Access to affordable housing has been a Colorado challenge for nearly two decades. As the state’s economy recovered from the real estate collapse of the early 1990s, prices started rising and they’ve never looked back. Demand is finally crashing into economic reality with the average equity appreciation jumping by 9% during March alone. In 2018 B.C. (before COVID) Colorado homebuilders arranged a forum to examine why the construction defects legislation approved in HB 17-1279 was failing to incentivize more condos and townhouses. My column discussing their meeting concluded, “…reliance on the marketplace isn’t likely to prove successful. While home builders would be delighted to construct affordable housing, if they could turn a profit in the process, without subsidies… our housing crisis is likely to get far worse before it gets better.”

We’ve arrived – not only have things gotten far worse, but there’s a severe shortage of new housing, whether or not units are truly affordable. The home builder who observed four years ago that, “(we are) suffering from economic success” did not anticipate that what was then a mere shortage would evolve into a seller’s fever-dream. There’s an inherent lag time between proposing housing projects and actually bringing new apartments and homes onto the real estate market. It’s well past time to acknowledge we are confronting a housing emergency.

Addressing this problem will require us to roll back locally-enacted barriers to affordable housing which will prove particularly tricky in a “local control” state. Providing affordable housing is a concept widely embraced in theory, but rarely in practice and certainly not in your or my neighborhoods. The fear of low-income neighbors is largely imaginary, especially when ownership is prioritized over tenancy. It’s time to start thinking well outside the box.

Most local communities possess vacant public properties owned by the local school district or other governmental entities. Enabling legislation permitting these agencies to directly transfer surplus properties without cost to affordable-housing developers should be considered. So-called “tap fees” for water, sewer and associated infrastructure costs can run as high as $40,000 per home. These should also be waived in favor of a single-access charge for affordable housing projects that provide multiple units. Zoning and building code rules could also be relaxed as was recently approved by Boulder County for the homeowners planning to rebuild following January’s horrific fire.

Thinking more expansively, municipalities should be ready to set aside the current development model that requires a portion of each new development be set aside for limited income tenants – but only in exchange for a commitment to construct an even larger proportion of affordable housing starts within a 2-to-3 mile radius. Whether we approve of the attitudes of those who can afford multi-million dollar penthouses, we should recognize that most do not desire to share their creature comforts with those who have been less fortunate. Consequently, desperately needed projects often can’t get off the ground.

Pushing the envelope even further, why not offer tax credits to developers who utilize manufactured or modular construction techniques, an approach the Israelis have nearly perfected. These are permanent structures rather than trailer parks. Developers can offer additional positive suggestions. It’s in no one’s interest that Colorado’s housing market is effectively closed to 40% of incoming workers. We’ve reached a point of lunacy. A professional couple searching for a home in Denver’s Park Hill and ready to spend $900,000 were advised by their realtor to offer $225,000 over the asking price if they were serious about acquiring the home they wanted.

I recall traveling across Appalachia in the 1950s, passing clapboard shacks with no windows, curtains flapping in the breeze as barefoot children frolicked on the front porch. They may not have been homeless, but they were surely ill-housed. I’ve done my share of winter camping in Colorado and when I pass tent encampments of the homeless today, I know the residents spent many miserable nights this past winter. We can and should do better. This doesn’t mean we should put local governments into the business of building public housing.

There is ample evidence bureaucrats make poor developers. In many cities they’ve had trouble safely managing their housing inventory when assigned the responsibility. We don’t need another blue-ribbon panel of the usual suspects whose recommendations will ultimately be ignored. By placing risk with private developers, they will make far better arbiters of what will actually meet the needs of stakeholders – those yearning for a place where they can afford to raise their families.

Colorado will always be an attractive destination for visitors. It’s up to us to ensure the state remains an affordable place to live. This demands we think differently about meeting the needs of every resident. Simply leaving outcomes to chance is corroding our quality of life just as much as theirs.

Miller Hudson is a public affairs consultant and a former Colorado legislator.