Six cities sue Colorado over zoning and parking laws as state stays silent

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

“As of this writing we have not heard back from the State.”

That’s how Greenwood Village Mayor George Lantz summed up the status of a lawsuit the six Front Range cities filed in May against the state of Colorado, Gov. Jared Polis, the Department of Local Affairs and its executive director, Maria De Cambra. The case targets two 2024 laws—HB 24-1313 and HB 24-1304—that, according to the cities, trample Colorado’s constitutional guarantee of Home Rule.

The mayors say the fight is about constitutional rights, not political turf wars. “Contrary to some criticisms, the current fight is not based on party politics… Our residents deserve to have a voice about land use in their own communities and neighborhoods,” they wrote in a joint open July 14 letter signed by all six mayors.

From home rule history to modern courtrooms

“There is a story behind every neighborhood that you love. Informed by vision and built with precision by the generations that came before, our cities are the products of decades of thoughtful planning and intentional effort,” the letter says.

Born from Denver’s infamous “City Hall War” of 1894, which nearly saw shots fired and physical blows exchanged between city leaders and the governor, Colorado voters enshrined Home Rule in the state constitution by a two-to-one margin. That change gave municipalities authority over matters of purely local concern.

“In purely local and municipal matters… the charter provisions and legislation of a home rule city… supersede conflicting state statutes,” the lawsuit states, citing Colorado Supreme Court precedent.

What the cities say the laws do

“This fight is not against housing either,” the letter states. “We wholeheartedly and unabashedly agree that all Colorado communities desperately need more housing, including more diverse and affordable options. We are allies with the state on the need to do this work… However, the devil is – as they say – in the details.”

The cities’ complaint says HB 24-1313, “Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities,” requires dense zoning around transit stations based on a state-generated formula, forbids future public input in those areas and retroactively voids existing development agreements and covenants.

HB 24-1304, “Minimum Parking Requirements,” prohibits certain parking minimums in dense developments and nullifies requirements already embedded in approved projects.

Arvada warns the parking law would make Olde Town’s existing shortages worse. Greenwood Village notes that the zoning law’s density mandate is ten times higher than its most intensive zoning district. Westminster projects it would be required to allow 50,506 new housing units—more than the city’s entire current housing inventory.

“These one-size-fits-all mandates do not consider the fiscal resources, broader infrastructure, geographies or characters of our communities when prescribing solutions that we must follow,” the letter adds.

The constitutional stakes

The lawsuit lays out seven ways the cities say the state has crossed the line. It argues the laws trample Home Rule authority guaranteed under Article XX, § 6, violate due process rights in the 14th Amendment and Article II, § 25 and strip away the people’s power of initiative and referendum under Article V, § 1(9). It also claims the measures break the state constitution’s contract and anti-retroactivity protections in Article II, § 11. 

And in challenging Executive Order D 2025 005 — which tells state agencies to withhold grants and incentives from cities that refuse to go along — the filing says the governor has stepped beyond the separation-of-powers limits on his office.

“Retaliation is a bully’s tactic, and it is our duty to stop it,” the mayors’ letter says.

The complaint also argues the laws strip residents of notice and hearing rights on qualifying projects, override existing negotiated approvals and impose density and parking mandates that conflict with local comprehensive plans and zoning codes.

Beyond the loss of local authority, the complaint adds, “State residents do not expect soviet-style centralized government control over local residential development” and warns that compliance could expose cities to lawsuits from residents denied public hearings on major projects.

Where the case stands now

The six cities—Arvada, Aurora, Glendale, Greenwood Village, Lafayette and Westminster—filed the case in Denver District Court on May 19. As of August, no formal response from the state has been reported.

The mayors say they expect the courts to uphold the principle that “land use and zoning must remain core matters of local concern, not state concern. We expect the same outcome in court this time too.”