CO Code § 38-12-301 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 38 - Property - Real and Personal|Article 12 - Tenants and Landlords|Part 3 - Local Control of Rents Prohibited|§ 38-12-301. Control of Rents by Counties and Municipalities Prohibited - Legislative Declaration

  The general assembly finds and declares that the imposition of rent control on private residential housing units is a matter of statewide concern; therefore, no county or municipality may enact any ordinance or resolution that would control rent on either private residential property or a private residential housing unit.    For purposes of subsection (1) of this section, an ordinance or resolution that would control rent on either private residential property or a private residential housing unit shall not include:   A voluntary agreement between a county or municipality and a permit applicant or property owner to limit rent on the property or unit or that is otherwise designed to provide affordable housing stock; or    The placement on the title to the unit of a deed restriction that limits rent on the property or unit or that is otherwise designed to provide affordable housing stock pursuant to a voluntary agreement between a county or municipality and a permit applicant or property owner to place the deed restriction on the title.       An agreement authorized pursuant to subsection (2) of this section may specify how long either private residential property or a private residential housing unit is subject to its terms, whether a subsequent property owner is subject to the agreement, and remedies for early termination agreed to by both the permit applicant or property owner and the county or municipality.    Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a county or municipality may not deny an application for a development permit as defined in section 29-20-103 (1), C.R.S., because an applicant for such a permit declines to enter into an agreement to limit rent on either private residential property or a private residential housing unit.    This section is not intended to impair the right of any state agency, county, or municipality to manage and control any property in which it has an interest through a housing authority or similar agency.     History. Source: L. 81: Entire part added, p. 1818, § 1, effective June 23. L. 2010: Entire section amended,(HB 10-1017), ch. 208, p. 906, § 1, effective September 1.    Editor's note:   Section 2 of chapter 208, Session Laws of Colorado 2010, provides that the act amending this section applies to agreements entered into before, on, or after September 1, 2010.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “‘Hang 'em High': Affordable Housing Covenants in Colorado (Part I)”, see 48 Colo. Law. 45 (July 2019). For article, “Forever is an Awfully Long Time: Affordable Housing Covenants in Colorado (Part II)”, see 48 Colo. Law. 44 (Aug.-Sept. 2019). For comment, “Let Cities Decide: End Colorado's Prohibition on Rent Regulation”, see 92 U. Colo. L. Rev. 337 (2021).   Statute declaring rent control a matter of statewide importance preempted conflicting home rule town ordinance that mandated affordable housing mitigation. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C. v. Town of Telluride, 976 P.2d 303 (Colo. App. 1998), aff'd, 3 P.3d 30 (Colo. 2000).   Ordinance constituted rent control because options it imposes for constructing new employee housing or deed restricting housing are within commonly understood meaning of rent control. Rent control falls within an area of mixed state and local concern. Ordinance clearly conflicts with state prohibition on rent control contained in this section. Accordingly, ordinance invalid and section does not violate home rule amendment to constitution. Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, 3 P.3d 30 (Colo. 2000).   2010 amendments to this section apply retroactively and such retroactive application does not violate the constitutional prohibition against retrospective legislation. The general assembly clearly indicated that it intended that the amendments apply to agreements entered into before they took effect, the amendments clarified rather than changed existing law, and the amendments were remedial in nature. Meyerstein v. City of Aspen, 282 P.3d 456 (Colo. App. 2011).