Broomfield 2025 Housing Ballot Measure Survey

Magellan Strategies is pleased to present the topline results of a survey of 757 voters in the City and County of Broomfield. The interviews were conducted from April 29th to May 6th, 2025.

Residents of the City and County of Broomfield expressed widespread concern about housing affordability, particularly for homeownership and essential workers. A majority said the availability of homeownership opportunities (56%) and housing options for local essential workers (60%) was a big or somewhat big problem, and nearly eight in ten (78%) rated residential housing costs as too high. Views were divided on whether Broomfield faced an overall housing shortage, with 42% saying yes and 46% saying no, but even many who did not believe there was a shortage acknowledged significant affordability challenges.

Among residents who believed there was a housing shortage, the most frequently cited solutions included building more affordable and diverse housing, reforming zoning and land use regulations to allow higher density, limiting corporate and investor ownership, and expanding financial assistance for renters and first-time homebuyers. Those who did not believe there was a housing shortage tended to favor free-market approaches, reduced government involvement, fewer regulations, and preserving community character, while still sometimes acknowledging affordability concerns rather than supply issues.

Initial reaction to a proposed 0.5% sales tax ballot measure to raise $10 million annually for housing stability programs was strongly negative. In the uninformed ballot test, only 34% said they would vote yes, while 60% said they would vote no. Opposition was driven by concerns about higher taxes, skepticism about government effectiveness, and distrust rooted in past city spending decisions.

Support for the measure increased modestly as voters learned more about housing needs and proposed uses of the funds. Information about rising rents, a shortage of nearly 1,700 affordable rental units, growing demand on nonprofit housing providers, homelessness affecting families and children, and programs aimed at rehousing, stabilization, and preserving affordable units made pluralities more likely to support the measure, though significant opposition remained. Messages about helping seniors, essential workers, and vulnerable residents were among the most persuasive.

Even after receiving all information, the measure remained underwater. In the informed ballot test, 39% said they would vote yes and 56% said they would vote no. Supporters framed their position around housing as a basic human need, compassion for vulnerable populations, and long-term community stability. Opponents continued to emphasize tax fatigue, cost-of-living pressures, lack of trust in government oversight, and beliefs that housing challenges should be addressed through market-based or regional solutions rather than local taxes.

Alternative funding options performed unevenly. A smaller 0.25% sales tax was overwhelmingly rejected by voters who opposed the larger measure, with 84% saying they would still vote no. A construction excise tax on commercial development tested better, with 40% support and 51% opposition, and support increased when voters learned it would not apply to residential construction. When asked to choose between measures, more voters opposed both than supported either. Overall, the results showed strong concern about housing affordability paired with deep resistance to broad-based tax increases, highlighting a challenging environment for advancing housing funding measures in Broomfield.

Among the individual persuasion messages tested, information about helping cost-burdened seniors avoid displacement generated the highest share of “more likely to approve” responses at 47%, followed closely by the message about homelessness affecting families and children at 45%, and the message about essential workers being unable to afford to live in the community they serve at 43%. Messages about the structural funding gap identified by local nonprofits, the shortage of affordable rental units, and the use of funds for stabilization programs through rental assistance and housing vouchers also moved pluralities toward support, though none were sufficient to overcome overall opposition to the measure.