On Ballot Question 300
Louisville’s registered voters will decide on two citizen-initiated ballot questions on 4 November 2025. In this newsletter I discuss ballot question 300; in a future newsletter I will discuss ballot question 301. After stating the content of ballot question 300 and providing some relevant background, I explain my opposition to ballot question 300, particularly relating to my aspiration to create much more affordable housing in Louisville. I conclude by recommending alternatives to ballot question 300 for expanding affordable housing in Louisville and by examining the effects of ballot question 300 on environmental sustainability and diversity, equity, and inclusion in Louisville.
What does ballot question 300 ask?
Ballot question 300, if approved, would prohibit rezoning properties in the Centennial Valley, Avista Hospital campus, and Redtail Ridge from commercial to residential with one exception: any residential development on rezoned property must designate 30% of its units as deed-restricted affordable for households earning 80% or less of the area median income. I briefly explain the terminology of ballot question 300; I also recommend that you read the City’s informational webpage on ballot question 300.
The Centennial Valley comprises most of the properties west of McCaslin Boulevard, north of Dillon Road, and southeast of Davidson Mesa; the Avista Hospital campus is the property currently home to Avista Hospital, Centennial Peak Hospital, and associated medical offices; Redtail Ridge is the property at Louisville’s southeast corner formerly home to StorageTek. Almost all properties in these three areas are commercially zoned, disallowing residential development. The first draft of the City’s new Comprehensive Plan envisions residential development in these three areas. After one more round of input from the Planning Commission and the public, City Council will consider adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan early next year. Even then, as a comprehensive plan is not a regulatory document, any zoning changes envisioned in the City’s new Comprehensive Plan would still require formalization by ordinance.
According to Colorado’s Department of Local Affairs, Boulder County’s 2025 area median income is $150,600 for a four-person household, 80% of which is $120,480. A widely accepted guideline recommends that a household should not spend more than 30% of its income on housing costs; accordingly, a deed-restricted affordable unit, whether for rent or sale, would cost just over $3000 per month for a four-person household earning 80% of the area median income.
What is the status of affordable housing in Louisville?
Several years ago the City signed onto a Boulder County-wide goal of establishing 12% of all residential units as deed-restricted affordable by 2035. Currently, about 3% of Louisville’s residential units are deed-restricted affordable. The County-wide agreement does not specify the geographical distribution of affordable units, but consideration of achieving the 12% goal within Louisville is informative. Working towards this goal solely by adding affordable units, Louisville would require almost 900 additional such units, the equivalent of several new Kestrels. Given the City’s paucity of undeveloped and redevelopable residentially-zoned property, I doubt that Louisville can add 900 units without considerable zoning changes in existing neighborhoods or new residential development on rezoned commercial property. The vast majority of such property falls within the Centennial Valley and Redtail Ridge. (As I understand, Avista Hospital plans to retain its current facilities for medical purposes even after building a new hospital at Redtail Ridge and expects not to have any further development rights at its current campus.) Moreover, the vast majority of developable or redevelopable property is privately owned, so adding solely affordable units—with no market-rate component—strikes me as an implausible route to the 12% goal.
A few years ago, as a step towards achieving the 12% goal, City Council adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance requiring that any new residential development designate 12% of its units as deed-restricted affordable, 6% for households earning 60% of the area median income and 6% for households earning 80% of the area median income. As required by Colorado Revised Statutes, specifically CRS 29-20-104.1(e.5), this ordinance provides alternatives to constructing the affordable units on-site. One option is payment of a fee in lieu proportional to the development’s square footage. As a private resident I spoke in support of this ordinance. Not long thereafter, City Council considered an ordinance almost identical to ballot question 300. As a private resident I expressed support for the sentiment of creating significantly more affordable housing but cautioned about the feasibility of this ordinance’s approach. City Council declined to adopt this ordinance. Since adoption of the inclusionary housing ordinance, City Council has only approved two residential developments; in both cases the developers have opted to pay fees in lieu.
Earlier this year City Council, myself included, discussed changes to the inclusionary housing ordinance, principally the addition of incentives for on-site construction of affordable units. City Council is also determining how to best spend $2 million of capital funds dedicated to expanding affordable housing in Louisville.
Why do I oppose ballot question 300?
At its meeting on 7 October 2025, City Council unanimously adopted a resolution opposing ballot question 300. While this resolution accurately reflects my position on ballot question 300, this resolution neither fully conveys nor explains my perspective. I oppose ballot question 300 for two principal reasons. First, as an advocate for affordable housing, I oppose ballot question 300 because its model is financially infeasible and potentially relegates lower-income households. Second, as a City Councilor sworn to uphold municipal, state, and federal law and pursue the City’s best interests, I oppose ballot question 300 because its stipulations likely violate Colorado State law and its adoption likely exposes the City to legal challenges. I now elaborate on my reasoning.
My opposition as an affordable housing advocate
As I have written elsewhere, a dearth of affordable housing is Louisville’s most pressing issue, adversely affecting our social cohesion, economic vitality, school enrollments, and carbon footprint. Louisville needs affordable housing for people for all walks of life: young adults hoping to return to our community after college, new families hoping to join our community and support our schools, in-commuting employees hoping to live in the community where they work, and downsizing empty nesters hoping to remain in our community. For the past few years I have advocated for the creation of more affordable housing in Louisville. While I do not possess any particular expertise concerning affordable housing development, I have attempted to educate myself.
In principle, requiring that 30% of all new residential units be deed-restricted affordable would significantly advance Louisville’s contribution to the County-wide 12% goal. In practice, such a requirement will almost certainly prevent affordable housing—and any other housing—from being developed. Within a new residential development, a developer should be able to designate a few percent of units as deed-restricted affordable without assistance, and a developer should be able to designate several percent of units as deed-restricted affordable with modest incentives. When City Council finishes updating the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, I hope that the City offers incentives sufficient to enable on-site construction of 15% of units as deed-restricted affordable. Only stupendous incentives could enable on-site construction of 30% of units as deed-restricted affordable. The City could attempt to offer such incentives, but these incentives would presumably allow development incongruent with Louisville’s built character.
I am not interest in lining developers’ pockets by offering incentives for on-site construction of affordable units or by opening the Centennial Valley and Redtail Ridge to residential development; I am interested in working with developers to create substantial affordable housing in these areas. Developers will only collaborate with the City if housing projects meet their financial guidelines and those of the financial institutions backing their projects. One could argue that the City should pursue other means to create affordable housing. Other models, like social housing, exist for creating affordable housing, and these models may well prove preferable to private developments. The majority of property on which affordable housing could be developed is privately owned, so the feasibility of other models is questionable, and the City does not have funds to purchase much property. One could also argue that the City should only pursue affordable housing projects in collaboration with the Boulder County Housing Authority and nonprofits like Thistle Community Housing. (The Boulder County Housing Authority manages all of the deed-restricted affordable units in Louisville.) While the Boulder County Housing Authority also constructs new affordable units, its construction capacity is limited. For instance, Kestrel was its last project in Louisville, and Willoughby Corner in Lafayette has occupied all of its capacity for the past few years. Again, Boulder County owns limited property in Louisville for further development of affordable housing, and the Boulder County Housing Authority eventually contracts with private companies to develop its projects. If Louisville wants to make significant progress towards the 12% goal, as I do, then we must collaborate with private developers.
Given that the Centennial Valley and Redtail Ridge will likely host the majority of new residential development in Louisville, the level of affordability specified by ballot question 300 concerns me. Ballot question 300 sets this level at 80% or less of the area median income, but, of course, deed-restricting any and all affordable units at 80% of the area median income is financially favorable. Louisville needs affordable housing for households earning a wide spectrum of incomes, both above and below 80% of the area median income. Indeed, the housing study recently conducted by the Denver Regional Council of Governments finds that households earning 50% or less of the area median income have the greatest need for affordable housing. Such information should drive City Council’s policy decisions and actions.
My opposition as a City Councilor
Two Colorado Revised Statutes are relevant to the legality of ballot measure 300. First, CRS 29-20-104.1(e.5) clarifies that a local government’s requirements for inclusion of affordable housing does not constitute rent control—currently disallowed by CRS 38-12-301—provided that the local government furnishes one or more options for developers to meet the requirements. Ballot question 300 imposes a requirement for on-site inclusion of affordable housing as a condition on rezoning. While inclusionary housing ordinances typically apply to properties already zoned for residential development, ballot question 300 would effectively constitute an addition to the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance for the three specified areas, and ballot question 300 would effectively control rents of affordable rental units in these areas. By not offering any alternatives to on-site construction of affordable units, ballot question 300 would thus appear to violate CRS 29-20-104.1(e.5). If Louisville’s registered voters approve ballot question 300, then the City may be at risk of legal challenges on this basis. Moreover, if Louisville’s registered voters approve ballot question 300, then City Council may not subsequently be able to include one or more options: the City’s charter prohibits alterations of ordinances adopted by ballot question for four years.
Second, CRS 29-20-104.2 prohibits local governments from enacting or enforcing “anti-growth laws”. Ballot question 300 appears to evade this statute’s definition of “anti-growth laws”. As I have argued above, ballot question 300 would likely stifle new residential development by subjecting rezoning to financially infeasible conditions. In this sense ballot question 300 is arguably anti-growth. I do not possess the legal expertise necessary to determine whether ballot question 300 would violate CRS 29-20-104.2. If Louisville’s registered voters approve ballot question 300, then the City may be at risk of legal challenges on this basis.
How should Louisville progress on creating affordable housing?
Although I oppose ballot question 300, its existence—as well as discussions with its proponents and supporters—has pushed me to think deeply about creating more affordable housing in Louisville. I am now more convinced than ever that the City must establish provisions to ensure development of affordable housing beyond the requirements of the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, especially in the Centennial Valley and Redtail Ridge where residential development could significantly advance the County-wide 12% goal. Given that the model offered by ballot question 300 is problematic but the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, with its 12% requirement and fee in lieu option, is insufficient, how should Louisville proceed? First City Council must enshrine a compelling vision for affordable housing in the City's new Comprehensive Plan, and then we must work resolutely towards this vision. We should collaborate with private developers to build projects with 100% of units as deed-restricted affordable. Unlike a 30% requirement, a 100% requirement is financially feasible owing to federal and state grants and incentives for such projects. We should enthusiastically support affordable housing projects developed by nonprofits like the Boulder County Housing Authority, Habitat for Humanity, and Thistle Community Housing. We should also finish updating the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance to incentivize on-site construction of 15% of units as deed-restricted affordable, create a program for designating accessory dwelling units as affordable, establish housing fees for demolition of existing homes, and consider housing linkage fees for employment-producing commercial development.
How would ballot question 300 affect environmental sustainability and diversity, equity, and inclusion?
Thus far I have mentioned neither environmental sustainability nor diversity, equity, and inclusion. Advancing both of these priorities is always at the forefront of my decisions and actions, and City Council has resolved to view all of its work through the lenses of these priorities. Ballot question 300 would advance neither environmental sustainability nor diversity, equity, and inclusion in Louisville.
I appreciate that some residents view further development as counter to environmental sustainability, particularly conservation of open spaces. In at least one respect I must agree: a prohibition on all further greenfield development would result in further conservation of open spaces. I also wholeheartedly affirm—and established science supports—that conservation of much more land as wilderness is vital to the continued existence of all life on Earth. A prohibition on all further greenfield development is unfortunately unrealistic. As a community committed to environmental sustainability, Louisville can secure sustainable development in our City, offsetting less sustainable development elsewhere. We can prioritize higher-density infill development in the Centennial Valley and higher-density brownfield development at Redtail Ridge. (Higher-density development is generally more environmentally sustainable too.) Moreover, we can create neighborhoods in these areas with housing, especially affordable housing, near places offering amenities, employment, and services, reducing local and regional vehicle trips to some extent. By stifling housing development in Louisville, ballot question 300 would likely result in more sprawling development in neighboring municipalities.
I also appreciate that some residents view further growth as eroding Louisville’s character, particularly as a relatively small city. In at least one respect I must agree: a prohibition on all further growth would not only keep Louisville small, but, given demographic trends, likely make Louisville even smaller. Louisville’s character is not inextricably linked to its population: Louisville has grown tenfold over the past several decades, yet Louisville retains most of its charming, cherished character. As I suggested above, we also stand to erode Louisville’s character through a dearth of affordable housing. If we want to retain and grow our community’s diversity, if we want to provide more equitable access to housing, if we want our community to be more inclusive of all, then we must create more affordable housing in Louisville. Finding and retaining housing present two of the high barriers to belonging to our community, so creating more affordable housing is probably the most impactful strategy for making Louisville more diverse, equitable, and inclusive. By stifling housing development in Louisville, ballot question 300 would likely run counter to so strengthening our community.
I hope that I have clearly—if not so concisely—conveyed and explained my opposition to ballot question 300. I have emphasized those issues about which I am most concerned and knowledgeable. Ballot question 300 would entail other consequences for Louisville, but I will not speculate further here.
