Early election night results show Denver voters soundly rejecting a proposal requiring landlords to pay a $75 per year per property to fund legal representation for renters facing eviction. Just over 107,000 votes have been counted, with about 60% of voters rejecting the ordinance as of 9:30 p.m. Tuesday. 

The ordinance was expected to raise just under $12 million in its first year and would have been passed by the city within a year.

The new tax would have also funded a tenants’ committee, where members will be paid $1,000 per year. Earnings from the ordinance would be collected, retained and spent as voter approved revenue as part of TABOR. 

Proponents of the bill argued the ordinance would have reduced homelessness, as eviction is often a precursor of it. Other benefits would have included creating an equitable relationship between renters and landlords. 

Supporters also believed evictions would have dropped by half. Additionally, the ordinance would have given renters the ability to get an attorney, something only 1% of them currently do. That’s compared to 90% of landlords, according to “Yes for 305.” 

But not everyone saw eye-to-eye with the way the ordinance was created and put before voters. Opposition group “No on 305” has said the ordinance may not be needed in Denver, which already has very low eviction rates. Eviction filings reached a low in May 2020, but have steadily increased since. 

Opponents argued tying the annual tax to inflation was a flawed metric. Inflation can increase, and has increased by about 7.7% over 12 months, which increases the cost of the annual tax. Inflation in Denver is lower than the national average and has gone down by 0.2% over two months, but inflation is constantly changing based on many different factors. 

The increased tax on landlords may also find its way to tenants by way of higher rents. Landlords have to cover their costs, and this is one more expense they will likely pass to renters, according to ordinance opponents. 

Finally, opponents said the money raised should have been used for rental assistance, rather than paying attorneys. The money under proposed ordinance 305 would have gone towards funding private citizens suing one another, as opposed to helping those who need it, they argued.