Just in case it isn’t clear to some lawmakers at the State Capitol, “one size fits all” isn’t actually a compliment. It’s sarcasm. Because, you see, one size generally doesn’t fit all. Which is why attempts to mandate one supposed solution for wide-ranging circumstances usually backfire.

Members of the Legislature ought to keep that in mind before going any further with plans to make local governments cluster more housing around public transit hubs and workplaces. Whatever the merits in theory of House Bill 24-1313’s “density goals,” the reality is that approach won’t necessarily work in some of the targeted locales. It might not be much of a priority at all in those communities, and for good reason.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

The legislation could wind up pounding a square peg into a round hole, in other words — to say nothing of traipsing on the right of local governments to enact policies that work best for their citizens.

A hopeful sign as the bill advances is even some lawmakers who tentatively support it are expressing second thoughts.

As reported this week by Colorado Politics, HB 24-1313 passed the state House of Representatives over the weekend and now heads to the Senate. Some members who voted for it are saying they want to see the Senate make changes to key provisions.

The bill pushes local governments in Colorado’s largest urban corridors to plan and implement state-approved housing “density goals” intended to promote more housing near transit systems. Cities, counties and other local entities would be expected to implement public subsidies, “inclusionary” zoning ordinances and deed restrictions to achieve the bill’s goals. Among other provisions, the legislation would require the use of limits on maximum rents or sale prices for some housing near public transit. It amounts to some pretty heavy-handed meddling in the housing market.

To help local governments put such policies in place, the legislation establishes a state-funded grant program and offers local governments technical assistance. That’s the carrot.

The stick is the bill would penalize municipalities that don’t comply — withholding their state allocation of funding from the Highway Users Tax Fund. Local governments that don’t kow-tow also could face a court injunction under the legislation.

Not surprisingly, influential stakeholder groups like the Colorado Municipal League and Colorado Counties, Inc., along with dozens of cities located in the areas targeted by the state, are up in arms. Justifiably so.

Those and other critics realize the bill is in fact this year’s version of last year’s attempt by the administration of Gov. Jared Polis and his legislative allies to force a zoning mandate on local governments. It ran into the same opposition and died on the last day of the 2023 session.

Either the proponents didn’t get the message then or perhaps think opposition now has softened. Or, maybe the administration and its legislative supporters consider this a scaled-down version that should be more palatable.

Alas, the inherent problem is the same. Aside from the odious threat in this year’s bill to withhold tax funding to which local governments are entitled, the fundamental flaw is that local zoning laws are intended to address local concerns about the shape and scope of communities. That’s why they are, and should be, up to local governments to enact.

Polis and his fellow visionaries don’t live in Pueblo or Grand Junction or Colorado Springs — all of which would be affected — and don’t have a clue whether citizens in those climes even want, or need, transit-oriented housing. Those same residents may have a very different view of how their urban centers should look and what the land use and types of housing in them should be. And — gasp — public transit may not even play much of a role in those communities to begin with.

Lawmakers who have expressed reservations are right to second-guess HB 24-1313. If it isn’t fundamentally amended so that it backs off of its attack on local control over local zoning, it should face the same fate as last year’s effort.

Denver Gazette Editorial Board