An endorsement by Denver’s mayor late last week of a controversial state proposal to force new land-use rules on local governments certainly stirred the pot. But it’s unlikely to change minds in the many other Colorado communities adamantly opposed to such meddling by the state.

Their opposition is wholly justified. Zoning policies historically are a strictly local prerogative, and for good reason. As The Gazette’s editorial board noted here just last week, one size doesn’t fit all. Not only are no two Colorado municipalities or counties alike, but many are in fact widely divergent in their lifestyles, landscapes, economies and overall public sensibilities.

How many unrelated people should be able to split the rent and live in a household? Where do multifamily housing and single-family residences make the most, or least, sense? How tall should buildings be in a given locale? Should residential development be clustered around transit hubs? Those and many other considerations are likely to evoke different responses from one community to the next. Which is why such matters are best left to local governments, which are nearest the people.

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

Accordingly, House Bill 24-1313’s “density goals” might work in some of the Colorado locales targeted by the legislation, but not necessarily in others. The bill would, among other things, make local governments cluster more housing around public transit hubs and workplaces.

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

HB 24-1313 already has passed the state House of Representatives and is scheduled to face its first committee hearing in the Senate today. The bill pushes local governments in Colorado’s largest urban corridors to implement the state-approved housing density goals using public subsidies, “inclusionary” zoning ordinances and deed restrictions on land use. Among other provisions, the legislation would require the use of limits on maximum rents or sale prices for some housing near public transit. It’s all pretty heavy-handed.

To help local governments impose those policies, the legislation establishes a state-funded grant program and offers local governments technical assistance. But for those municipalities that balk, the proposed law would withhold their state allocation of transportation funding from the Highway Users Tax Fund. Holdout local governments also could face a court injunction.

As reported by The Gazette, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and City Council President Jamie Torres have publicly announced their support for the measure, saying its incentives to build housing near transit and workplace centers makes it attractive for Denver. So, the legislation synchs with Denver City Hall’s priorities.

But how about the land-use priorities of Fort Collins? Or Pueblo? Or Grand Junction? Or, Colorado Springs? Or numerous local entities covered by the bill?

As The Gazette reported, 90 cities and towns beg to differ with Denver. On March 28, their governments sent a letter to lawmakers pleading that they work together, not against one another. Many legislators, including some who otherwise support the bill’s goals in concept, are understandably opposed to the provision in HB-1313 that penalizes noncompliant municipalities by forfeiting money allocated to them under the State Highway Users Tax Fund. Same goes for the bill’s provision allowing for a court order compelling local communities to toe the new state line of the law is enacted.

A similar measure stalled and died in the Legislature last year. As currently drafted, HB-1313 is fundamentally as intrusive, presumptuous and overreaching — and warrants the same fate.

Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board