As fights over development and density dominate headlines in Colorado, Pikes Peak region activists say a bill that won approval at the state House of Representatives April 23 is unfair.

The bill would require neighborhoods groups to cover a local governments attorneys’ fees if they lost an appeal of a land-use decisions. Developers would not have to pay such fees if they lost.

“It’s extremely lopsided,” said Kat Gayle, an attorney who works with Colorado Springs groups Westside Watch and Integrity Matters. Westside Watch opposed a proposal to build hundreds of apartments at 2424 Garden of the Gods Road. The Colorado Springs City Council voted down the apartments after hearing impassioned testimony about the risk they could pose in a wildfire evacuation.

The bill also drew opposition from a coalition of neighborhood groups called the Colorado Community Coalition.

Supporters of the bill frame it as a way to block frivolous lawsuits and support multifamily and affordable housing projects.

The state Senate approved House Bill 24-1107 on a 22-11 vote.

Senate Democrats issued a statement celebrating the bill as a way to address the housing the affordability crisis by limiting lawsuits that can slow down development.

“The bill strikes the right balance between protecting the rights of existing homeowners while making it more difficult for a few outspoken neighbors to weaponize the judicial process to stop affordable housing,” said Sen. Jeff Bridges, D-Arapahoe County, in the statement.

Colorado Springs Republican Sen. Bob Gardner was among those who voted for the bill. He described it as a very serious policy choice.

“It is focused in a particular way and that particular way or policy is about not having impediments of affordable housing,” he said.

However, the bill does not call out dedicated affordable housing specifically. It would require residents to cover attorneys’ fees if they lose a court appeal of any residential development of five housing units per acre.

Gardner noted residents could not be ordered to pay fees if they appeal commercial developments and he would have opposed such a measure.

However, Gayle said the bill does not provide equal protection under the law and could actually hurt the ability of low-income residents to stand up for themselves against the large development proposals.

“The developers and the city or county interests are being held at a higher level than the right of the citizens,” she said.

The developer proposing the market rate apartments at 2424 Garden of the Gods Road appealed the council’s denial and lost in court. Under the new bill, the developer would not owe attorneys’ fees.

But residents fighting a very similar apartment proposal in the same area at 4425 Arrowswest Drive would owe fees if they eventually lose in court.

The bill could also limit the recourse of residents living in established affordable neighborhoods to stand up to developers.