Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C. - 3 P.3d 30 (Colo. 2000)

Rule:

Home rule cities are granted plenary authority by the constitution to regulate issues of local concern. Colo. Const. art. XX, § 6. If a home rule city takes action on a matter of local concern, and that ordinance conflicts with a state statute, the home rule provision takes precedence over the state statute. If the matter is one of statewide concern, however, home rule cities may legislate in that area only if the constitution or a statute authorizes the legislation. Otherwise, state statutes take precedence over home rule actions. If the matter is one of mixed local and statewide concern, a home rule provision and a state statute may coexist, as long as the measures can be harmonized. If the home rule action conflicts with the state legislature's action, however, the state statute supercedes the home rule authority.

Facts:

Faced with a shortage of available housing for its working citizens, petitioner Town of Telluride (town), a home rule municipality under Colo. Const. art. XX, passed a comprehensive ordinance that required developers of projects such as malls and hotels to generate affordable housing for 40 percent of the new employees created by development. Respondent developer challenged the ordinance as violating Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-12-301 (1999) which banned local rent control legislation. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the petitioner, upholding petitioner’s affordable housing ordinance as a valid exercise of its home rule powers. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of town. Petitioner sought certiorari from the Court of Appeals’ decision.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could the petitioner exercise its authority to regulate rents, notwithstanding the existence of the state rent control statute?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On certiorari, the Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the appellate court's judgment invalidating the ordinance because it not only fell clearly within the plain meaning, but it also conflicted with the state statute prohibiting local regulation of rent control measures. The Supreme Court further held that the statute superseded the authority of a home rule municipality because rent control was an issue implicating mixed state and local concerns.