I oppose the citizen initiative brought forth by Preserve Estes Park. This initiative would require written approval from two-thirds of neighboring property owners within 500 feet of any property proposed for rezoning or a Planned Unit Development in Estes Park.
While I support meaningful public engagement in local land use decisions, this measure goes too far and carries serious consequences for all property owners, the local economy, and possibly the legal integrity of our town government.
This initiative strips rights from property owners
The measures give neighbors near a proposed project the power to override or veto a property owner’s right to seek lawful improvements or changes via due process. This could affect:
- A local business trying to expand or relocate.
- A property owner proposing an environmentally sensitive redevelopment.
- A property owner, developer, or the town itself wanting to build multi-family, higher density, and or affordable housing.
Instead of fair hearings and planning reviews as our system provides, neighbors would need to seek permission from surrounding property owners who may have no stake in the project and no incentive to approve it. This effectively puts a “forbidden zone” around every parcel in Estes Park.
The measure is legally questionable and arguably unconstitutional. This is from the Constitution’s Non-Delegation Doctrine (Article I, §1). Also, look to the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees procedural and substantive due process (a zoning applicant has the right to have their request evaluated by public officials, not private citizens).
By giving private citizens veto power over land use decisions on neighboring properties, this initiative, in my opinion, crosses a constitutional line.
- It delegates public authority to a select group of neighbors, without accountability or legal standards.
- It undermines the due process rights of applicants to have their proposals heard and judged fairly by town officials via the established and transparent review process already in place.
- It could potentially expose Estes Park to costly lawsuits and legal uncertainty, at the expense of taxpayers.
This initiative would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to move forward with our established goal – the Estes Forward Plan – of creating housing opportunities for younger people and families in our community who work here and serve us.
These younger people are the future of Estes Park. The average age of our current population is increasing rapidly, surpassing the national average. If we do not openly welcome young families into our community by making it possible for them to afford housing, the average age of our residents will continue to increase, reaching a point where the town will be unable to sustain itself.
If this initiative passes, it would be virtually impossible to build any affordable housing in Estes Park. I have heard Preserve Estes Park members comment, “We are all for building affordable housing to help new families and workers be able to live in Estes Park. It should be built in areas where affordable housing already exists.”
This sentiment is patently disingenuous because there is no property available to do this in any of the areas where affordable housing already exists. Even if it were available, those areas become segregated low-income neighborhoods wrought with problems, that in my opinion, would not happen with housing thoughtfully sprinkled throughout the community.
Furthermore, should this initiative pass, we would no longer need the 6E taxes the town collects. This funding was deemed crucial by the voters of Estes Park for addressing the housing crisis and childcare shortages in the community, making it a more livable and vibrant place to live. Should this new ballot initiative proposed by Preserve Estes Park be adopted by our community, the 6E tax should be eliminated. Since this tax revenue is legally earmarked for new housing and childcare, there would not be any meaningful legal avenue remaining to spend that money on.
We need community solutions, not lockdowns. We all want Estes Park to retain its character while remaining vibrant, livable, and inclusive. That means:
- Encouraging reasonable and responsible development via due process
- Protecting property rights
- Ensuring public input — without enabling veto power
oh, please. What an exaggeration. What you are saying then is that unless everyone gives up their single family homes and current owners don’t move out, the Town will collapse. You need to read the proposals. It only requires some neighbor approval if a parcel is re-zoned. Anything can be built if it matches the zoning that is assigned. And the density bonuses built almost no affordable housing.. just let developers make more money. The vote is to save Estes Park and the people who live here.
Well said Jeff! Thanks for chiming in on this issue. People need to understand that a group of citizens can not legally over ride the Comprehensive plan that all the citizens were given opportunity to develop. The EP Org chart shows the “Citizens” on top and the citizens spoke into the Comprehensive plan over a two year period. So if an application meets all the criteria as stated in the Comprehensive Plan they deserve approval to move forward with their project.
But we can try to recall it! Comprehensive Plan was not presented to the public as it is being sold today…aka…let’s rezone all the larger properties (long established) subdivisions for the financial profit of developers, contractors, real estate agents…really! Does not benefit the larger property owners…we are the ones being attacked and discriminated against. Tell Housing Authority to utilize their 11 acres for a lot of housing. Yet they say they are land banking. There were people that asked questions about what will happen to their property at those meetings, yet their concerns were ignored. There were some ethics violations that should have been addressed during a few Comprehensive Planning Advisory Committee meetings regarding members. And yes, those meetings were recorded.
But, the Town overrides the Comp Plan all the time. They rezoned some single family lots, right in the middle of or next too, the neighborhoods, to cram in multifamily. And, even the new Comp Plan limits Planned Unit Developments (mixed use) to a few commercial areas, but the Town Board adopted it for anywhere in Town. And, even those on the Comp Plan committee did not intend to change all residential lots down to 1/4 acre. BTW, the Comp Plan is a suggestion, not a mandate. Citizens who bought here thinking their homes were protected by the zoning code they lived have no protections from the Town changing it.
Is it legal—or constitutional—for the Town to even consider placing this initiative on the ballot?
As Jeff Robbins’
letter outlines, the measure appears to violate multiple legal principles, including:
• The Non-Delegation Doctrine (Article I, §1), which prohibits delegating government authority to private individuals without standards or accountability;
• The Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures due process rights—including the right of property owners to have land use decisions made by public officials, not private neighbors.
I understand that the Board sees two available options: (1) approve the initiative outright or (2) refer it to the voters. But I believe there is a third, more responsible option: do nothing. If the proposed initiative is clearly unconstitutional, the Town should not act on it at all. Placing an unconstitutional measure on the ballot lends it legitimacy and puts the Town at risk of costly legal challenges.
It’s not just a policy issue—it’s a legal and ethical one. The Town has a duty to protect the constitutional rights of its residents and uphold lawful procedures, not to facilitate a vote on a measure that may be fundamentally flawed or illegal.
Becky Robbins
It is illegal to re-zone a single lot, unless a “change of conditions” is proved. That is defined by nearly all the courts and the American Planning Assn as changes in uses, or non conformities, in the properties physically around the parcel. (despite one lawyer Trustee claiming he didn’t know what “change of conditions” was, despite receiving a brief. Not housing demand (which has not changed in 50 years,), not a new Comp plan (which is not a code or mandate, but just guidance). But the Town does it all of time, forcing individual lawsuits. Where’s the ethics in that?
Totally Agree EstesFirst!
In Mr. Robbins’ commentary, he states that the citizens initiatives are “arguably unconstitutional”. For clarification, he refers readers readers to Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution.
On the next day, his wife posts a comment in support of his commentary, making the same reference to the Constitution.
Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states IN ITS ENTIRETY ;
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
I wonder if Mr. or Mrs. Robbins could please explain his reasoning for this reference, and his determination of what makes these initiatives “unconstitutional” based on his own reference.
Laura Rustin
It is illegal to re-zone a single lot, unless a “change of conditions” is proved. That is defined by nearly all the courts and the American Planning Assn as changes in uses, or non conformities, in the properties physically around the parcel. (despite one lawyer Trustee claiming he didn’t know what “change of conditions” was, despite receiving a brief. Not housing demand (which has not changed in 50 years,), not a new Comp plan (which is not a code or mandate, but just guidance). But the Town does it all of time, forcing individual lawsuits. Where’s the ethics in that?
“Spot on” Estes First. Pun intended.
Two of the commentators here, and the author of another letter on the same topic, own several short term rental houses. Since they are asking all of us who live in quiet neighborhoods to give up the conditions we bought in to for more housing, are THEY going to give up their commercial ventures to create more housing?
I thank everyone for submitting comments.
Everyone should have a voice; however, the scattering of misinformation is wrong.
Registered Voters in the Town of Estes Park voiced their opinions by signing the 2 Citizens Ballot Initiative Petition Packets in full compliance with the Law, and they should be heard!
Having the right to vote should not be undermined by misinformation.
Mr. Robbins is opposed and that is his right. He can choose to vote no.
Ms. Robbins suggestion that the Town Board “…do nothing…” is unfair to the Citizens and wrong. Per Mayor Hall in the Public Elected Officials emails, “…all the Town Board can do is approve the initiatives or send them to an election.”
Thank you “EstesFirst.” I concur with all of your comments.
Thank you “cj” and Laura Rustin. I also concur with your comments.
Those who are submitting comments who also own STRs should perhaps consider how their STRs affect the housing in the Estes Valley.
These are my comments.
Thank you.