> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# The American Dream Shouldn’t Require Leaving Colorado
- URL: https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/issue-2-american-dream/
- Published: 2026-10-27T13:30:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-27T13:30:00.000Z
- Description: Housing, household costs, and the policy choices that shape whether Colorado families can afford to stay.
- Author: Eric Phelan
- Tags: Colorado Economy, October 2026, Issue 2, #Import 2026-10-19 20:11

From the October 2026 issue of The Colorado Conservative.

Written by Eric Phelan

## A more affordable future begins with removing the obstacles we can control.

The conversation usually begins with a house.

Someone sends a listing from another state. There is an extra bedroom, a decent yard, perhaps a garage big enough to hold something besides holiday decorations. Then comes the price.

For a moment, moving seems almost sensible.

Until you remember what the listing cannot show: your parents a short drive away, the friends who know your children, the work you have built, the mountains that still make you look up on an otherwise ordinary Tuesday.

Leaving Colorado is a perfectly reasonable choice for some people. It becomes a harder conversation when the choice feels financial rather than personal. When staying means postponing a home, another child, retirement, or the small cushion that would make the next unexpected bill manageable.

Colorado has much worth staying for. Making that possible requires an honest look at the costs our own government has added.

Over the past two decades, Colorado lawmakers have enacted fees and requirements that reach into ordinary routines: registering a car, buying fuel, ordering a delivery, or building a home. Each came with an explanation. Families still have to pay the combined bill.

A more affordable Colorado needs legislators willing to revisit those decisions, remove charges that have not justified their cost, and simplify rules that make getting ahead unnecessarily difficult. That is a practical reason to look closely at the candidates asking for our votes.

[![Family illustration from the affordability article](https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/content/files/images/tcc-issue-02/american-dream-family.jpeg)](https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/content/files/images/tcc-issue-02/american-dream-family.jpeg)

## When a Good Paycheck Stops Feeling Like One

Affordability is often discussed as though it were a single number. Families experience it as a sequence.

The mortgage or rent comes first. Then insurance, groceries, utilities, transportation, healthcare, and childcare. Whatever remains has to cover repairs, savings, and the occasional pleasure that makes working worthwhile.

A raise can disappear into that sequence without changing how life feels.

Housing is the largest obstacle for many households. Colorado’s Division of Housing, in its fiscal year 2024–25 report, cited 2023 Census data showing that roughly half of renters and 26.2 percent of homeowners spent more than 30 percent of household income on housing. Those are historical measurements, rather than an October 2026 snapshot, but they establish how widely the strain had spread. \[1\]

The familiar advice to spend less still has value. A household budget deserves the same honest scrutiny as a government budget. But there is a limit to what trimming subscriptions can accomplish when the largest expenses consume the paycheck.

The consequences extend beyond the person looking for a home. A community needs teachers, medical assistants, mechanics, caregivers, and electricians. Their ability to live nearby belongs in the conversation about what makes that community successful.

## How We Arrived Here

Colorado’s appeal helped create the pressure. People wanted to live here, and homes did not become available quickly enough to meet the need.

The state’s housing report estimated a shortage of 106,000 homes in 2023\. It also reported that the shortfall had declined by about 24 percent since 2019\. That second number matters: progress has occurred, even while affordability remains difficult. \[1\]

The shortage has several causes. A Colorado Housing and Finance Authority analysis describes construction challenges dating back to the Great Recession, elevated material costs following pandemic disruptions, and shortages of construction workers. It also identifies land-use restrictions as a contributor to constrained supply. \[2\]

These pressures interact. Expensive land makes a modest home harder to deliver. Costly materials and scarce workers add to the difficulty. Rules that limit the number or types of homes allowed on a property can further narrow the options.

A town may want young families to stay while allowing very few homes they could realistically buy. That is a planning problem worth addressing.

[![Household-spending chart reproduced from the magazine](https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/content/files/images/tcc-issue-02/american-dream-household-spending.jpeg)](https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/content/files/images/tcc-issue-02/american-dream-household-spending.jpeg)

Existing residents have legitimate concerns about growth. Roads, schools, water supplies, emergency services, and neighborhood character all deserve attention. Yet restricting homes also has consequences. The people priced out of a community may never be present at the meeting where those consequences are debated.

A better conversation would include them.

Colorado’s geography adds another complication. A solution that fits a Front Range neighborhood may be poorly suited to a rural town or mountain community. CHFA’s development guide identifies transportation, labor, and infrastructure costs as particular challenges for remote rural construction. Lower land prices alone cannot solve those problems. \[3\]

Affordability needs local knowledge as well as statewide attention. It also needs a clear distinction between unavoidable costs and obstacles we have chosen to impose. A mountain cannot be repealed. An unnecessary requirement can.

## The Price is Only Part of the Purchase

Borrowing costs can change a family’s prospects even when the house price stays put.

Consider an illustrative $400,000 mortgage with a fixed rate and a 30-year term. At 3 percent interest, monthly principal and interest would be about $1,686\. At 6.5 percent, it would be about $2,528.

That is roughly $842 more each month for the same loan, before taxes, insurance, or maintenance. These are comparison rates, not a claim about the rate available to every buyer today.

It helps explain why an older homeowner and a first-time buyer can look at the same neighborhood and see different financial worlds.

Colorado officials cannot set national mortgage rates. They can influence how difficult it is to build, how predictable approvals are, and what local infrastructure costs. Recognizing the boundary between those responsibilities makes accountability more useful. A legislator cannot promise away national interest rates, but can sponsor a bill to remove a state-imposed charge or revise a costly requirement. That is the kind of specific commitment worth listening for.

Insurance adds another layer. In February 2026, Colorado’s Division of Insurance released findings from 20 carriers representing about 80 percent of the homeowners market. Across the 11 counties examined, hail accounted for an average of 26 to 54 percent of premiums, depending on the county. \[4\]

That finding points toward practical work: stronger roofs, targeted mitigation, and clearer information about which improvements earn meaningful discounts. Any public assistance should be evaluated against its cost and the savings it actually produces.

Weather will remain part of life here. Reducing the damage it causes offers a more durable route to relief than simply hoping the next renewal notice looks better.

### Mortgage payment comparison

$400,000 loan · 30-year fixed term · 12 payments per year

| Annual interest | Monthly principal and interest |
| --------------- | ------------------------------ |
| 3.0%            | $1,686.42                      |
| 3.5%            | $1,796.18                      |
| 4.0%            | $1,909.66                      |
| 4.5%            | $2,026.74                      |
| 5.0%            | $2,147.29                      |
| 5.5%            | $2,271.16                      |
| 6.0%            | $2,398.20                      |
| 6.5%            | $2,528.27                      |

Excludes taxes, insurance, HOA dues and other fees. Inputs supplied by user. Payments are monthly. Comparison reproduced from the magazine; these are illustrative rates.

## The Costs Colorado Chose to Add

Some expenses come from economic conditions or weather. Others began as bills at the Capitol.

In 2009, Senate Bill 09-108 created the FASTER road-safety and bridge-safety registration surcharges. For vehicles weighing 2,001 to 5,000 pounds, the published schedule lists $23 for road safety and $18 for bridge safety: $41 in those two annual charges alone, separate from other registration costs. \[6\]

Maintaining bridges and roads is necessary. Whether the funding arrangement remains efficient, fairly allocated, and appropriately priced is still a question legislators can revisit. Creating a fee should not end the discussion about how well its revenue is spent.

In 2021, Senate Bill 21-260 added another layer of transportation funding, including road-usage fees on gasoline and diesel, and fees associated with retail deliveries. \[7\] The combined retail delivery fee is 31 cents for July 2026 through June 2027 on qualifying motor-vehicle deliveries containing taxable goods, subject to applicable exemptions. \[8\]

Thirty-one cents will not decide whether a family can afford a home. It is nevertheless an expense created by public policy, and small charges deserve scrutiny alongside large ones.

The same applies at the grocery checkout. House Bill 21-1162 established a carryout-bag fee of at least 10 cents at covered stores, with exemptions including qualifying food-assistance recipients. The law allows higher local fees and directs 60 percent of collected revenue to local government, with stores retaining 40 percent. \[9\]

Customers can avoid that charge by bringing bags, and encouraging reuse was part of the policy's purpose. Still, lawmakers made a deliberate choice to impose it. In 2025, a bill to repeal the recycled-paper-bag fee failed in committee. \[10\]

That is a concrete example of why candidate selection matters. Whether a charge stays in place depends partly on who is willing to remove it and who votes to retain it.

Housing requirements deserve even closer attention because their financial effects can be much larger. House Bill 22-1362 established a state process for electric- and solar-ready building codes and a low-energy and carbon code, along with adoption requirements and grant programs. \[11\]

Energy efficiency can reduce operating expenses. Preparing a building for future equipment can also have value. The affordability question is whether each required feature delivers enough benefit to justify its upfront cost, particularly in an entry-level home.

A family must qualify for the purchase before it can enjoy future savings. Legislators should be willing to revise requirements when a less expensive approach can achieve a comparable result. Any claim about the amount saved should be supported by an actual cost analysis.

These examples establish that some of the costs Colorado residents face are decisions that elected officials can change. Each fee and regulation deserves to be judged on its own results.

The policy failure to avoid is treating a worthy goal as sufficient justification for an accumulating expense. Roads need maintenance, homes need to be safe, and resources deserve care. The route chosen to accomplish those things still needs to make financial sense.

One lesson from Colorado's housing experience is that affordability has to enter the discussion before decisions are final. CHFA's analysis links restrictions such as minimum lot sizes and limits on multifamily homes to higher housing costs. \[2\] Those are generally local land-use decisions, rather than charges enacted by the state legislature. Both levels of government deserve scrutiny for the obstacles within their control.

A family receives the combined bill, even when each expense came from a different agency. A serious affordability agenda would examine that total burden, publish the benefits obtained, and identify what can be reduced, consolidated, or repealed.

Good intentions deserve a fair hearing. Results deserve the deciding vote.

[![Tax and household-cost illustrations from the magazine](https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/content/files/images/tcc-issue-02/american-dream-costs.jpeg)](https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/content/files/images/tcc-issue-02/american-dream-costs.jpeg)

## A More Attainable Colorado

A useful starting point is making a wider range of homes possible while reducing the avoidable cost of delivering them. More subsidies will have limited reach if we leave unnecessary barriers in place.

Some people need a detached house. Others would welcome a smaller home, a condominium, a duplex, or an apartment near work. An older resident may want to downsize without leaving the neighborhood. A young adult may need an affordable first step toward independence.

Communities can examine where those options fit existing roads, water systems, and services. They can publish clear approval requirements and realistic timelines. They can reduce fees that exceed demonstrated infrastructure needs, eliminate duplicative reviews, and change rules that unnecessarily prevent modest homes. State legislators can review mandates that add cost across jurisdictions and give communities workable, less expensive ways to meet legitimate safety and infrastructure goals.

More homes will not make every neighborhood inexpensive. It can, however, give households more choices and reduce competition for a limited supply. Infrastructure still has to be financed, and existing residents deserve a fair explanation of how.

Colorado has already begun changing some of its rules. Recent legislation addressed accessory dwelling units, housing near transit, parking requirements, and legal protections for participating attached-housing builders who provide warranties and meet inspection requirements. Those measures differ in scope and raise legitimate implementation questions. \[5\]

Their value should be judged by what follows: homes completed, costs, safety, access, and effects on nearby residents. A candidate willing to remove barriers should also be willing to retain a reform that demonstrably works, regardless of who introduced it. Permission to build is an important step; finished homes are what families can live in.

Preserving usable housing matters, too. Repairing an existing property can keep a home available while new construction takes time. Assistance also has a role for households facing disability, crisis, or incomes too low to secure adequate housing. The broader task is to make ordinary housing attainable for more people through their own earnings.

That brings wages into the picture.

A stronger path to affordability includes opportunities to acquire valuable skills without taking on debt that overwhelms the benefit. Apprenticeships, technical education, and partnerships with employers deserve attention alongside traditional college routes.

The people who build and maintain Colorado need an opportunity to build lives here themselves. Better earnings and fewer avoidable expenses can work together. Government can help by clearing a path for both.

[![Neighborhood illustration from the magazine](https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/content/files/images/tcc-issue-02/american-dream-neighborhood.jpeg)](https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/content/files/images/tcc-issue-02/american-dream-neighborhood.jpeg)

## What Our Votes Can Change

By the time an affordability discussion reaches an election, the promises can sound familiar. Everyone wants lower costs. Everyone wants families to thrive.

The useful differences lie in what candidates are prepared to change.

A strong candidate can identify fees they would reduce or repeal, regulations they would simplify, and unnecessary impediments they would remove. For an incumbent, that conversation can begin with the voting record. For a challenger, it can begin with a specific legislative proposal.

Repeal also requires a plan. If a fee supports necessary road repairs, a candidate can explain which spending would be reduced, which funds could be redirected, or how the work would otherwise be financed. Replacing one charge with another is a different proposition from reducing the overall burden.

That standard makes promises easier to compare. It rewards the candidate who has done the homework and is willing to defend a practical change.

State legislators have a direct role in reversing costs created at the Capitol. Local officials have responsibility for another set of decisions, including development fees and land-use restrictions. Voting for reform at one level while overlooking the other leaves part of the problem untouched.

Over the past twenty years, individual decisions have helped build the collection of rules and charges residents encounter today. The next group of lawmakers can review that collection with fresh eyes. Some provisions may earn their place. Others may need revision or removal.

Colorado's progress will depend partly on electing people willing to undertake that work, including the less glamorous task of improving a process or repealing a small charge. Those changes may attract fewer headlines than a new program, but they can make everyday life easier.

A permitting process that works better. A modest home that becomes feasible. A bill that removes an unjustified expense. A useful safety rule made simpler to follow.

Those improvements accumulate. So do the choices that prevent them.

Somewhere in Colorado tonight, a family is looking at that out-of-state listing. They may decide to go. There is nothing wrong with seeking a good life elsewhere.

But staying ought to be a realistic option for people willing to work, save, and contribute to their community. Making that option stronger requires candidates who recognize the obstacles government has added and are willing to remove the ones we no longer need.

Our votes can give them the opportunity.

And perhaps, a few years from now, that family can close the listing and start planning a future here.

[![Family and new-home illustration from the magazine](https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/content/files/images/tcc-issue-02/american-dream-new-home.jpeg)](https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/content/files/images/tcc-issue-02/american-dream-new-home.jpeg)

## Sources and editorial notes

1\. Colorado Division of Housing, Annual Public Report on Funding of Affordable Housing Preservation and Production, FY2024– 25, pp. 7–8\. Housing shortfall estimate is for 2023; cost-burden figures cite 2023 Census data. [https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/Annual%20Public%20Report%20on%20Funding%20of%20Affordable%20](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/Annual%20Public%20Report%20on%20Funding%20of%20Affordable%20?ref=thecoloradoconservative.com) Housing%20Preservation%20and%20Production,%20FY2024-25.pdf

2\. Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, The Housing Affordability Gap, June 2025, pp. 8–11\. [https://www.chfainfo.com/getattachment/cad06816-f243-4218-b438-65df4c903f44/WP\_HousingAffordabilityGap.pdf](https://www.chfainfo.com/getattachment/cad06816-f243-4218-b438-65df4c903f44/WP%5FHousingAffordabilityGap.pdf?ref=thecoloradoconservative.com)

3\. CHFA, Colorado Affordable Housing Developer’s Guide: Introduction to Affordable Housing Development. [https://developers-guide.chfainfo.com/introduction-affordable-housing-development](https://developers-guide.chfainfo.com/introduction-affordable-housing-development?ref=thecoloradoconservative.com)

4\. Colorado Division of Insurance, February 11, 2026, homeowners insurance findings. The 26–54% range concerns the share of premiums attributable to hail, not the percentage increase in premiums. [https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CODORA/bulletins/409397d](https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CODORA/bulletins/409397d?ref=thecoloradoconservative.com)

5\. Colorado Legislative Council Staff, Recent Housing Supply Legislation, September 2025\. [https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/r25-499\_recent\_housing\_policies\_and\_implementation-accessible.pdf](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/r25-499%5Frecent%5Fhousing%5Fpolicies%5Fand%5Fimplementation-accessible.pdf?ref=thecoloradoconservative.com)

6\. Colorado DMV, FASTER Fees, statutory origins and weight-based surcharges. [https://dmv.colorado.gov/sites/dmv/files/FASTER%20FEES.pdf](https://dmv.colorado.gov/sites/dmv/files/FASTER%20FEES.pdf?ref=thecoloradoconservative.com)

7\. Colorado General Assembly, SB21-260 Bill Summary, as enacted. [https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sb21-260-bill-summary](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sb21-260-bill-summary?ref=thecoloradoconservative.com)

8\. Colorado Department of Revenue, Retail Delivery Fee Rates and program overview. Rate verified for July 2026–June 2027; exemptions and retailer payment elections affect application. [https://tax.colorado.gov/retail-delivery-fee-rates](https://tax.colorado.gov/retail-delivery-fee-rates?ref=thecoloradoconservative.com) and [https://tax.colorado.gov/retail-delivery-fee](https://tax.colorado.gov/retail-delivery-fee?ref=thecoloradoconservative.com)

9\. Colorado General Assembly, HB21-1162, as enacted. [https://www.leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb21-1162](https://www.leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb21-1162?ref=thecoloradoconservative.com)

10\. Colorado General Assembly, HB25-1051, introduced summary and committee disposition, February 6, 2025\. This repeal proposal failed; it is not an enacted repeal. [https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1051](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1051?ref=thecoloradoconservative.com)

11\. Colorado General Assembly, HB22-1362, as enacted. Described here for its legislative origin, without claiming the original adoption timetable remains unchanged or quantifying its net cost. [https://www.leg.colorado.gov/bills/HB22-1362](https://www.leg.colorado.gov/bills/HB22-1362?ref=thecoloradoconservative.com)

The opening and closing depict a general scenario, not an interviewed family. The mortgage comparison is an independent amortization calculation using a $400,000 balance, 360 monthly payments, and the two stated illustrative annual interest rates. Reform recommendations and evaluative passages represent editorial analysis; the article does not claim to quantify the contribution of each cause or guarantee policy outcomes.

[← Previous article](https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/issue-2-pledge/)[Full issue →](https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/october-2026-issue-two/)