Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The mayor is of six cities suing the state over
a pair of laws passed during the twenty twenty four
legislative session. They argue that they infringe upon the rights
granted to them under the state's constitutions home rule provisions.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
In a letter, the mayors of Arvada, Aora, Glendale, Greenwood Village, Lafayette,
and Westminster pushed back against the legislation, which requires certain
municipalities to approve dense zoning in areas near transit stations
and prohibit certain municipalities from imposing minimum parking requirements at
multi family, residential and mixed use properties. Both bills were
signed into law by the governor, but neither have gone
(00:32):
into effect. One of those mayors in the lawsuit and
on that letter joining us now on the KOA Common
Spirit Health hotline, the mayor of Oarvada. It's Laurence Simpson,
Madam mayor, thank you for coming on with us this morning.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
I'm happy to be here. Thank you so much for
having me this morning.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Now, in that letter you all jointly released, you say
the suit is not about politics. What is it about?
Speaker 3 (00:50):
So the suit is really about constitutionality. We wrote this
letter to kind of help clear up some of the
confusion in the public conversation about what the lawsuit is
really about. It not about housing or wanting housing or
not wanting housing, and it's not about politics. It's about
protecting the rights of our cities and our residents. We
believe that this will law violates the Colorado Constitution and
there's a lot of key history the back up our
(01:12):
position on this, so we feel pretty good about it.
In this letter, we wanted to basically really lay out
that the lawsuit isn't about what the Strait is trying
to accomplish with their bills, because many of us actually
align with the goals. What they're really what we're mad
about is the process by which the state is not
about trying to do it.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
So when we look at these lawsuits and we look
at the specifics of it, and you say it doesn't
have to do with housing, but then we talk about
home rule when it comes to it, And I know
all of these mayors have different reasonings of why they
believe the constitutionality is not there. But from your perspective
as the mayor of Arvada, where do you see it
as it impacts your city?
Speaker 3 (01:51):
You know. So that's a couple of different angles. So
the first thing I want to say is to the
lawsuit itself. What really bothers me is it strips the
dew cross as rights of citizens. So citizens have the
right to petition, they're elected officials. Correct, That's kind of
a big one in this country. And within this if
we move everything to the ability to be approved administratively,
(02:13):
which house built twenty four thirteen thirteen does our petition?
Who put our residents who could be directly impacted by
projects in their communities don't have the right to petition us.
They're elected officials anymore and have their grievances be heard
if they disagree with a project, if they feel it's
going to impact them negatively, et cetera. And so that one,
(02:35):
for me personally, is really a big deal. I don't
like that it strips that out. And then in addition,
you know, every city is different. I don't appreciate that
the legislation takes a one size fits all approached when
every community is different. So Arvada has unique characteristics from Westminster,
from Aurora, from Greenwood Village, from Lafayette and Glendale. My
(02:57):
fellow cities in this suit were we have our own
unique characteristics, of course, and so from my city, we
look at this and we're already ninety percent compliant with
this legislation. We've already been doing meant much of this
work the state wants to do for years. But the
ability for us to be able to control where different
(03:20):
types of housing projects go in the infrastructure that serves
them is really important because I have concerns that basically
there could be unintended consequences or potentially even backfiring consequences
to a one size fits all approach because frankly, it
doesn't take into account the unique characteristics of every community.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
I want to broaden this out just a little bit.
So you like home rule, Do you like it solely
for this issue when it comes to the zoning and
residential or there are other relevant issues to our vata
that you feel should be left up to you and
your community leaders.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
Well, you know that's a pretty bad question. Obviously. I
do believe home rule. I believe, in particular with planning,
local issues needed to be cited locally. There are some
things that are absolutely state or federal concern and that's
really important too. I appreciate I appreciate that the UH
the generations that came before us did a pretty good
(04:11):
job of having a lot of these battles to sussow
which powers were supposed to go where and so in
particular with land use, was zoning, with infrastructure, those things
are really important to keep under local control because we
understand the resources available to us, We understand the geography
of our land, we understand the people and the characteristics
(04:32):
of the community, and I think that that, you know,
you just can't apply the same solutions in any one spot,
even within a community. We you know, we've had an
interesting sort of community response to the lawsuit. We've had
some for, some against, some people who are like, I
agree with the state, but I agree with what you're
doing too, which really just emphasizes the need that these
(04:54):
decisions need to be required locally and the conversations had
at the local level.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Mayor Simpson, when we look at this lawsuit and these
two House bills, when we talk about the minimum Parking
Requirements Bill and the Transit Oriented Communities Bill, do you
think the state considered that this was taking away some
of the rights of other cities and what they can
and cannot do or do you think they were trying
to look at it in a perspective of we will
help those build more housing, we will help those be
(05:22):
able to live in their communities. But it's just too
broad and some cities need it boiled down in a
better perspective for them.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
You know, that's a great question. I think every lawmaker
and the governor have all approached it with a different lens.
I do think that the bills are very well intentioned.
I think people have tried to solve what absolutely is
the state crisis. But where I found the challenge is
it didn't really feel like many of the cities were
included at the table. There were absolutely urban planners and
(05:52):
people who understand best practices at large, but I know
I wasn't consulted on any of the conversation around these bills,
even though my city is one of the ones that
is heavily impacted, and I hear these things across sort
of the areas across the metro area from many of
my colleagues, and I do think the state legislature was
(06:13):
trying to do good work. I don't think anyone came
to this with bad intentions of we're going to strip
your ride to whatnot. They were trying to take action
on something that the voters need, we need action on.
I just think that there's a better way to go
about it.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
And on that note, I get the sense from you
Mayor that the City of Arvada is already doing some
of those things. You're just you're doing it based on
the local needs of the city Oravata and not, as
you say, the one size fits all approach.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
Absolutely Oarvada is already ninety percent compliant. From what I understand,
I was told we were one of the cities that
was actually studied before the state took this on, because
they kind of took a lot of the things we
were doing and adapted them to what they wanted to do.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
We have had.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Numerous projects go up across the southern side of our city.
We've invested in transit oriented communities. And you know, does
that mean we're perfect. Absolutely not. There are things we
need to change probably or at least further evaluate as
we move forward. But at the same time, you know,
what works in New York City or in downtown Denver
(07:16):
doesn't necessarily work for a suburb. There are parts of
my city that are considered a transit oriented because they're
immediately adjacent church transit station that don't have a grocery
store available to them within a walk or a short
drive or a short scooter or away. And if you
hop on the G line, the nearest transit grocery store
that I'm aware of is the Whole Foods and Union Station,
(07:38):
and that might not necessarily be the right grocery store
for everybody. And I say that as a very happy
Whole Food shopper, but nonetheless, in this is a winter state,
people have to get in their cars. So there's a
certain reality to where we are that we need to
be able to plan for and be able to plan around.
And our VAT is a hardy part in doing this work,
(08:02):
but we believe in the constitutionality of doing this work.
We believe our constituents deserve to have a right to
have their voice at the table and to be heard
about these projects. And we also believe in the right
to be able to plan according to each little neighborhood
and what makes sense for their and the people there,
the history of the area and the infrastructure available to
(08:24):
serve it.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Aurve Adam Mayor Lauren Simpson, thank you so much. For
your time this morning. Some clarification on this letter and
these bills. We appreciate it.
The mayor is of six cities suing the state over
a pair of laws passed during the twenty twenty four
legislative session. They argue that they infringe upon the rights
granted to them under the state's constitutions home rule provisions.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
In a letter, the mayors of Arvada, Aora, Glendale, Greenwood Village, Lafayette,
and Westminster pushed back against the legislation, which requires certain
municipalities to approve dense zoning in areas near transit stations
and prohibit certain municipalities from imposing minimum parking requirements at
multi family, residential and mixed use properties. Both bills were
signed into law by the governor, but neither have gone
(00:32):
into effect. One of those mayors in the lawsuit and
on that letter joining us now on the KOA Common
Spirit Health hotline, the mayor of Oarvada. It's Laurence Simpson,
Madam mayor, thank you for coming on with us this morning.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
I'm happy to be here. Thank you so much for
having me this morning.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Now, in that letter you all jointly released, you say
the suit is not about politics. What is it about?
Speaker 3 (00:50):
So the suit is really about constitutionality. We wrote this
letter to kind of help clear up some of the
confusion in the public conversation about what the lawsuit is
really about. It not about housing or wanting housing or
not wanting housing, and it's not about politics. It's about
protecting the rights of our cities and our residents. We
believe that this will law violates the Colorado Constitution and
there's a lot of key history the back up our
(01:12):
position on this, so we feel pretty good about it.
In this letter, we wanted to basically really lay out
that the lawsuit isn't about what the Strait is trying
to accomplish with their bills, because many of us actually
align with the goals. What they're really what we're mad
about is the process by which the state is not
about trying to do it.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
So when we look at these lawsuits and we look
at the specifics of it, and you say it doesn't
have to do with housing, but then we talk about
home rule when it comes to it, And I know
all of these mayors have different reasonings of why they
believe the constitutionality is not there. But from your perspective
as the mayor of Arvada, where do you see it
as it impacts your city?
Speaker 3 (01:51):
You know. So that's a couple of different angles. So
the first thing I want to say is to the
lawsuit itself. What really bothers me is it strips the
dew cross as rights of citizens. So citizens have the
right to petition, they're elected officials. Correct, That's kind of
a big one in this country. And within this if
we move everything to the ability to be approved administratively,
(02:13):
which house built twenty four thirteen thirteen does our petition?
Who put our residents who could be directly impacted by
projects in their communities don't have the right to petition us.
They're elected officials anymore and have their grievances be heard
if they disagree with a project, if they feel it's
going to impact them negatively, et cetera. And so that one,
(02:35):
for me personally, is really a big deal. I don't
like that it strips that out. And then in addition,
you know, every city is different. I don't appreciate that
the legislation takes a one size fits all approached when
every community is different. So Arvada has unique characteristics from Westminster,
from Aurora, from Greenwood Village, from Lafayette and Glendale. My
(02:57):
fellow cities in this suit were we have our own
unique characteristics, of course, and so from my city, we
look at this and we're already ninety percent compliant with
this legislation. We've already been doing meant much of this
work the state wants to do for years. But the
ability for us to be able to control where different
(03:20):
types of housing projects go in the infrastructure that serves
them is really important because I have concerns that basically
there could be unintended consequences or potentially even backfiring consequences
to a one size fits all approach because frankly, it
doesn't take into account the unique characteristics of every community.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
I want to broaden this out just a little bit.
So you like home rule, Do you like it solely
for this issue when it comes to the zoning and
residential or there are other relevant issues to our vata
that you feel should be left up to you and
your community leaders.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
Well, you know that's a pretty bad question. Obviously. I
do believe home rule. I believe, in particular with planning,
local issues needed to be cited locally. There are some
things that are absolutely state or federal concern and that's
really important too. I appreciate I appreciate that the UH
the generations that came before us did a pretty good
(04:11):
job of having a lot of these battles to sussow
which powers were supposed to go where and so in
particular with land use, was zoning, with infrastructure, those things
are really important to keep under local control because we
understand the resources available to us, We understand the geography
of our land, we understand the people and the characteristics
(04:32):
of the community, and I think that that, you know,
you just can't apply the same solutions in any one spot,
even within a community. We you know, we've had an
interesting sort of community response to the lawsuit. We've had
some for, some against, some people who are like, I
agree with the state, but I agree with what you're
doing too, which really just emphasizes the need that these
(04:54):
decisions need to be required locally and the conversations had
at the local level.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Mayor Simpson, when we look at this lawsuit and these
two House bills, when we talk about the minimum Parking
Requirements Bill and the Transit Oriented Communities Bill, do you
think the state considered that this was taking away some
of the rights of other cities and what they can
and cannot do or do you think they were trying
to look at it in a perspective of we will
help those build more housing, we will help those be
(05:22):
able to live in their communities. But it's just too
broad and some cities need it boiled down in a
better perspective for them.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
You know, that's a great question. I think every lawmaker
and the governor have all approached it with a different lens.
I do think that the bills are very well intentioned.
I think people have tried to solve what absolutely is
the state crisis. But where I found the challenge is
it didn't really feel like many of the cities were
included at the table. There were absolutely urban planners and
(05:52):
people who understand best practices at large, but I know
I wasn't consulted on any of the conversation around these bills,
even though my city is one of the ones that
is heavily impacted, and I hear these things across sort
of the areas across the metro area from many of
my colleagues, and I do think the state legislature was
(06:13):
trying to do good work. I don't think anyone came
to this with bad intentions of we're going to strip
your ride to whatnot. They were trying to take action
on something that the voters need, we need action on.
I just think that there's a better way to go
about it.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
And on that note, I get the sense from you
Mayor that the City of Arvada is already doing some
of those things. You're just you're doing it based on
the local needs of the city Oravata and not, as
you say, the one size fits all approach.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
Absolutely Oarvada is already ninety percent compliant. From what I understand,
I was told we were one of the cities that
was actually studied before the state took this on, because
they kind of took a lot of the things we
were doing and adapted them to what they wanted to do.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
We have had.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Numerous projects go up across the southern side of our city.
We've invested in transit oriented communities. And you know, does
that mean we're perfect. Absolutely not. There are things we
need to change probably or at least further evaluate as
we move forward. But at the same time, you know,
what works in New York City or in downtown Denver
(07:16):
doesn't necessarily work for a suburb. There are parts of
my city that are considered a transit oriented because they're
immediately adjacent church transit station that don't have a grocery
store available to them within a walk or a short
drive or a short scooter or away. And if you
hop on the G line, the nearest transit grocery store
that I'm aware of is the Whole Foods and Union Station,
(07:38):
and that might not necessarily be the right grocery store
for everybody. And I say that as a very happy
Whole Food shopper, but nonetheless, in this is a winter state,
people have to get in their cars. So there's a
certain reality to where we are that we need to
be able to plan for and be able to plan around.
And our VAT is a hardy part in doing this work,
(08:02):
but we believe in the constitutionality of doing this work.
We believe our constituents deserve to have a right to
have their voice at the table and to be heard
about these projects. And we also believe in the right
to be able to plan according to each little neighborhood
and what makes sense for their and the people there,
the history of the area and the infrastructure available to
(08:24):
serve it.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Aurve Adam Mayor Lauren Simpson, thank you so much. For
your time this morning. Some clarification on this letter and
these bills. We appreciate it.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.