Once upon a time, there was a community in the West that adopted a municipal ordinance restricting certain development in a particular zoning district unless “the written consent shall have been obtained of the owners of two-thirds of the property within 400 feet of the proposed building.”
Sound familiar? It is exactly what Ballot Question 300 on the Estes Park November ballot would do.
A trust that owned a home for the aged poor within the zoning district sought a building permit to replace the existing old building with a new, larger building. The permit was denied solely because adjoining property owners had not approved the project as required by the ordinance.
The owner challenged the denial in court, and the case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court: Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U.S. 116 (1928).
The court described the ordinance as follows:
“The section purports to give the owners of less than one-half the land within 400 feet of the proposed building authority — uncontrolled by any standard or rule prescribed by legislative action — to prevent the trustee from using its land for the proposed home. The superintendent is bound by the decision or inaction of such owners. There is no provision for review under the ordinance; their failure to give consent is final. They are not bound by any official duty, but are free to withhold consent for selfish reasons or arbitrarily, and may subject the trustee to their will or caprice.”
After years of litigation, and after noting that the right of the property owner to devote its land to any legitimate use is a property right within the protection of the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the delegation of power so attempted is repugnant to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.”
Does our community really want to pass an ordinance that is likely to be legally challenged if passed, and which is subject to binding legal precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that such an ordinance violated the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Even if such an ordinance is ultimately held to be invalid (as is almost certainly the case), the litigation alone would damage the town by stalling all development during the litigation because of the uncertainty generated by the litigation.
I urge you to vote NO on Ballot Question 300. It is a colossal waste of time and money and is contrary to our community’s firmly held principles of representative government.
Bill Brown is a Town of Estes Park Trustee and the Town Board’s liaison to the Estes Park Housing Authority. This statement was read into the record at the Sept. 9, 2025, Town Board meeting during the portion of the meeting reserved for Trustee comments and liaison reports.
Trustee Brown continues to use false and misleading statements, cloaked in legal format, to advance his personal agenda. His pronouncements in the recent Trustees meeting, and subsequently published in the Estes Valley Voice, persist in raising the specter of rampant lawsuits against the Town if Citizen’s Initiative 300 is passed. He bases this on the Supreme Court case known as Roberge.
The facts:
1. Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U.S. 116 , known as Roberge, was decided by the Supreme Court in 1928.
2. Roberge was about a building permit, not rezoning.
3. In the 97 years since Roberge, there has not been a single case of a lawsuit brought against a municipality in Colorado regarding rezoning that used Roberge as precedent.
Trustee Brown’s rhetoric is engendering fear and confusion. Reading the text of the Citizen’s Initiative 300 shows that it only seeks to give you and your neighbors a voice in how property is used in your neighborhood.
Bill,
Thank you for your opinion. You are correct. As Business Owners and property owners in Estes Park, we strongly urge all to VOTE NO on Initiative 300. It is wrong to allow a “mob” to take away valid property rights. This is much more than just a rezoning issue. It is clearly a method to stop any development in Estes Park and to open up our Town to have to waste tax money on legal bills. VOTE NO on Initiative 300. The Estes Park Chamber (the majority of our business community) also strongly urges a NO vote on this initiative.
Thank You Bill Brown for this opinion piece
To FunEstesPark,
We all have our opinions, but “FunEstesPark” calling concerned citizens a “mob” is defamatory, appalling, and deeply disrespectful. The supporters of Preserve Estes Park and these initiatives are NOT a “mob”, they are your friends, neighbors, property owners, business owners, and fellow citizens, who respectively care about protecting both the character of Estes Park and our property rights.
Ballot Initiative 300 is not about stopping growth — it is about ensuring that development is responsible and reflects the values that make our town and neighborhoods special. Protecting what makes Estes Park unique is good for residents, good for property rights, and good for our economy. That’s why so many of us are Voting YES on initiative 300.
There will be two Ballot Initiatives # 300 & 301 on the November 4th, 2025, Ballot…Please VOTE YES on Both – November 4, 2025
Christy Jacobs – Resident – Concerned Citizen
I will respond to Mr. Brown’s commentary later, but I cannot ignore the insult expressed by “FunEstesPark”.
The hundreds of citizens who support PreserveEstesPark and the intiatives that have been proposed are not a “mob”. They are concerned citizens trying to protect their property rights and the town they love. They are your friends and neighbors.
Laura Rustin
Thank you, Dr. Terry Rustin, for your thoughtful commentary in response to Mr. Brown’s opinion piece. As I read the Supreme Court case mentioned, I also noted that it dealt with a permit, not a rezoning — an important distinction. Thank you for bringing facts to the discussion instead of fearmongering.
Concerns about legal costs and tax burdens are always worth considering. But history shows that when community voices are ignored in land-use decisions, it often results in even more costly disputes. To me, the greater waste of taxpayer dollars would be fighting against the property rights of my neighbors and fellow citizens. I would far rather see my tax dollars used to protect the rights of the people who live, work, and invest in Estes Park than to defend unchecked development that undermines our town’s character.
Vote Yes on Ballot Initiatives 300 & 301 on Nov. 4th, 2025
Christy Jacobs – Resident – Citizen
This is incorrect. It would not “stall” all development. You can build whatever you want if it is zoned for that use. This is about “re-zoning”, just like the high density development the Town approved in the middle of a low density, 1 acre per house neighborhood. And, if it is in a place that needs redevelopment, if 2/3rds around it agree, it can be built.
In reply to Estes First, this statement is false. This ballot initiative applies to PUDs as well, so any attempt to use a PUD, even if using the underlying zoning, would not be allowed without the provisions in the ballot question.