Chase Cromwell lives in a five-bedroom, three-bathroom house. It has two sets of washers and dryers, almost two full kitchens and enough space in each room for a queen bed and a desk. There is plenty of room for himself and his four roommates.<\/p>\n
Yet because of Boulder\u2019s occupancy limits restricting how many unrelated people can live together, only three roommates have legally been allowed to live there.<\/p>\n
\u201cTechnically, I\u2019m not supposed to be here,\u201d said Cromwell, an undergraduate student at the University of Colorado Boulder who serves as a tri-executive of the CU Student Government.<\/p>\n
Boulder\u2019s zoning code has restricted occupancy to a family — as defined by city code \u2014 or three unrelated people since 1962. But Cromwell\u2019s situation is about to change thanks to the city council\u2019s passage last week of a new occupancy ordinance that will allow up to five unrelated people to live together citywide, a change he said has been \u201ca long time coming.\u201d<\/p>\n
For many in Boulder, the new ordinance was a milestone achievement in a battle over the city\u2019s occupancy limits that has spanned decades. People who have been forced to live illegally in Boulder above the city\u2019s occupancy limits due to a shortage of affordable housing can rest easier with the new, relaxed occupancy limits.<\/p>\n
\u201cStudents can breathe a sigh of relief that they\u2019re allowed to be where they already are,\u201d Cromwell said. \u201cI\u2019m now way more comfortable living where I live. We have created a system where students live under fear of being reported by their neighbors for living in a home where there is space for them.\u201d<\/p>\n
Being in a lawful living situation offers residents more legal rights and protections. According to Grace Peng, a former CU graduate student, allowing more people to live in Boulder legally could also encourage more people to register to vote. She said some people have used voter records to find out how many people with different last names were living at an address.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey have weaponized that to turn in people who were illegally over-occupying,\u201d Peng said. \u201cSo this is a voter suppression tactic, because it has taught renters not to register to vote.\u201d<\/p>\n
But the council\u2019s decision also drew ire from plenty of community members. Many residents worried about heightened noise, cars, trash and crime, particularly in areas like University Hill.<\/p>\n
Some were skeptical that the new ordinance would do anything to ensure affordability and speculated that landlords could raise prices on homes where more tenants will be allowed to live.<\/p>\n
A common refrain among people who opposed the new occupancy ordinance was that a majority of voters rejected the Bedrooms Are For People ballot measure in 2021. The measure, which would have increased the allowable occupancy to one person per bedroom plus one additional person per home, failed on a 52% to 48% vote.<\/p>\n
Some residents who spoke at at a public hearing before the ordinance was passed even went so far as to claim that City Council would \u201cdisenfranchise voters\u201d or \u201coverturn an election\u201d by passing the new ordinance.<\/p>\n
But according to Deborah Cantrell, a law professor at CU Boulder, there was nothing illegal or undemocratic about the city council\u2019s approval of the new law. She said there are different but equally legitimate processes for making new laws. Boulder, for example, has a citizen initiative process, but it also has an elected council that can pass laws.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe fact that the Bedrooms Are For People initiative did not pass doesn\u2019t bar City Council or the citizenry from changing their minds and making a new law,\u201d Cantrell said.<\/p>\n
Cantrell said the failed Bedrooms measure is not necessarily a barometer for how all Boulderites feel about changing occupancy limits since not everyone in the community voted, and she noted there are many people in the city who have wanted occupancy reform.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it\u2019s also fair for folks to say, \u2018Hey, we the citizens said to our community, and then to our representatives \u2026 there were enough of us that were supportive of changing occupancy limits that we would expect our elected representatives to pay attention to that.’\u201d<\/p>\n
Recent legislation in other states, such as Washington and Oregon, has blocked regulations around unrelated occupancy. According to a city memo, city staff have reached out to several communities in these states, and although the changes are new and some of the effects may have yet to be seen, the communities did not report any increase in impacts specifically related to occupancy.<\/p>\n
While there could be unintended consequences that arise from the new ordinance, Cantrell said that\u2019s par for the course when making new laws.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe often pass laws not knowing exactly if the law is going to get to the goals that we are hoping to get to perfectly or without unintended consequences. And it is seldom the case that a law is perfect at getting to the goal that it sets up for itself,\u201d she said. \u201cThis is probably going to be one of those moments where changing occupancy limits is going to have some impact for good (and) some unintended consequences, maybe for good, maybe for bad. And then some things we don\u2019t know about and can\u2019t know about until we see what happens over time.\u201d<\/p>\n
Crucially, occupancy reform advocates also point out that the newly passed occupancy ordinance is substantially different from what Bedrooms had proposed. A major criticism of the Bedrooms initiative was that, in theory, it did not impose a limit on how many people could occupy a home. The new occupancy ordinance merely raised the legally allowable limit to five people.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe goal of the (Bedrooms) measure and organization was to stop the city from using discriminatory housing laws that are based on the relationship status of people living in a home, and our belief that the city should not have the power to regulate who may live together,\u201d said Eric Budd, a co-lead of the Bedrooms initiative. \u201cThe policy that Boulder City Council passed, it still regulates people in housing based on family and relationship status, but it relaxes those laws in significant and meaningful ways. And that really is a win and progress that we\u2019re very proud of.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to Boulder City Clerk Elesha Johnson, the new ordinance has not yet taken effect. It was published on Aug. 20 and will go into effect 30 days from that date on Sept. 19.<\/p>\n