Aurora has experienced rapid growth in recent decades. With new neighborhoods, transit corridors and shifting demographics come tough land-use choices: where to build housing, protect open space, manage traffic, and preserve neighborhood character. We understand our communities better than distant state bureaucrats ever could. That’s what home rule is meant to guarantee. But today, Gov. Jared Polis and the Colorado legislature are challenging that guarantee – not with persuasion, but with edicts and threats of financial punishment.

Aurora can’t stand silent.

Colorado’s Constitution enshrines home rule in Article XX, Section 6, which grants municipalities the right to govern “matters of local concern,” including planning, zoning, and land use. That means Aurora’s City Council, staff experts, and residents – not the State Capitol – should decide how our city grows. Local decision-making isn’t just symbolic; it’s practical. Aurora’s land, infrastructure, transit access, utilities, and neighborhoods all interlock uniquely. One-size mandates from the Capitol can’t account for those nuances.

In 2024, the state passed sweeping land-use laws – HB 24-1304, eliminating parking minimums in many zones, and HB 24-1313, mandating higher densities near transit corridors. These laws rewire local zoning authority, enshrining uniform rules that undercut Aurora’s ability to tailor decisions for its neighborhoods.

Then, on Aug. 13, Polis signed an executive order threatening to withhold $280 million in grant funding from municipalities that don’t comply with these new mandates. By forcing local governments to choose between their constitutional challenge and vital state grants, the state is using financial leverage as a means of coercion.

If Aurora loses this fight, several dangerous precedents are set:

o Democracy is diminished. Residents lose meaningful input if state mandates hijack land-use rules. Neighborhood voices, local planning committees, and city council deliberations are replaced by bureaucratic directives.
o Policy mistakes become inevitable. Aurora’s growth patterns, infrastructure constraints, and transit nodes differ from Denver’s or those in Colorado Springs. A uniform mandate ignores all of that.
o Fiscal harm follows. These grant programs often support affordable housing, parks, infrastructure, and transportation. If Aurora is deemed “non-compliant,” we lose that funding – and residents bear the burden.
o A slippery slope looms. If the state can coerce local governments over land use, why not over policing, public health, or schools? Local authority becomes nominal.

Aurora, along with Greenwood Village, Arvada, Glendale, Lafayette and Westminster, has already filed suit in Denver District Court. The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief contends these laws and the governor’s executive order violate Colorado’s Constitution and improperly preempt home-rule control.

Importantly, the complaint already seeks injunctive relief. Should the state attempt to deny any of the six plaintiffs their grant funding under the EO, the cities will immediately file for a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement until the constitutional issues are resolved. It’s not aggressive – it’s essential. You shouldn’t lose your grants simply for defending your rights.

Supporters of these mandates argue that home rule stands in the way of a timely, consistent response to Colorado’s housing crisis – that the state needs uniform rules to solve it. But that “consistency” is precisely what helped create the crisis. When one-size-fits-all regulations and state-imposed standards replace local flexibility, communities lose the ability to innovate, adjust and respond to their own market realities.

The housing challenges in Aurora differ from those in Boulder, Durango, and Aspen. By standardizing every city’s zoning map, the state makes it harder – not easier – to build housing that fits infrastructure, transit access, and local demand. Rigid consistency stifles the competition of ideas that drives affordability.

Uniformity may look efficient on paper, but in practice it produces paralysis, higher costs, and unintended consequences. What the housing market needs is diversity of approach – not bureaucratic conformity. True consistency should come from respecting the Constitution: consistent protection of local authority, not consistent overreach.

o Speak up. Write your state senator or representative, submit letters to editors, testify in hearings, and demand transparency about compliance status.
o Support municipal coalitions. When other home-rule cities join voices, the line against overreach strengthens.
o Watch for the injunction. If state funds are withheld, demand swift judicial action.
o Press the narrative. This isn’t about “housing rules” – it’s about constitutional self-governance.

In Aurora, we don’t just inherit neighborhoods – we envision their future. That vision should rest with our neighbors, our planners, and our city council – not distant lawmakers who can’t feel our traffic, know our soils, or foresee the impact of their edicts on local lives.

Gov. Polis and the legislature may believe they can override home rule through new laws and threats, but they underestimate one thing: the Constitution still stands. Aurora won’t accept stripped authority. We will defend it – legally, publicly, and relentlessly – because this is more than zoning. This is democracy.

Michael A. Hancock is a retired high-tech business executive and a Coloradan since 1973. Originally from Texas, he is a musician, composer, software engineer and U.S. Air Force veteran whose wide-ranging interests – from science and religion to politics, the arts and philosophy – shape his perspective on culture, innovation and what it means to be a Coloradan.