Colorado Springs, Colo. – A recent lawsuit is challenging a state law in Colorado which critics claim hinders the public’s ability to contest property developments. The suit, initiated against the City of Colorado Springs and the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, targets House Bill 24-1107, arguing that the legislation imposes an undue financial burden on individuals opposed to certain land-use decisions. The plaintiffs contend the law essentially curtails citizens’ rights to petition their government by making them liable for not only their legal costs but also those of the opposing side if they lose their case—a requirement that does not equally apply to developers.
Approved in late May, the contentious legislation has set the stage for a legal debate over residents’ constitutional rights versus efforts to streamline development processes. The lawsuit paints the bill as one that overtly favors developers by exempting them from the financial risks imposed on ordinary residents looking to challenge land-use decisions affecting their communities.
Dana Duggan, co-founder of the organizations Westside Watch and Integrity Matters who are co-plaintiffs, expressed dismay over the law, asserting that it strikes at the heart of American civil rights. “Our ability to address or challenge decisions we believe are incorrect is foundational to our democratic engagement with the government,” Duggan stated.
Adding another layer to the controversy is the involvement of David William Foster, a lobbyist described in the lawsuit documents as a pivotal supporter of the bill. Foster, who works on behalf of the Colorado Contractor’s Association, allegedly has a significant financial stake in promoting the bill, receiving considerable fees for his lobbying activities. This heightens concerns among the plaintiffs about potential conflicts of interest and the impartiality of the bill’s origins.
Miranda Spindel, another plaintiff, highlighted the personal stakes involved, noting that the passing of HB24-1107 might prevent her from opposing a significant development near her home in Fort Collins. She pointed out that this law is not a localized issue but one that affects citizens’ rights across Colorado. “It’s about maintaining a voice in what happens in our neighborhoods and ensuring our objections are heard and considered fairly,” Spindel explained.
The lawsuit also underscores a crucial dissent against the notion that the bill would only thwart frivolous appeals. Both Duggan and Spindel refute this claim by pointing to the existing powers that judges possess to dismiss baseless lawsuits, suggesting the redundancy and potentially overreaching nature of the new law.
Statistics mentioned by Spindel underscore that the issue of appeals might not be as widespread as proponents of the bill imply. She detailed that in the last two years, few appeals were made statewide, and only a handful yielded any success.
In addition to disputing the necessity and fairness of HB24-1107, the plaintiffs are concerned about broader implications related to citizens’ participation in government. They argue that the ability to challenge governmental decisions is integral, not only for their neighborhoods but for the preservation of rights across the state.
Officials from the City of RColorado Springs declined to comment on the ongoing lawsuit. Attempts were made to reach the Attorney General for a response, although no statement was provided at the time of reporting.
The case continues to garner attention as it progresses, poised to set a significant precedent in how democratic processes and development interests intersect and are balanced under state law.