intriguing to me, and for that same reason.
I’ll leave it to you to read it, but some interesting (if not entirely new) themes are there. Is common sense common? Is a self-evident truth self-evident to us all? What does it mean to be conservative? Is that changing?**
I wrote in the past about being liberty minded though not a party adherent (see the second link below). I would say questions like the above, as well as the author’s discussion of why political parties have fallen out of favor, are important ones for us in Colorado to consider because we need to examine things down to the foundations of our beliefs if conservatives are going to have any power in this state going forward, if we hope to have some sort of centrist sanity and power sharing.
There are too many now who see the word “conservative” and get mental images that you, as a member of that group, would not have associated with yourself or your beliefs. Communicating effectively and persuading people to your point of view (or at least to compromise) will mean we have to first define ourselves before we try to share with others.
Give the below a look and then think some. If you feel moved to, please feel free to add your thoughts to the comments.
Presented as some food for thought.
**Terms like conservative and liberal have definitely shifted with time, especially with regard to what issues one supports and what specific things one believes.
Related:
An interesting discussion between Mandy Connell and Senator Barb Kirkmeyer.
I have written in the past (in the context of a puzzling committee vote by my own State Senator Byron Pelton) about the strategy of working with the folks from the other party to get what compromises you can as opposed to a stance of complete, unyielding defiance.
Senator Kirkmeyer addresses her thoughts on this with regard to some of her own votes in the discussion.
https://koacolorado.iheart.com/featured/mandy-connell/content/2026-05-01-88-the-mandy-connell-podcast-05-01-26-interview-barb-kirkmeyer/
Related #2:
Again on the topic of working within what is basically a Democrat-controlled system. See the below re. the TAMALE bill and the compromises required to get it through the House but which were fixed later in the Senate.
https://completecolorado.com/2026/05/08/house-amendments-tamale-bill-unwound-colorado-senate/
And still I ask: is it about affordable housing or is it about government control?
The more I’ve dug into “affordable housing” in Colorado, and some of the fixes I see, the more a nagging question pops up in my brain.
What are we doing here: are we trying to make housing more affordable or are we trying to incrementally increase the government’s footprint in the housing market?
That question reared up on its hind legs again when I read the CPR article linked first below. It rears up every time I’m heading home and hear radio ads from the Sterling Housing Authority about how they have subsidized apartments for rent (and/or I see plenty of For Sale signs around town). It reared up when I saw how a developer specializing in “affordable housing” was seeking government grants to build a complex in Sterling (see the second link below).
By both my anecdotal experience (admittedly of small value) and the (also not hugely impressive though perhaps more thorough than mine) data in the CPR article, our state has housing. Vacancies are up. What we don’t have is housing at a price that people either can or want to pay. Perhaps also, as suggested by the vacancies at the housing authority up here, housing people don’t want.
The market seems now to be doing what you’d expect. Unlike before where you had lots of monied buyers competing for their chance at the Colorado Dream, you now have bunch of sellers trying to convince buyers to buy. Prices are coming down. If this continues, I would imagine builders will start pitching homes toward the middle instead of the high end.
Everyone has a thought on how to fix the housing market. There are suggestions aplenty. Which is best? What will work? I don’t know. Frankly, I’m skeptical of most policy I’ve seen.
Even assuming positive intent by those in the government,** I’m worried about a fix to a problem that has its own issues.
I’m worried about fixes that start up the typical progressive cycle: the solution is government, and when that fails, apply more government.
I’m worried also about a permanent “fix” by our government that will last a hell of a lot longer than the current problem. Markets can correct themselves (and will) a whole hell of a lot better than governments.
I don’t want to make anyone’s life more difficult, but I can’t help but wonder what kinds of difficult we’ll buy ourselves with government intervention in the housing market. It must be remembered that there is no choice without consequence.
And so the question remains. What is the “affordable housing” push about?
**I have frequently heard some version or another of the idea that there are some intent on policy which “breaks” the market so as to justify government intervention. Not outside of possibility, but here let’s stay with positive intent.
https://www.cpr.org/2026/05/06/colorado-home-buying-selling-spring/
Affordable housing is the liberal code word for public housing these days. Kind of like the "SNAP" card is the 21st century nonthreatening delivery means of the outdated food stamp. But there is a subtle difference between government delivered food and a roof over your head. Affordable housing has the advantage of being politically more effective as housing prices go up because it gives liberals the excuse of planting their seed (read that as vote) in otherwise conservative residential voting blocs. This helps greatly in changing red residential voting blocs purple, and in time dark blue. It started with the Clinton's (of all people) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). A federal law intended to stop religious discrimination has now been hijacked by liberals to allow and encourage affordable housing be built on religious properties with those churches in conservative districts of special interest. The hoped for eventual result: A diluted conservative voting district without the hassle of waiting ten years to gerrymander the voting district. Liberals are indeed evil, but don't ever think they aren't smart.