Denver City Council Passes Mixed-Income Housing Requirements for Large Development

Multiple groups, from the unhoused and housing advocates to real estate representatives, had issues with the bills, saying they either did too little or too much.

Story and Photos By Andrew Fraieli

Denver City Council passed three connected bills Monday night, 10-1, to modify existing laws on the requirements of building affordable housing in new developments.

The new requirements state that developers building apartments or condos in Denver with 10 or more units have to set 8 to 15% aside as affordable housing, or face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees. Affordable was defined as people making between 60% and 90% of the area median income.

The bills had varied support, with most agreeing it’s a step in the correct direction, but some taking issue with the definition of “affordable” in the bills, saying they do not do enough. 

Multiple stakeholders, such as the Chief Housing Officer of Denver’s Department of Housing Stability (HOST) Britta Fisher, and Brad Weinig, part of HOST staff, expressed support for it based on multiple outreach surveys, and reports on other city’s programs and financial feasibility over the past few years. This is according to Weinig’s presentation before the public comment period.

But multiple people experiencing homelessness in the audience expressed concern specifically about how the bill defines affordability.

"That affordable is not affordable for our community,” said Terese Howard, founder of Housekeys Action Network Denver (HAND) and housing advocate, before the council meeting began. Jerry Burton, the defendant in the case that led a Denver County judge to rule the city’s urban camping ban unconstitutional, agreed. "This is just putting money into providers' pockets, it's not giving money to my people, to the homeless,” he said.

The affordability, on the low end, is defined as 60% of the average median income (AMI) — or about $56,280 per year for a family of two, according to the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority.

What advocates want is that percentage lowered to 30 or 20%. Weinig expressed that it would cover everything from homelessness to 100% AMI, but one advocate said he was wrong, calling it a PR scheme. 

“No, it doesn’t. Homelessness is 30 to 40% AMI, he lied to us. That was like a whole PR scheme or marketing scheme to cover up the truth. But many of these people are used to covering up the truth because they’re getting paid. And that’s the truth,” said Athena Landy, who lives in a single parents housing program — making a point that it’s at 30% AMI — along with being a full-time student at Metro University. 

“Developers will develop, because that’s their goal, to make money,” she continued, referencing another speaker’s concern that additional restrictions on developing will cause less to be built. “Just because there is an affordable housing act, doesn’t mean they won’t develop. Maybe the greedy ones won’t develop.”

Gerald Horner, who lives in the Five Points neighborhood, expressed similarly that, “this does not support the most vulnerable in our community, those in the zero to 30% AMI, those on the street today.” 

Howard also highlighted the lack of addressing the needs of individuals with lower incomes. “The report for this plan states that the city wants to support those with the greatest needs, yet this bill includes housing for those at 100% AMI, and not for people at 30%,” she said.

Others, such as Ian Frasch, expressed concerns construction projects would not happen at all. “I’m worried it’s going to reduce the housing supply overall, leading to higher costs overall, because it’s making it more expensive for developers,” he said.

Tyler Carlson, another speaker of 55 signed up for public comment, raised concerns about small businesses. “As a commercial real estate representative, we are concerned that we’re trading a housing affordability problem for a small business affordability problem because most small businesses rent their commercial space.”

Councilwoman Candi CdeBaca was the only opposing vote on all three bills.

Speaking as part of HAND, Tyler Israel finished their time at the public comment by saying, “This isn’t rocket science y’all, if the jobs paid enough, and housing was affordable, we wouldn’t see those tents.