By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project
Where’s that Prop 123 money going? Hint: not all of it to new housing!
Per the first link below, Prop 123 was a new tax** passed by voters in 2022 which went into a dedicated fund to provide money for “affordable housing” efforts.
Screenshots 1a and 1b are from the state’s Prop 123 “About” page. They give an overview of the measure along with a list of legislative changes since its passage respectively.
If you want to see the bills, you obviously can’t click on a picture, so use the link below to research more about legislative changes to Prop 123 (see also “Related” below).
Whether you voted for Prop 123 and/or support the idea, it’s worth the time to go and check where that new tax money has gone.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that the four years’ worth of extra money out of your pocket has fixed housing in Colorado or done any of the things proponent Mike Johnston (now Denver mayor but then CEO of Gary Ventures one of the bigger supporters for it) talked about in a 2022 article linked second below.
Copying in full a quote by him that was split into three places in that CBS article:
“‘The first time housing’s been on the ballot in Colorado,’ said Mike Johnston, a former Democratic state senator and current CEO and President of Gary Community Ventures. ‘What we know is we’re going to need a permanent stable revenue source committed to keeping housing affordable in this state if we’re going to solve that problem.'”
“‘Right now we know voters believe housing is the single most important issue in the state. We know they believe they want the state to do more about it. This gives them a chance to vote on that,’ said Johnston.”
“‘What this will get us is 10,000 more affordable units every year in Colorado that teachers and nurses and firefighters and people can have a place to live,’ said Johnston. ‘One of the things that this can do is help build more of those permanent supportive housing units that people have as their first transition off the streets.'”
By my research, I think the number has fallen far short of what was advertised. A State of Colorado overview linked third below analyzed by AI showed the total new housing units created/funded by Prop 123 to be about 9700 to 11000. This is from its passage to mid 2026. Quite a far cry from the 10,000 per year.
All this leads to the question: where is our money going? If it’s not getting returned to us, where does it end up?
The fourth link below helps provide some answers. It’s to the state’s Prop 123 dashboard.
I’ll leave it to you to poke around in there to see various metrics, but I can give some highlights and perhaps a look at my local area (Logan County). If you find something interesting in your area, please put it up in the comments!
By a long chalk, Habitat for Humanity is pulling down the money! Screenshot 2 shows how their $25 million stacks up against the next biggest.
There were a surprising number of grants that went to build absolutely no new housing. Hundreds of thousands per grant went to “Local Planning”. See screenshot 3 for a collection (by no means exhaustive) from the list of grantees.
Focusing in on one of the counties that got planning money, I went to the dashboard and looked up San Miguel County. Their page is copied over as screenshot 4.
A total of about $750K went to them. This generated 340 new housing units. About 56% of the grant money went to planning with the balance going to the housing units. It might be tempting to think that, with the tracks laid, new housing can go on top and bring the percentage spent on government down relative to new houses. Perhaps that will be the case with the grants from 2026, but it’s notable that a $216K planning grant dates to 2024 followed by the building of 200 units (for an added $240K) happened that same year.
I want to end with a quick look locally for me, in Logan County. Screenshot 5 shows the dashboard for Logan County.
Notable here is less money for planning and more spent on helping house the homeless. That and Volker’s concessionary loan (a loan on quite generous and easy terms) of around $2 million generating 54 units. If you’d like to read up on Volker a little more, I put a previous newsletter on one of the projects they were trying to start fifth below.
Did you pick up a pattern? It’s suggested by what I put right next to (now) Mayor Johnston’s quotes.
Prop 123 took your money and, at least from where I’m sitting, hasn’t really solved anything. A few houses here and there maybe, but nothing like what at least one of the proponents boldly claimed.
In the first year or two, you could reasonably claim it hadn’t been up and running, but it’s been 4 years now. Look at the money out vs. what we have, look at the money out vs. the problems we still see. Numbers paint the picture clearly with regard to Prop 123 even if the rhetoric won’t. It’s costing a lot and falling short.
I want you to remember this when it comes to the government asking for your money. Remember this when we see (as we do constantly in this state) the government and tax money forwarded as the solution to a problem.
**Proponents of the measure would disagree with my characterization. What Prop 123 did was dedicate 0.1% of the state’s income tax revenue (without regard to any TABOR limits) to an affordable housing fund. I would say that keeping money previously returned to voters is a new tax. Others would probably disagree.
https://cdola.colorado.gov/about-proposition-123
https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/housing-initiative-tabor-november-ballot-affordable/
https://oedit.colorado.gov/blog-post/building-opportunity-advancing-housing-solutions-for-a-thriving-colorado
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/bd90a99ff9264b68a543282089b7efe5#
https://coloradoaccountabilityproject.substack.com/p/is-colorado-equating-affordable-housing?utm_source=publication-search
READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.