Colorado 2026 Housing and Land Use Opinion Survey

Colorado 2026 Housing and Land Use Opinion Survey Overview

Magellan Strategies is pleased to present the results of a survey of 1,121 Colorado registered voters. The interviews were conducted from September 9 to 20, 2026, using an MMS text-to-web methodology with a sample drawn from the statewide voter registration file, and the survey has a margin of error of +/- 2.93% at the 95 percent confidence level. The survey data were weighted to reflect the voter registration demographics of the state.

Over the past five years, Colorado has seen a flurry of new housing and land use legislative activity at the state and local levels to make affordable rental and homeownership opportunities a reality for tens of thousands of residents. Housing and land use policy issues have expanded well beyond increased taxes on short-term rentals in mountain communities. Today, communities across Colorado are reviewing residential housing development applications with significantly higher housing density limits and multi-unit structures.

The survey measured satisfaction with and stability of current housing, the availability of rental and homeownership opportunities, the pace of residential growth, whether local housing and land use policies are moving in the right direction, trust in state and local government on affordable housing and land use, property tax relief, the state laws that bar local limits on multi-unit housing and on the number of new developments, the causes of the affordability problem, and rent control. Four open-ended questions asked respondents to explain their opinions in their own words, and the responses are summarized on this page and published in full in the linked verbatim documents.

Where the question wording and response options were the same or very similar, results are compared to the Magellan Strategies 2023 Colorado Housing and Land Use Opinion Survey, an MMS text-to-online survey of 779 registered voters conducted September 5 to 17, 2023, with a margin of error of +/- 3.51%. As the data show, opinions on state and local housing and land use policies have shifted only modestly since 2023.

This survey was designed and self-funded by Magellan Strategies. No individual, group, or organization contributed to the cost of this survey project. Magellan Strategies is a nonpartisan public opinion research firm, and the results are published to give Colorado decision-makers reliable data on housing and land use policy.

Any questions regarding this survey and its methodology can be directed to David Flaherty at [email protected] or 303-861-8585.

View and Download the Survey Results

Survey Topline Results Survey Presentation Survey Crosstabs Verbatim Responses to T12 Reasons for Agreeing the Legislature Provided Property Tax Relief Verbatim Responses to T13 Reasons for Disagreeing the Legislature Provided Property Tax Relief Verbatim Responses to T16 Reasons for Supporting Multi-Unit Housing on Single-Family Land Verbatim Responses to T17 Reasons for Opposing Multi-Unit Housing on Single-Family Land

Key Findings: Colorado 2026 Housing and Land Use Opinion Survey

A statewide survey of 1,121 Colorado registered voters, conducted September 9 to 20, 2026, with a margin of error of +/- 2.93%. Data weighted to Colorado voter registration demographics. Funded by Magellan Strategies.

• Housing satisfaction has risen slightly since 2023, but renters trail homeowners by a wide margin: 67% of respondents are satisfied with their current housing, up from 61% in 2023. However, satisfaction differs by 36 points between renters and homeowners: 80% of homeowners are satisfied compared with 44% of renters. Renters are also more supportive of local rent control (71% compared to 53% of homeowners), a policy that 59% of all respondents support, nearly unchanged from 60% in 2023.
• Large majorities want both local and state government to do more on affordable housing: 71% say local government should do more on affordable housing policy, including 51% who say a lot more, and 71% say the same of state government, up from 67% in 2023. Only 19% believe local affordable housing and land use policies are effective and moving in the right direction. Renters (91%) and Democratic voters (86%) are most likely to want more local action, compared with homeowners (61%) and Republican voters (54%).
• A plurality trusts neither level of government on housing and land use: When asked who they trust more to address affordable housing, 46% choose neither, while 24% pick local government and 22% pick the state. On land use decisions, 40% trust neither. Republican voters are the most skeptical, with 67% trusting neither on affordable housing, compared with 25% of Democratic voters. A majority (51%) do not think state policies are more effective than local ones, while 28% do.
• Support for allowing multi-unit housing on single-family lots has grown since the policy took effect: Half of respondents (50%) support the policy that bars local governments from limiting duplexes, triplexes, and add-on units on single-family land, while 39% oppose it. In 2023, when it was still a proposal, 46% supported it, and 47% opposed it. Support reaches 57% among voters 18 to 44 but falls to 40% among voters 65 and older. Opponents most often cite local control. The related law that bars local limits on new developments split 44% to 44%.
• Few respondents credit the legislature with property tax relief: Just 13% agree that the state legislature has passed legislation that brought property tax relief for homeowners, while 58% disagree, including 46% who strongly disagree, and 29% are unsure. Among those who disagree, a clear majority say their own tax bill has continued to rise, with many describing bills that doubled over a few years or jumped 30 to 50 percent in a single year, often through mortgage escrow.

Housing Satisfaction and Stability

Sixty-seven percent of respondents are satisfied with their current housing situation, including 32% who are very satisfied, while 32% are not satisfied and 1% have no opinion. Satisfaction is up from 61% in 2023. The widest gap is between homeowners and renters: 80% of homeowners are satisfied compared with 44% of renters. Satisfaction also rises with age, from 59% of respondents 18 to 44 to 69% of those 45 to 64 and 80% of those 65 and older, and with income, from 55% of respondents with household incomes under $75,000 to 85% of those earning more than $200,000. There is little difference by party, with 65% of unaffiliated voters, 68% of Democratic voters, and 70% of Republican voters satisfied. Satisfaction ranges from 59% in the 8th Congressional District to 73% in the 4th.

Eighty-four percent of respondents describe their housing as stable, including 49% who say it is very stable and they feel secure, while 15% describe it as unstable. Ten percent say their housing situation is uncertain, and 5% say they are at risk of losing their housing. Renters (27%) are three times as likely as homeowners (9%) to describe their housing as unstable, and 29% of respondents with household incomes under $75,000 do, compared with 4% of those earning more than $200,000. Instability is highest in the 8th Congressional District (25%) and lowest in the 4th (5%).

Availability of Rental and Homeownership Opportunities

Respondents see a lack of homeownership opportunities as a larger problem than a lack of rental opportunities. Seventy-eight percent say the lack of homeownership opportunities in their community is a problem, including 55% who call it a big problem, while 14% say it is not a problem. Sixty percent say the lack of rental opportunities is a problem, including 29% who call it a big problem, while 25% say it is not and 15% have no opinion.

On rentals, 81% of renters see a problem compared with 51% of homeowners, and 69% of Democratic voters do compared with 45% of Republican voters. Seventy-five percent of respondents with household incomes under $75,000 see a rental problem. By congressional district, concern about rentals ranges from 45% in the 4th to 79% in the 3rd.

Concern about homeownership is broad. Eighty-seven percent of renters and 86% of respondents 18 to 44 call the lack of homeownership opportunities a problem, as do 74% of homeowners and 65% of respondents 65 and older. Eighty-three percent of Democratic voters and 72% of Republican voters agree it is a problem, and the figure is at least 72% in every congressional district.

Speed of Residential Growth and Development

Forty-eight percent of respondents say residential housing growth in their community over the past five years has been too fast, including 28% who say much too fast, while 30% say it has been too slow and 13% say it has been just the right amount. The share saying too fast is down from 55% in 2023, while the share saying too slow is unchanged at 30%.

Older respondents and Republican voters are the most likely to say growth has been too fast: 58% of respondents 65 and older and 64% of Republican voters say so, compared with 40% of respondents 18 to 44. Women (52%) are more likely than men (43%) to say too fast, and 57% of respondents without a four-year college degree say so compared with 40% of college graduates. The 4th Congressional District stands out at 65% too fast, while in the 1st Congressional District only 27% say too fast and 48% say too slow.

Local Housing and Land Use Policies

Before the next questions, respondents were given two definitions: affordable housing is housing that costs no more than 30% of an individual’s total income, and land use policies are residential zoning regulations and community master plans that shape a city, town, or neighborhood and can affect where housing, jobs, schools, open space, public services, and transportation are located.

Only 19% of respondents think the local affordable housing and land use policies in their community are effective and moving in the right direction, while 71% do not, including 39% who say definitely not. These results are nearly identical to 2023, when 20% said yes and 73% said no. Republican voters (30%) and respondents earning more than $200,000 (29%) are the most positive, while 78% of renters say local policies are not working. Positive views range from 13% in the 7th Congressional District to 25% in the 1st.

Trust in State and Local Government on Housing and Land Use

When asked who they trust more to address the problem of affordable housing in Colorado, 46% of respondents choose neither, 24% choose local government, 22% choose state government, and 8% are unsure. The “neither” option was added in 2026, so the results are not directly comparable to 2023, when 48% chose local government, 29% chose state government, and 23% were unsure.

Distrust is highest among Republican voters, 67% of whom trust neither, and 47% of unaffiliated voters also choose neither. Democratic voters are the most likely to trust the state, with 37% choosing state government, 28% local government, and 25% neither. Fifty-three percent of respondents without a four-year college degree trust neither, compared with 41% of college graduates.

On land use decisions, 40% trust neither, 28% trust local government, 24% trust state government, and 8% are unsure. In 2023, before “neither” was offered, 54% chose local government and 28% chose the state. Sixty percent of Republican voters trust neither, and only 7% trust the state. Democratic voters lean toward the state, with 40% choosing state government, 32% local government, and 19% neither.

Should Local and State Government Do More on Affordable Housing?

Seventy-one percent of respondents say their local government should be doing more regarding their community’s affordable housing policies, including 51% who say a lot more, while 15% say less and 8% say about the same. This is little changed from 73% in 2023. Renters (91%), Democratic voters (86%), and respondents with household incomes under $75,000 (83%) are the most likely to want more, compared with homeowners (61%), Republican voters (54%), and respondents earning more than $200,000 (62%). Women (75%) are more likely than men (67%) to want more local action. Support for more local action ranges from 51% in the 4th Congressional District to 84% in the 8th.

Seventy-one percent also say state government should be doing more on affordable housing, including 54% who say a lot more, up from 67% in 2023. Twenty percent say the state should do less. Renters (94%) and Democratic voters (88%) are the most likely to want more from the state, compared with 60% of homeowners and 54% of Republican voters, 34% of whom say the state should do less. Respondents 18 to 44 (77%) are more likely than those 65 and older (64%) to want the state to do more.

Property Tax Relief for Homeowners

Respondents were asked whether they agree that in the past few years Colorado’s state legislature has passed legislation that has brought property tax relief for homeowners. Thirteen percent agree, including 2% who strongly agree, while 58% disagree, including 46% who strongly disagree, and 29% are unsure.

Homeowners, the group the relief was meant for, are the most likely to disagree: 72% of homeowners disagree compared with 35% of renters, half of whom are unsure. Seventy-eight percent of Republican voters disagree, as do 57% of unaffiliated voters and 46% of Democratic voters. Respondents 45 to 64 (72%) and 65 and older (70%) disagree at much higher rates than those 18 to 44 (45%). Disagreement ranges from 43% in the 1st and 2nd Congressional Districts to 74% in the 8th.

Reasons Respondents Agree the Legislature Provided Property Tax Relief

Respondents who agreed that the legislature has brought property tax relief were asked to describe their reasons in their own words. Five themes account for most of the responses.

Special session and lower assessment rates. The most common reason is a specific legislative action. Many recall the 2024 special session called to hold down property taxes as home values climbed, and describe the result as lower residential assessment rates, reduced assessed values, or compromise legislation the governor signed that fall. Some name specific bills, such as SB24-233, HB24-1004, and a special session bill, or describe a 5% cap on year-to-year property tax increases and a broader overhaul of the state property tax code.

Exemptions for seniors, veterans, and long-time owners. A number of respondents credit relief aimed at particular groups of homeowners. They cite the homestead exemption and its recent increase, exemptions extended to surviving spouses of military veterans, portability of the senior exemption when older owners move, and relief for retirees and people on fixed incomes.

Smaller increases on their own tax bill. Many base their agreement on their own assessment or tax bill, describing property taxes that rose only slightly or less than expected despite large jumps in home values. A few add that property taxes now feel stable compared with homeowners insurance, which they see as the faster-rising cost.

General awareness without specifics. Some respondents remember that a bill passed or have seen ballot measures or news coverage about property tax changes, but cannot name what the legislation did. A few point instead to related measures such as the renter rebate or TABOR limits on tax increases.

Relief that falls short or carries costs. Many who agree that relief was delivered question whether it helped enough. Some say the cuts did little for anyone trying to buy a home, and a few argue renters deserve a share. A smaller group objects to the relief itself, saying it favored wealthier owners, overrode the will of voters on Proposition HH, or pushed local governments into budget trouble that shortchanges fire departments, schools, and human services.

Reasons Respondents Disagree the Legislature Provided Property Tax Relief

Respondents who disagreed were also asked to explain their reasons. Six themes stand out.

Tax bills keep going up. A clear majority give a simple reason: their property tax bill has risen, so whatever the legislature passed has not shown up as relief. Many describe bills that have doubled over a few years, single-year jumps of 30 to 50 percent, or increases of several hundred to a couple of thousand dollars a year, often reaching them through higher mortgage escrow payments. Some describe borrowing money, falling behind, or watching neighbors sell because of the payments.

Relief wiped out by rising valuations. A meaningful minority acknowledge that rates or assessment percentages may have come down but say soaring home values erased any benefit. They argue that slowing the growth of a bill is not the same as lowering it, and several dispute the county’s estimate of their home’s value.

Relief seen as small, temporary, or a shifted burden. Respondents cite the repeal of the Gallagher Amendment as the cause of the spike and view later bills as partial fixes. Several say the relief only shifted the burden, as school districts, metro districts, and other local governments raised or added levies to cover shortfalls, and others call tax credits and deferral programs confusing and hard to qualify for.

Seniors and fixed-income owners being pushed out. Some focus on retirees and longtime owners on fixed incomes who can no longer keep up with bills on paid-off homes, pointing to the income limits on the state’s Property Tax Credit and the loss of the senior exemption when seniors downsize.

Spending, TABOR, and distrust of state government. A significant share frame their disagreement around distrust of how state and local governments handle money, pointing to repeated ballot measures to raise taxes, fees they believe are used to get around TABOR, and shrinking TABOR refunds. Several say rising payments have brought no improvement in services.

Housing costs beyond the tax bill. A meaningful minority broaden the complaint to the full cost of owning or renting, citing homeowners insurance, HOA dues, utilities, and interest rates. Renters in this group say higher property taxes are passed on in their rent, and many describe home prices as so far out of reach that property tax relief feels beside the point.

State Versus Local Housing and Land Use Policy Effectiveness

Twenty-eight percent of respondents think affordable housing and land use policies determined by the state are more effective than local government policies at addressing affordable housing in their community, while 51% do not and 21% are unsure. The results are close to 2023, when 26% said yes and 49% said no. Democratic voters are the only group where more say yes (42%) than no (35%). Sixty-one percent of Republican voters and 59% of respondents 65 and older say state policies are not more effective, as do 61% of respondents in the 3rd Congressional District.

Multi-Unit Housing on Single-Family Land

Respondents were told that local governments can no longer limit the building of multi-unit housing, such as duplexes, triplexes, and add-on housing units, on single-family residential-zoned land, and were asked whether they support or oppose this land use policy. Fifty percent support it, including 28% who strongly support it, while 39% oppose it, including 26% who strongly oppose it. In 2023, when the policy was still a proposal, 46% supported it and 47% opposed it, and strong opposition has fallen from 36% to 26%.

Support is highest among Democratic voters (60%), respondents earning more than $200,000 (61%), respondents 18 to 44 (57%), renters (56%), and men (56%). Opposition outweighs support among Republican voters (52% oppose, 37% support) and respondents 65 and older (52% oppose, 40% support), while homeowners split evenly at 46% to 46%. Support ranges from 33% in the 8th Congressional District to 63% in the 1st.

Reasons for Supporting Multi-Unit Housing on Single-Family Land

Respondents who support the policy were asked to describe their reasons in their own words.

More housing and lower costs. The most common reason is that Colorado needs more housing and that adding supply will bring prices and rents down, or at least slow their rise. Many say smaller units such as duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes are the missing middle option that young adults, first-time buyers, seniors, and local workers can actually afford.

Property rights and freedom from government restriction. Many frame the policy as a matter of ownership, saying people who own land should be able to decide what to build on it, while some attach limits such as meeting safety codes and having enough water to serve more residents.

Getting past local resistance and NIMBY opposition. A significant share say local governments have blocked or slowed housing for years because they answer to vocal neighbors, HOAs, and established homeowners. Several see the state as better placed to act because housing needs cross city lines.

Add-on units for family and extra income. Several describe using accessory dwelling units and backyard cottages to house aging parents, adult children, and family members with disabilities, or value the rental income for helping cover a mortgage.

Density, sprawl, and better use of land. A number want communities to build up and fill in rather than spread outward, pointing to farmland, open space, and wildlife habitat lost to new subdivisions, and describing denser neighborhoods as more walkable and more efficient with water and infrastructure.

Support with conditions. Some back the policy while naming what they want watched, including traffic, parking, water, and wildfire evacuation routes, and worry the new units will go to investors or short-term rentals instead of full-time residents.

Reasons for Opposing Multi-Unit Housing on Single-Family Land

Respondents who oppose the policy were also asked to explain their reasons.

Local control and state overreach. The most common reason for opposition is that land use and zoning should be decided locally, not by the state. Respondents say city and county governments know their communities, object to a one-size-fits-all rule, and argue that rural, mountain, and suburban towns should not be held to the same standards as the Denver metro area. Some want residents to have a vote on what gets built, and some cite home rule by name.

Roads, water, parking, and services cannot absorb more density. Many say neighborhoods built for single-family homes lack the infrastructure for more units, citing traffic, street parking, water and drought, sewer and power capacity, crowded schools, and limited wildfire evacuation routes.

Neighborhood character and property values. Many bought in single-family neighborhoods for yards, space, and quiet, and view multi-unit construction as a breach of that expectation. They worry about lower home values, crowding, and new buildings they describe as cheaply built and out of scale. Some would allow an add-on unit for a family member but oppose larger multi-unit buildings.

The policy helps developers and investors, not affordability. A significant share doubt the policy will make housing cheaper, saying new units remain out of reach and naming developers, private equity, and out-of-state landlords as the beneficiaries. Many want affordable single-family starter homes and a path to ownership rather than more rentals.

Overdevelopment and loss of open space. Several object to the overall pace of growth, describing the loss of farmland, trees, green space, wildlife habitat, and mountain views.

Factors That Contribute to the Affordable Housing Problem

Respondents were asked how much each of eleven factors contributes to the problem of affordable rental and homeownership opportunities in Colorado. Economic market forces such as inflation and the availability of labor, construction, and housing materials top the list, with 89% saying they contribute a lot or somewhat, including 59% who say a lot. The increase in people moving to Colorado follows at 82%, including 46% who say a lot.

Most of the remaining factors fall in a narrow band. Seventy-two percent point to communities lacking the resources to put in streets, sewers, and water for new development, 65% each to land use building codes and regulations and to the increase in short-term rentals, and 64% each to the time it takes developers to get through local planning and zoning and to community members who oppose new rental or affordable housing in their neighborhood. Sixty-three percent cite overly restrictive local land use and zoning policies, 60% local construction fees and permitting costs, 58% limits on infrastructure such as sewage systems and water supply, and 56% the cost of construction defect insurance for developers.

Opinions on Statements About Zoning and Land Use

Seventy-seven percent of respondents agree that most local communities in Colorado have a NIMBY (not in my backyard) or negative attitude toward multi-unit residential developments and would prefer single-family developments, including 45% who strongly agree, while 14% disagree. Agreement is down slightly from 81% in 2023. Large majorities agree across every group, from 69% of Republican voters to 82% of Democratic voters and 80% of unaffiliated voters, and agreement is at least 66% in every congressional district.

Respondents are divided on whether restrictive residential zoning and land use policies, such as sewer and water capacity, setback requirements, minimum square footage requirements, and height restrictions, are the primary reasons Colorado has not been able to address the affordable housing problem. Forty-three percent agree and 41% disagree, a shift from 2023, when 38% agreed and 49% disagreed. Renters (49% agree) and Democratic voters (49%) are more likely to agree than homeowners (39%) and Republican voters (41%), and 51% of respondents with household incomes under $75,000 agree.

Fifty-three percent agree that some residential zoning and land use policies in Colorado have been used to discriminate against minorities and individuals with lower incomes, while 33% disagree, almost exactly matching 2023. This statement divides respondents by party more than any other: 74% of Democratic voters agree, compared with 53% of unaffiliated voters and 29% of Republican voters, 59% of whom disagree. Renters (71%) and respondents 18 to 44 (60%) are more likely to agree than homeowners (44%) and respondents 65 and older (43%).

Law Barring Local Limits on New Housing Developments

Respondents were told that Colorado law prohibits local governments from limiting the number of new residential housing developments that can be built, and were asked whether they support or oppose this law. Respondents split evenly, with 44% in support and 44% opposed, while 12% are unsure. In 2023, 44% supported the idea and 47% opposed it.

Men (51%) are more supportive than women (37%), and Democratic voters (55%) are more supportive than Republican voters (36%), 57% of whom are opposed. Respondents 65 and older oppose the law 53% to 40%. Support ranges from 35% in the 4th Congressional District, where 56% are opposed, to 58% in the 1st.

Rent Control

Fifty-nine percent of respondents support a rent control policy in their local community, including 37% who strongly support it, while 35% oppose it and 6% are unsure. Support is essentially unchanged from 60% in 2023.

Support is highest among Democratic voters (76%), renters (71%), respondents with household incomes under $75,000 (70%), and women (68%). Republican voters are the only group in which more oppose than support rent control, at 50% opposed and 42% in support. Homeowners support it 53% to 40%, and men are evenly divided at 50% support and 44% opposed. Support ranges from 50% in the 4th Congressional District to 67% in the 6th.

Survey Demographics & Methodology