(music playing) - Hi, everyone.

Welcome to Both Sides of the Story.

I'm your host Alan Gionet from CBS4.

Thanks for joining us.

We kick off our semifinal rounds tonight with the first debate from our consolation bracket, and it is sure to be a great one.

On tonight's show, students from Holy Family High School in Broomfield and Eaglecrest High School in Aurora compete to move on to the consolation bracket championship.

Let's meet our participants now.

First up is Jaden Reenan, a senior from Holy Family High School in Broomfield.

Let's hear his story.

- My name is Jaden Reenan.

I am currently a senior at Holy Family High School.

Debate has allowed me to grow into more of a researched, thoughtful person.

It's allowed me to become a better speaker.

I like to research a lot and just apply as many arguments as I possibly can and just try to find where everything connects.

Just a day in my life outside of school, I play tennis.

I play for Silver Creek High School.

I am very involved in Civil Air Patrol, which is one of our community organizations.

- Jaden was selected for Both Si des of the Story because he is an excellent leader, first of all.

He is our debate captain here at Holy Family.

Jaden might seem quiet when you first meet him, and reserved.

But really, he is very interesting, well-read, funny, and a really great communicator who is compassionate to other people.

- What inspires me is my goals, ambitions in life.

I want to attend a service academy and then serve in the military as an officer.

- You've met Jaden, now Lindsey Troftgruben.

She's a junior from Eaglecrest High School.

Let's catch up with Lindsey.

- Life isn't about staying in your comfort zone.

Realizing that for me allowed me to find so much more happiness in everything that I do.

My name is Lindsey Troftgruben.

I go to Eaglecrest High School.

I'm currently a junior.

I originally decided to join debate because my mother used to be a debater, and it's been in the family ever since.

- Lindsey is a very astute debater.

She listens to her opponent's arguments so carefully.

And it's through her really strong listening skills that she's able to take apart her opponent's argument really effectively.

- When I'm not debating, I'm a very competitive softball player.

I travel all around the United States for softball.

I'm a pitcher, and it takes up the majority of my time.

I want to go into a career in science.

My sister suffers from a disease called FND, functional nerve disorder, so I really want to become a neurologist and help so many like her.

- Now you've met Lindsey, too.

We have two of the best speech and debate students in our state here.

Also joining us, our illustrious panel of experts who will offer their analysis of our debate today.

They are Dominic Dezzutti, host of Colorado Inside Out , the weekly roundtable program here on PBS12.

He's joined by Natasha Gardner, managing editor with History Colorado, and Bree Davies, host of the podcast City Cast Denver.

All right, it's time to set our ground rules.

Each side will present their case.

They'll ask each other questions.

They'll have a chance to offer rebuttals, as well.

Both students have prepared a pro and con case for tonight's debate.

They won't know which side they'll defend until we have a coin flip right here in our studio.

When it's finished, we'll go to the illustrious panel for their questions, and we'll find who they felt offered the best argument.

Let's get started.

Here is the issue up for debate today.

It is this: Municipal growth restriction laws do more harm than good.

What do you think, yes or no?

We'll have a discussion.

Let's get our coin flip going and get it under way.

Lindsey, I'll let you make the call.

You're on my right.

Go ahead.

- Heads.

- Heads.

What would you like?

- I will take the neg.

- You'll take the negative, which means with the affirmative, Jaden, you go first.

The floor is now yours for three minutes.

Go ahead.

- I affirm the resolution municipal growth restriction laws do more harm than good.

Municipal growth restriction laws regulate the growth of a city in an attempt to achieve control over the area.

What we are going to find is that this goal is not only impossible, but that these laws actually cause more problems than they solve and create a domino effect on other societal issues.

To start, it is important to understand the financial problems attributed to growth restrictions.

According to a paper done by the Cato Institute, "housing typically costs two to five times more in states with growth management laws than in states without such laws."

This drastic difference not only makes an area unaffordable, but can affect the volatility of the housing market because the prices of real estate are dependent on artificial limitations.

This can lead to bubbles and extreme cashes in the market.

While everyone has a stake in this problem, low-income, generally minority communities are hit the hardest.

In fact, a study done by Harvard Economics in 2012 found "housing prices and building restrictions played a central role in the growth of inequality since 1968."

If we want to combat inequality and have more control over the security of our real estate industry, then we must recognize how municipal growth restrictions play a key role in these issues.

While financial strain is a direct consequence of restriction laws, it is just as important to see the domino effect that these policies have.

If housing is too expensive, people will commute to their jobs or leave the area, contributing to endless traffic jams, or the jobs themselves will be outsourced due to a lack of real estate, taking away means of economic production from a community.

Most importantly, however, is the fact that municipal growth restrictions open the door to corruption or an unlevel playing field amongst businesses.

According to an article by Strong Towns in 2018, growth restriction laws lead to "backroom deals that enrich a small group of insiders or rules that are expensive to comply with and end up having much the same effect."

This decreases the transparency of a city's operations and allows powerful groups to get these rare construction contracts.

Not only did these policies lead to a domino effect of insider deals, they also undermine small businesses and their ability to expand or develop.

The rules implemented by municipal restrictions will inevitably become outdated, resulting in businesses seeking variances to bypass the regulation.

According to that same article, "the complexity, risk, and cost of variances is often too much for small businesses and nonprofits who might like to expand but don't have the sophistication or capital to deal with that variance process."

This damage done to the economy will harm the area by taking away jobs from small businesses and reinforce that inequality I previously mentioned.

The overall message is that growth restriction laws damage more than they solve and lead to a variety of future problems.

The policies put upward pressure on housing costs, exacerbate inequality, and lead to a domino effect on other societal issues.

I affirm the resolution because of the variety of problems created as a result of municipal growth restrictions.

- Jaden, thank you very much.

We appreciate it.

Three minutes for that opening statement.

Now, two minutes, Lindsey, for questions and cross-examination.

Go ahead.

- You mention a lot about the inequality created by municipal growth, but aren't we already seeing inequalities in our current status quo without municipal growth?

- Of course, there's always going to be inequality in every society.

What I'm really saying here is that, if we have these municipal growth restrictions in place, we're going to exacerbate and perpetuate that inequality.

We see that it's a key role in this problem, and instead, we should be looking for solutions to fix it instead of perpetuating it.

- How does it exacerbate the inequality?

- That Harvard Economics quote in 2012, if people can't afford a place to live due to an artificial limitation and real estate prices going up, then people who already can't afford housing in the first place will never be able to afford those increasing prices, coupled with bubbles and crashes that leads to more poverty.

Yeah, all of this ends up exacerbating those levels.

- Can you provide me an example in which we see the housing market increase due to directly municipal growth?

- Yeah, that paper done by the Cato Institute, that housing costs two to five times more in states with growth management laws.

And we can just see that pretty much in every state that has growth management laws.

For example, in Golden or Boulder, both of those have pretty strict growth management laws right here in Colorado, and are notorious for their real estate prices.

- Thank you.

And then, my final question is, you keep mentioning this topic of they increase the housing market.

Why is this?

Is this solely because they cannot grow more houses or build more houses for other minorities?

- That's precisely why.

Not necessarily just for minorities, but just, again, everyone has a stake in this problem.

If we limit the amount of growth that we're allowing a city to have, we're going to be increasing the prices of the houses that are already there, decreasing the affordability because there's going to be less in the future.

- All right, let's wrap up the questions right there.

Lindsey, Both Sides of the Story today, municipal growth laws do more harm than good.

You're in the negative.

Three minutes now for you for your opening statement.

- Municipal growth restrictions come in a variety of forms, some new restrictions to building expansions, others require new growth to be more green or planned more effectively to include smart growth initiatives.

Municipal growth laws can help Colorado preserve open space, ensure we have water, and create more vibrant, healthy communities.

Colorado is quickly losing open space.

Since 2001, about 500,000 acres in Colorado have been lost to development.

Open spaces provide benefits including mitigating climate change, conserving water, preventing floods, and protecting wildlife.

Open spaces have proven mental health and social benefits.

Smart municipal growth plans can ensure that we balance Colorado's economic needs with the preservation of our open space.

Colorado, like much of the West, is running out of water.

Recent studies of the Colorado River note that over the next 25 years, if Colorado does not take steps to reduce its water usage, the front range will lose up to 97% of its water supplied by all but 2 of the state's major river basins.

Communities like Greeley and Thornton are already struggling to meet their water needs.

No community can grow without water.

By locating growth more strategically and focusing on greener developments with more green space, smart municipal growth limits offer the best option to ensure that Colorado has sufficient water for its population.

Unlimited, unplanned growth is harming our air quality.

The American Lung Association ranks Denver as the 12th worst city in the country for air quality, citing one of the major causes as Colorado's increased population.

In addition to destroying our views, this pollution causes disease and destroys crops.

Smart municipal growth limits help control air pollution by ensuring that communities are more walkable, have increased transportation alternatives, like biking and electric cars, and better access to transportation options.

They also protect open space, controlled water damage, and improved building designs to conserve energy and help us maintain the air quality we deserve.

Finally, because of smart municipal growth laws' focus on redirecting urban sprawl by redeveloping areas that are underutilized into smart cities, like Central Park in Denver, new life is brought to previously economically-challenged neighborhoods.

Thought is put into developing neighborhoods with a wide variety of housing options, meeting the needs of the people regardless of economic, racial, and social backgrounds.

Low-income housing can be incorporated into neighborhoods not relegated into older, blighted neighborhoods by giving people more diverse communities and allowing them to have more time to use them by reducing drive time and ensuring that fire, police, and schools are planned and can be adequately staffed.

We can offer Coloradans the future they deserve.

Traditionally, people look at municipal growth limits from a very narrow perspective.

They think that these limits will drive up housing costs, increase traffic congestion, and even increase urban sprawl.

This may be true if the limits only restrict the number of new developments.

But municipal growth limits are more than that.

While no laws are perfect, municipal growth limits can help us reach this vision.

Municipal growth limits are the path forward to Colorado and outweigh any associated negatives.

- Lindsey with the negative.

Now, Jaden with the affirmative, you have two minutes for questions and cross-examination.

Go right ahead.

- Thank you so much.

I just wanted to start with your first contention.

You talk a lot about preserving open space.

Where is the statistic about 500,000 acres are lost, where is that statistic from?

- I can find the statistic in my evidence for you.

- OK, I'll just ask a follow-up question of that.

Do you know how many acres of open space Colorado has?

- I do not currently know.

- OK. And then, how will not having municipal growth restrictions conserve water?

- By not having municipal growth restrictions, we see that we aren't preserving water.

We see that we are rapidly running out of water and we are losing 97% of water in 25 years.

We need to ensure that we have the water stable to produce a healthy environment for our people and maintain our population.

- And then, what is the link between municipal growth restrictions and water usage?

- Yeah.

Municipal growth limits actually can control how we develop and develop smartly.

Most of our water flows west, however, we build in the east mostly.

Therefore, we are not being smart about our developments.

With this municipal growth law, we see that we can become greener and focus more on how to use water storage, building so many more infrastructure that can actually help produce a stable economy for our people.

- OK, moving on to your third point there, that air quality is exacerbated because of lack of municipal growth restrictions, can you elaborate on how not having these restrictions will... help that?

Yeah.

- Yes.

Not having restrictions, we see that the air quality is not getting any better.

We see that people are constantly building, using more coal and other ways rather than building green.

If we have municipal growth, we can limit and provide plans in place to control climate change, and thus making our climate better.

- OK, just one more question.

Do we need municipal growth restrictions in order to implement smart planning?

- Yes.

- All right, we'll have to wrap the questions right there.

But Jaden, now, two minutes for a rebuttal.

Go ahead.

- OK.

I just wanted to start off with my opponent's first point there that if we preserve open space, then we can conserve water, and we need to preserve open space.

The fact is that we don't actually need municipal growth restriction in order to do this.

And this can already be accomplished if we just don't have municipal growth restrictions.

Also, moving on to my opponent's second point of water usage, this doesn't necessarily relate to the topic because if we have municipal growth restrictions... Municipal growth restrictions actually doesn't necessarily work with water because it's this problem that's unrelated to municipal growth.

And we can instead implement smart planning issues without necessarily needing municipal growth restrictions.

Moving on to my opponent's third contention, that there's air quality because of pollution, there's this main point centered around this that we need to make the cities less drivable, and therefore, that will make it better for pollution.

The fact is that municipal growth restrictions actually lead to those increased real estate prices, which I previously mentioned, which people will then commute to their jobs because the real estate areas are too unaffordable.

And that will actually contribute to more pollution through those roads.

So, people actually leaving the area in order to get more roads, that is going to contribute more pollution than just constricting the city.

Furthermore, denser cities don't actually lead to less pollution.

David Brownstone, an economist with the University of California Irvine, found, in 2008, that "most of the studies linking urban [INDISCERNIBLE] and energies were guilty of self-selection bias.

And after correcting for that self-selection bias, that the link between density and driving was too small to be useful in saving energy or reducing pollution or greenhouse gas emissions."

Additionally, if we really want to solve this problem, there are other means of doing so.

For example, we can invest in zero-energy housing or construction materials and streamlining e-vehicles.

All of these will have exactly similar impacts, as my opponent is advocating for.

- Jaden, thank you very much.

The question of the day, municipal growth laws do more harm than good.

And now, Lindsey, you have three minutes to respond and close.

Go ahead.

- All right, I would like to go over my opponent's attack on my case.

He says they don't actually relate water to municipal growth.

However, this simply isn't true.

We see that, ultimately, everything is related to development.

And we have not been developing smartly.

We have been building buildings with non-smart, non-climate-actually-helping material.

And what we see is that, with these municipal growth laws, we can develop smartly and plan it well.

We see that we can smartly use the water we have and protect our Colorado rivers and so much more, if we simply use these smart communities.

My opponent mentions that there is an increase in cost of housing.

However, this is only when we limit the growth with municipal housing.

Municipal does not mean that we are going to do less developing.

What it means is that we are going to be smart with our developing.

We are going to put laws in place so that we ensure that we use these smart resources to help climate change.

Without that, there is no telling if we can actually help climate change and reserve our water.

What we see is that these smart cities have the potential and the logistics to actually make a difference in our world.

In the status quo, we are doing nothing to actually help preserve climate change simply because we don't have to.

People look for the cheaper option when building materials.

However, with these laws in place and construction markets, we see that people just go for the cheaper option.

And that is not economically sounds, and it is not smart for development.

We see that they try to assume that we increase drive time.

However, I have proven to you in my case that this simply isn't true.

With less development, we do.

However, that is not what municipal growth is talking about.

And that is what my opponent is trying to get you to think.

You cannot assume that municipal growth just means that we are going to limit development.

It means that we are going to development smartly.

And that is the key in today's debate.

What we see is that with this smart planning, the climate change and the climate crisis, we can actually do something about it.

We can preserve our water so that we can actually help our population.

Now, with this, we see that smart cities have actually been proven to help.

In cities like Boulder, we see that the housing prices have gone up.

However, this is because municipal growth has not been carried out correctly.

We are putting plans in place, and we are making these smart communities as an ideal community.

And that is what we need to focus on.

And we need to put these laws in place because their benefits, of decreasing climate change, controlling water, and actually building minority housing, is the most important thing.

We can develop smartly to accomplish so many more goals.

- Lindsey, thanks a lot.

And now, as the proponent, Jaden, one minute to close.

Go ahead.

- I thank you so much.

I just wanted to address one big fact.

It's that my opponent's entire case is centered around this idea that municipal growth restrictions don't necessarily imply restricting the amount of growth that the city's going to allow.

However, that is precisely the fact of what municipal growth restrictions are.

And it's precisely what Golden and Boulder do.

And they actually restrict the amount of new growth that's going to happen.

So, all of my impacts still are going to stand.

Housing is going to increase two to five times more in these areas that have municipal growth restrictions.

And that housing is, in turn, going to perpetuate inequality.

And then, again, it will lead to this domino effect of more pollution, insider deals, and all these problems that are centered around municipal growth restrictions that fundamentally are restricting housing.

And furthermore, if we want to develop smartly, then we absolutely can do that without the need for municipal growth restrictions.

And therefore, we can achieve some of these positive impacts, such as reducing urban sprawl or the problematic impacts of growing cities.

Overall, what we really need to do today is look at the problematic situations that come up from municipal growth restrictions and vote for the affirmative.

- Jaden, thank you very much.

Lindsey, thank you very much for that spirited debate on the topic of municipal growth.

Now let's go to our illustrious panel to get their thoughts on what they saw.

Dominic, take it away.

- Alan, this is great.

Both Jaden and Lindsey, you've done a fantastic job this debate.

I think there are city council people throughout the metro area that would be anxiously awaiting to hear the outcome of this debate because you've both done a fantastic job.

Your work is not done.

You're going to get some questions from our panel here.

Bree, let's start with you for your question for Jaden.

- Sure.

Jaden, how do we ensure that not limiting growth will not also impact the environment?

- Not limiting growth--The thing is that, if we limit growth, then we actually will have more impacts on the environment because if the housing prices are increasing, if those impacts still stand, then people are going to be moving to different areas, and that'll have impacts on the environment, for example, having commuters.

I previously mentioned that.

And then, there are also all of these developments that we can take in order to help the environment, such as streamlining vehicle designs or investing in zero-energy housing.

All of those are very efficient means that don't need growth restrictions and will help achieve those positive impacts on the environment.

- Natasha, your turn for Jaden.

- Jaden, you made an excellent argument against municipal growth laws, but what about the laws themselves?

What if we improve them instead of getting rid of them completely?

- The fundamental fact here is that municipal growth restrictions just in and of themselves are causing these problems, so instead, I think we should go for smart planning of our cities.

And we can do this without municipal growth restrictions because, again, all these problems are centered around restricting the amount of growth, and therefore, stifling how much a city can grow, and that'll lead to these impacts.

Instead, we should try to find means to reduce impacts on other areas through smart development.

- Lindsey, you get included here, too.

Bree, your first question for Lindsey.

- Sure.

Lindsey, you talked a lot about open space.

What good is open space if not everyone can afford to live near it?

- Yeah.

Open space, we see that it has mental health benefits and so much more.

And what we see is that people can afford to live near open space if we develop smartly.

What we see in the concept of Boulder, he talks about, is that in 1959, they made the municipal growth laws.

However, they were not implicated smartly.

What we need to do is change the laws just a little bit so that we can incorporate these smart buildings and that we can develop more low-cost housing so that people can have the benefits of open space and open housing.

And the only way to ensure that this happens is through municipal growth.

- Natasha, your turn for your question for Lindsey.

- Lindsey, you certainly expanded on the complexities of the issues here, but one thing that's intriguing to me is that the laws don't always keep pace with rising housing costs.

And we certainly see that in municipal areas across the state.

How do you account for that?

- What we see is that the reason the housing crisis has increased with municipal laws is because it is limited development.

What we see is that that is not what municipal growth is doing.

Municipal growth is smartly developing.

And what we see is that the cost of everything actually will decrease and that we can ensure that this climate change will be helped due to the fact that we can develop smartly with smarter options, such as preserving our water with these smart cities.

I talk a lot about these smart cities, and they're super important because it is developing in locations and taking into consideration a ton of different factors that can actually ensure that we help the environment.

Without municipal growth, we don't do this.

We continue to build and we continue to hurt the environment.

So, we need to make a change and we need to incorporate these municipal growth laws.

- Alan, there are people across the entire metro area voting on this issue.

Now we, the panel, need to do the same thing.

Give us a minute.

We'll try to figure this one out.

- Great to hear discussion, isn't it, without the color of political argument added to either side.

We're going to give the panel a moment to consider who they felt won this debate.

That gives me a moment to let you know what's coming up here on our Both Sides of the Story .

You know that this is part of our expanded season of Both Sides .

Next week, we'll continue our consolation bracket round with students from Denver East High School and Hinkley High School.

You won't want to miss that.

All right, illustrious panel, do you have a decision?

- Just barely.

Both Jaden and Lindsey, you need to know that you made our job very difficult.

This was not easy for us to do.

But it is our job.

You have done your job very well.

It's time for us to do our job very well.

And we need to decide who is going to move on to the consolation bracket championship.

Jaden, we've decided that you won this debate based on a couple of things.

One, you made very clear arguments and strong delivery.

You also had good responses to issues, specifically the water issue brought up by Lindsey.

But Lindsey, we also want to make the point that you brought a lot of passion and great delivery yourself.

We hear from a lot of viewers about when they really love the kind of delivery that both of you delivered.

And you both did a great job.

Congratulations to both of you.

- And congratulations, Jaden, as well as Lindsey.

Thank you very much.

You'll now go on to compete in the consolation bracket championship, Jaden, on December 10.

And Lindsey, we'll see you in the third-place match.

That comes up on November 26.

All great debaters, some of the best in our state on this program.

And both of you gave our viewers a wonderful debate tonight.

You both ought to be very proud.

And we're proud of you.

Now, that's all the time we have for our program tonight.

I want to thank our excellent students and our illustrious panel.

And I want to thank you for tuning in.

It is the support of viewers like you and our sponsors that helps to make this show a reality.

You can catch up on past episodes of this program on www.pbs12.org.

And you can catch me on CBS4 for all of the latest news and information impacting Colorado.

For everyone here at PBS12, I'm Alan Gionet.

Thanks for watching.

And that is Both Sides of the Story.

(music playing)