Local growth-control plan rejected

By Trent Seibert
February 6, 2001

The first major growth bill to come before Colorado lawmakers was defeated Monday.

And Rep. Glenn Scott, who chairs the House Local Government Committee that killed the bill, said the two remaining major growth plans will likely see significant changes.

"None of these bills are going to look the way they do now," said Scott, a Republican from Westminster.

The defeated bill, sponsored by Rep. Tom Plant, D-Nederland, was backed by environmentalists and would have given local governments two years to adopt comprehensive growth plans that would have the force of law.

The plans would have taken into account items such as affordable housing, open space, protection for environmentally sensitive areas, and recreational lands.

Some opponents said the plan would wipe out personal property rights.

"This is not a good omen about how serious the legislature is about doing something to rein in sprawl," said Elise Jones of the Colorado Environmental Coalition, which backed Plant's plan.

Monday's 6-5 committee vote defeating House Bill 1165 also doesn't appear to be a good omen for the legislature to decide quickly about growth, either.

For example:

- The debate and the process of adding amendments was hours long.

- The forces lining up for the growth plans are an apparent mishmash. In the case of Plant's bill, a Longmont Republican joined the environmentalists to support it and a Denver Democrat voted to defeat it.

- Contrasts appear to be commonplace. For example, the mayor of Aurora, a city that has had a reputation for allowing sprawl, drove to Denver to support the bill. "This bill is superior to others," Mayor Paul Tauer said.

The next major growth plan will be con sidered Wednesday.

That bill, sponsored by Sen. Ed Perlmutter, D-Jefferson County, and Rep. Joe Stengel, R-Littleton, was crafted by a team of 50 environmentalists, business leaders and government officials led by a group called the Colorado Forum.

That bill would create "urban growth boundaries," lines on a map to clearly state where developments can and cannot be built. It also embraces regional growth plans, allowing input from entire metropolitan areas, not just a single city or county.

The third major growth plan, also sponsored by Perlmutter and Stengel, was written by a group called the Colorado Coalition for Growth Management, which originally formed to oppose Amendment 24, a citizen-driven, growth-management amendment that voters rejected on Election Day.

That plan, which will be debated Monday, allows local governments to decide where growth should go. In addition, it contains a looser concept of setting aside land for open space and growth, instead of having a specific growth boundary drawn through a map.

Since both plans will likely go through major changes, Scott said he wanted to get growth bills with little support, such as Plant's, out of the way so legislators can concentrate in hammering together a sin gle compromise growth plan.

"As far as I'm concerned, we didn't vote on the concepts today," Scott said. "If we send multiple growth bills to the floor, we'll jam it up for days with amendments."

Last year, lawmakers failed to come up with a plan in a dispute between local and state control.