After years of housing studies, planning workshops, town halls and community events, and meticulous zoning code updates, Lakewood’s pro-housing reforms were erased overnight in a low-turnout special election.
The special election concluded with 35,574 votes, representing roughly 32% of the city’s registered voters. For comparison, 72–73% of Colorado’s registered voters participated in the 2024 election, more than twice the turnout rate seen in Lakewood this week. Additionally, the ballot questions were widely seen as confusing for Lakewood voters. A “no” vote indicated support for the new zoning rules, while a “yes” vote opposed them. (See the ballot question language at the bottom of this webpage.)
This outcome highlights the advantage that special elections can offer to organized anti-growth activists. In fact, a similar playbook was used in 2019, when Lakewood voters approved the Strategic Growth Initiative (SGI) to cap new housing development, a move that significantly chilled housing construction in Lakewood and contributed to rising housing costs. New housing permits dropped from 915 new homes in 2019 down to 179 in 2024. Over the same time period, average home values in Lakewood grew by 42%, partially caused by the lack of housing supply. The SGI was later removed by a 2023 state law that prohibits cities from capping residential growth.
Research consistently shows that the residents most likely to participate in local zoning debates and special elections tend to be older, wealthier homeowners who bought into their communities years ago at much lower prices, and have more time and capacity to engage in public processes than renters, essential workers, or young families.
As a result, a select minority dominates the conversation, while those most affected by the housing shortage are underrepresented, or entirely absent. This includes people who work in these communities but cannot afford to live there, forcing them into long commutes. Though they contribute to the local economy, they have no voice at the ballot.
Statewide context: Housing as a collective action problem
“Housing affordability” and “cost of living” have consistently been the top issues facing Colorado voters. These issues are difficult to solve because housing transcends municipal boundaries, and Colorado has a longstanding tradition of local control over land use and frequent use of anti-growth local ballot measures.
While the social, economic, and environmental benefits of allowing more housing options are well documented, they are often overshadowed by fears of change and imaginary worst-case scenarios at the neighborhood level. It might even seem rational to oppose change when a city feels like it’s acting alone in an effort to solve a regionally shared problem; global efforts to tackle climate change suffer from this same problem. When popularly elected officials take politically difficult steps to adopt evidence-based housing policies that can reduce costs and support more walkable communities, their efforts can be undone by a small but highly organized minority of anti-growth constituents.
In Lakewood’s case, the zoning reforms adopted by the city council were backed by a public mandate based on community outreach, strongly favorable public opinion surveys conducted by the city, and a broad range of support from affordable housing developers to environmental groups to the state AARP chapter. The city’s Strategic Housing Plan, adopted in February 2024, recommended smaller lots and homes, and included a public survey finding 50% support for, and only 33% opposition to, allowing middle housing in single-family zones – providing strong evidence to the city council that the community was ready for change.
Nearly every housing study commissioned by local governments across Colorado points to similar solutions – most notably, allowing “middle housing” types in traditionally single-family neighborhoods. Yet Lakewood is not alone in facing political backlash from vocal minorities. Similar efforts have stalled or been reversed in cities as varied as Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Littleton, and Englewood. In some cases, opposition efforts are accompanied by ballot measures or recall campaigns. This creates a real disincentive for city councils to support the policies necessary to solve the housing crisis.
While local governments can adopt meaningful pro-housing policies, and should continue striving to do so, the political dynamics are often stacked against them. This dynamic helps explain why state legislatures across the U.S. have become more involved in land use and housing policy. With a broader vantage point and better capacity for incentivizing collective action, state leaders are better positioned to consider regional housing needs rather than the preferences of individuals. If anything, Lakewood’s recent vote underscores the rationale behind this shift.
And yet, local efforts remain essential, even when progress is inconsistent or contested. Lakewood’s history of ballot-box zoning fights makes it a particularly challenging environment for housing reform, and a questionable test case for other cities wondering how their efforts might play out. Cities from Denver and Boulder to Grand Junction are continuing to move toward allowing small and more affordable homes in their communities. We encourage others to join them.
