Thread by @AndyKnny

It may be a long night. Democrats are still trying to secure their committee votes on the land-use bill. Everybody has amendments. @nbminor has you covered. #copolitics

@nbminor New: The land-use bill clears its Senate committee on a party-line vote after a substantial set of amendments. Onto the Senate. #copolitics

Some of what I heard...
@SenadoraJulie pushes for more displacement protections here & in other bills. "Supply-side [housing theory] without these guardrails to protect from gentrification and displacement is not enough.”

She's a yes tonight.

@SenKirkmeyer proposed that the state host a summit to start a new housing conversation instead. "It has always been a partnership. And IT should remain a partnership between the state and local governments. But Senate Bill 213 takes away the partnership."

Votes no.

Sen. @TonyExum says local control has led to economically segregated neighborhoods. "Whether that’s done intentionally or not, I don’t know, but ... I've seen it with my own eyes for 50 years."

Votes yes.

Sen. @commish_pelton, opposed, wants to see amendments to add more local voice.

Sen. Rod Pelton says committee process was not great, with a big set of amendments passed some 10 days after the actual public hearing.

Both vote no.

Sen. @Dylan_RobertsCO remains concerned about water use and may want to explicitly prohibit new transmountain diversions. Acknowledges Front Range density would use less water per capita.

Votes yes, but says still "a lot more to do to make me a yes vote on the [Senate] floor."

Sen. @sonyajlewis, paraphrasing an unnamed advocate (maybe @PLifari ?): "Sitting back, doing nothing, is unacceptable. The status quo is unacceptable."

Votes yes.

Correction, that’s into Senate appropriations. Then the Senate.