Colorado

Boulder Officials Told Campaigns They Had Until August to Qualify for the City Ballot. Now They Say the Deadline Was Actually in June.

The switch threatens an initiative to repeal Boulder's restrictions on unrelated people living together.

|

For months, activists in Boulder, Colorado, have been trying to place an initiative on the ballot overturning their city's restrictions on unrelated people living in the same house. The city initially told them they had until August to qualify for the ballot. But last Friday, officials announced that the deadline for submitting signatures was actually back in June.

These activists' last hope is for the Boulder City Council to place their initiative on the ballot itself. But they believe this body is hostile to their reform. Indeed, the ballot initiative process was designed to bypass it.

"The City Attorney's office and the City Clerk's office has in so many ways given us bad information. They've done it on their website. They've done it in email. They've done it over the phone, on Zoom calls, in public council meetings," says Chelsea Castellano, an organizer for the Bedrooms Are For People campaign. "There are so many instances where they've given us the date of August 5 to submit our signatures. A rational person would presume that it would be accurate."

The city's admittedly inaccurate advice jeopardizes a reform that could immediately expand Boulder's supply of rental housing in the middle of a pandemic-induced recession when millions of Americans are struggling to afford shelter.

On Sunday, Gov. Jared Polis issued an executive order asking cities to suspend or repeal their occupancy limits for unrelated people as part of a broader effort to prevent evictions during COVID-19.

"It's important now because if somebody isn't living in that kind of situation they might be homeless," said the Democratic governor, according to the Denver Post. "The same type of people who complain about extra cars in the street or too many people living in a nearby house also generally complain about the homeless."

As in many cities, Boulder's zoning code limits residential housing to family members plus a certain number of unrelated roomers. How many unrelated individuals are allowed to live in a home is determined by how a property is zoned, with most of the city's residential housing capped at either three or four unrelated people.

The city manager can impose fines of up to $1,000 for violating Boulder's land use code, including its occupancy limits. The city attorney can also pursue fines of up to $2,000 per violation of the land use code. Municipal courts are allowed to impose additional fines that would deprive a landlord of any profits earned by opening rooms to excess renters.

"These current laws are discriminatory because they regulate people based on who they are, and not what they do," says Nick Grossman, another Bedrooms Are For People activist. "They are regulating a class of people that are unrelated by blood or marriage and preventing them from having equal access and [housing] options."

Grossman and Castellano tell Reason that tenants are often evicted by fine-fearing landlords for violating the city's occupancy cap. The law often forces property owners to leave rooms vacant, they add.

Occupancy limits for unrelated people "should raise constitutional issues, but they've been broadly blessed by the Supreme Court," says Anthony Sanders, an attorney at the Institute for Justice. A 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, upheld such laws as a valid use of local government's powers to regulate land use.

Some state courts have struck down some of these laws, Sanders adds, but they remain common in college towns such as Boulder, where neighbors often worry about their street being overrun by young partiers.

Sanders says courts should reconsider this precedent, arguing that restrictions on property rights should be tightly focused on preventing actual harms. Blanket bans or caps on unrelated people living in the same house don't meet that standard, he says.

But without a new precedent, activists are left to work within the democratic process to change these laws. Hence the Bedrooms Are For People campaign.

Their initiative, if passed, would amend the city's charter to repeal Boulder's limits on unrelated people living together. It would instead impose an occupancy limit of one person per bedroom, plus one additional person. Homes with fewer than four bedrooms would be allowed a maximum number of four occupants.

In March they submitted their petition to the city, and later that month they received permission to start collecting signatures. Bizarrely, no one seemed to know when exactly these signatures had to be turned to the City Clerk's office, which is responsible for verifying them.

Boulder's charter gives campaigns a maximum of 180 days to collect signatures. It also requires that signatures be submitted to the city within 150 calendar days of the November election, which would have been June 5 this year.

Meanwhile, the state rules governing municipal elections are both more forgiving and more restrictive. Campaigns have up until 90 days before an election to submit signatures, which this year would mean August 5. State law, however, gives campaigns only 90 days to collect signatures.

The question befuddling everybody was whether state or local law should decide how long the Bedrooms Are For People campaign had to collect signatures, and when they had to turn them in.

To resolve these conflicting deadlines and give campaigns as much time as possible to collect signatures, the city published election guidelines stating that charter amendment petitions—including the Bedrooms Are For People petition—had 180 days to collect signatures, in compliance with the more permissive city deadline. They also didn't have to submit these signatures until August 5, in compliance with state law.

A breakdown of approved petitions published by the city also listed August 5 as the date that Bedrooms Are For People had to submit signatures.

That decision wasn't without controversy, with opponents of the Bedrooms Are For People initiative threatening a lawsuit if the reformers were given until August to get their signatures in.

In late May, Boulder Beat reports, City Attorney Thomas Carr advised the campaign that the only way to completely avoid a lawsuit would be collect all the signatures they need within the 90 days allotted by state law, meaning signatures would have been due in late June. That deadline, Castellano argued at the time, was impossible for their campaign to meet, given the limits the pandemic had placed on the activists' ability to collect signatures.

Carr nevertheless concluded that Boulder's charter should take precedence, and that any lawsuit trying to toss out signatures for not meeting the earlier state deadline wouldn't succeed. He also advised the Bedrooms Are For People campaign to seek independent legal advice.

This apparently did little to clarify things.

So last Friday, Carr sent an email to the Boulder City Council's "hotline" mailing list stating that the city's charter had the final say over when signatures had to be submitted.

That meant petitioners had 180 days to collect signatures, as opposed to the 90 days allowed by state law. Unfortunately for the Bedrooms Are For People campaign, it also meant those signatures were due back on June 5, as the city's charter demands, not the state's deadline of August 5.

Carr acknowledges that the city gave inaccurate guidance to the Bedrooms Are For People campaign, as well as to a campaign to enact ranked-choice voting for mayoral elections.

In the interest of fairness, Carr issued nonbinding recommendations that the City Clerk review all signatures submitted before August 5, and that, if the campaigns meet their signature goals, the city council vote to place their initiatives on the ballot.

"These are not small mistakes. This is over 50 people collecting signatures since the day the stay-at-home order lifted," says Castellano, saying city staff has resigned for far less in the past. The idea of leaving it to the city council to decide what to decide whether their ballot initiative will go to voters this November is totally unacceptable, she argues. The "whole point of this process is to circumvent the city council," Castellano says. "Because we wouldn't need to do this if we felt like our elected representatives were representing this issue properly."

According to Castellano, the campaign has collected almost 6,000 signatures so far, putting it well on its way to meeting that now-defunct August 5 deadline.

Bedrooms Are For People is now evaluating its legal options, hoping to find a way to get the initiative on the ballot without having to go through City Council.

NEXT: The Invisible Dystopia

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. These activists’ last hope is for the Boulder City Council to place their initiative on the ballot itself. But they believe this body is hostile to their reform.

    Hmm, I wonder why they would be hostile to it?

    As in many cities, Boulder’s zoning code limits residential housing to family members plus a certain number of unrelated roomers. How many unrelated individuals are allowed to live in a home is determined by how a property is zoned, with most of the city’s residential housing capped at either three or four unrelated people.

    Ah, that’s why. When in doubt, follow the money.

    1. Hi evry one….I have made 96,760 Buck just last month by working online from my home. I am a full time college student and just doing this in my free time for few hours per week by using my laptop.Everyone can check this out and start making cash online in a very easy way by just following instructions…….COPY This Website….HERE══════►►►  Read more  

  2. Some state courts have struck down some of these laws, Sanders adds, but they remain common in college towns such as Boulder, where neighbors often worry about their street being overrun by young partiers.

    Obviously the solution is to mandate constant wearing of facemasks.

    1. A month back. I was like a Beggar asking everyone for money and shelter, But a really nice man introduced me to the best on-line work . This work needs no special skills . Everyone starts without investment.GRd Now I am able to earn $996/day and $12k/month easy and non-stoppable money . It helps lots financially .Everybody must try this Visit for Details.

      ════════════► Home Profit System

  3. No real problem here, the loophole is big enough to drive a truck through. Get married; instant “being related”. Write up a one page pre-nup agreeing to keep all property separate. The costs of a marriage license and a no-fault divorce are probably less than the money saved by splitting rents.

    1. I’m sure many have thought of that option, but are precluded by a prohibition on bigamy. There are probably homes with at least one married couple.

      Maybe some gimmick whereby a couple can adopt a child who’s already a blood relative of another resident.

      1. Easy as pie; I identify as your relative now.

        If the landlord disagrees I’ll just sue him into oblivion for violating my civil rights. I might even sic a Twitter mob on him.

  4. They don’t call it The People’s Republic of Boulder without good reason.

    1. Yeah, it is a real shame that the vicious Republican city council of Boulder is thwarting the social justice actions of these folks. The council is undoubtedly all white supremacists and militia gangsters too.

      1. I’m pretty sure they’ll throw you in jail for being a Republican in that city.

        1. If you’re lucky! I doubt you’d make it alive from one end of Pearl Street to the other wearing a MAGA hat. Some of those buskers can be nasty…

  5. Their initiative, if passed, would amend the city’s charter to repeal Boulder’s limits on unrelated people living together. It would instead impose an occupancy limit of one person per bedroom, plus one additional person.

    It’s not entirely clear the way this is written if that new limit applies to only homes that are being split by unrelated people or if it applies to everyone. What about larger families where kids share a bedroom? Would they suddenly be violating the occupancy limits if this passes?

    I would just go to the link but I’m on my work computer and that website is blocked. I’m assuming because it has the words “bedrooms” and “people” in the URL so the web blocker thinks it’s pron, which is kind of hilarious. Right up until I get called into HR.

    1. Our specific ballot language:
      Shall the City of Boulder Charter be amended to allow all housing units to be occupied by a number of people equal to the number of bedrooms plus one, and allow housing units with fewer than four bedrooms to have four people, and in all cases shall relevant International Building and Residential code limits apply?
      put simply….
      Our initiative would make it so that up to four unrelated people would be allowed to live together in a three-bedroom house, up to five unrelated people would be allowed to live together in a four-bedroom house. Etcetera.

      Our measure does not impose any new restrictions on any groups — it only EXPANDS housing options for everyone. Our ballot measure would not affect traditional families. Traditional families are already allowed to have an unlimited number of people living together, and those guaranteed federal legal protections for families will remain the same when our measure passes.

      1. Thanks. Looks like it doesn’t apply to large families. That’s good, I was hoping they weren’t that stupid but you never know these days.

  6. Rich white limousine liberals who want to keep their property values high by restricting new building and keeping the brown people out of their town. That is Boulder for you.

    1. Hell, that’s the whole ‘housing crisis’ from sea to sea, in a nutshell.

  7. “Politically, Boulder is one of the most liberal and Democratic cities in Colorado when viewed from a Federal and State elections lens.”

    Democrats. Feh.

    1. “Party of the poor” indeed. More like “party of assholes”. Same bunch who, upon regaining power in the state, reinstated emission testing and jacked vehicle registration fees through the roof, including adding a fucking surcharge for registering an “older” vehicle. Care to guess which demographic got hurt by that shit?

  8. Well, they could change the law to allow one of each gender to share a house. Now how many would that be?

    1. The number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, plus or minus one.

  9. Our county has a similar rule but has said the county can not say what a family is so any one can be a part of a family

  10. Another typical boring example of what government really is. We are constantly told only government can fix these problems. How right they are!

  11. Leaving the merits of the initiative entirely aside, when the government gives people ‘information’ about how they are required to do things BY that government, the government should be forced to make good on its word. Naturally governments do not like this principle.

    1. The legal principle is called estoppel.

      1. The reality is you are responsible for the mistakes of IRS agents giving you advice.

  12. The switch threatens an initiative to repeal Boulder’s restrictions on unrelated people living together.

    Uh, that horse done left the barn and they nuked it — gotta be another reason.

  13. It doesn’t really matter when they get the signatures by if the city council is just going to invalidate a bunch of the signatures, use confusing language on the ballot, immediately issue a directive nullifying the initiative or otherwise move to establish a panel to look into the feasibility of forming a commission to establish a task force to study the issue of implementing the recommendations of a committee on the initiative with strict guidelines to report back within 20 years on their findings. If the city council ain’t having it, they ain’t having it and the peasantry be damned.

  14. I’ve lived there for several decades. The City Council might be said to be leftist. But that doesn’t inform their decision. There are a large number of wealthy, left leaning, home owners in Boulder. They don’t want outside investors buying properties for Air-bnb, or whatever, type use. That is a big issue…….so it is basically: one part of the left fighting another part. And yes, one might fit all of the registered Republicans in Boulder on the head of a pin.

  15. As in many cities, Boulder’s zoning code limits residential housing to family members plus a certain number of unrelated roomers. How many unrelated individuals are allowed to live in a home is determined by how a property is zoned, with most of the city’s residential housing capped at either three or four unrelated people.

    While I’m not a fan of these sorts of laws, I can’t help but wonder how repeal is going to have any significant effect on Boulder’s ‘housing crisis’.

    If most of the residential housing is already zoned to allow THREE TO FOUR unrelated people then its already zoned to accommodate what the vast majority of people who would rent out a room or two in their house would be renting to.

    Let’s say I’m a widower with grown children and so I want to make a little money renting out my two spare bedrooms. That’s 1-4 people, realistically 1-2 people, that I can rent to – which is right in the spot that the zoning ordinances already allow.

    How many people inside Boulder with homes with more than three bedrooms are actually the sort of people to turn their homes into boarding houses? Probably not many.

    That there should be a process to set up a commercial boarding home? Absolutely. And it should be fairly painless – like setting up any business should be.

    Other than the city’s shenanigans with the ballot measure – which should be punished harshly – I just can’t see how the law as it stands is harming anyone.

    1. How about this? What goes on in my home is none of your fucking business.

      Whether you think your invasion of my home harms me or not is irrelevant.

  16. My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour at the internet. She has been without a assignment for six months however remaining month her pay have become $16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours. open this link…..Click For Full Details.

  17. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details…
    So I started….>>>>>>>>ReadMore.

  18. Did you know there’s a “deep detox” you can do first thing in the morning to burn more fat? And the good news is It only takes 13-seconds! Here it is—>>Read More.

  19. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online.Click For Full Details.

  20. A month back. I was like a Beggar asking everyone for money and shelter, But a really nice man introduced me to the best on-line work . This work needs no special skills . Everyone starts without investment.GRd Now I am able to earn $996/day and $12k/month easy and non-stoppable money . It helps lots financially .Everybody must try this Visit for Details. HERE? learn more

  21. Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given web page.Click For Full Details.

  22. Does even the greediest boomer obsessed with inflating his homes value support this? This law is nuts.

Please to post comments