One of the issues expected to be taken up by the Colorado Legislature when it convenes next month is a proposal to make it more difficult for condominium buyers to sue builders over construction defects. It is a bad idea being advanced for bogus reasons. The Legislature does not need to and should not get involved.
Builders do not like being sued and want our lawmakers to help protect them from condo owners upset about the quality of their homes’ construction. Under current law, a lawsuit can proceed if the owners of two units in a project want to sue.
A bill put forward last year, would have required a majority of condo owners in a homeowners association to support the suit. Backing it was state Sen. Jessie Ulibarri, D-Commerce City.
But why assign a number at all? If one unit’s owner believes the builder has been negligent or dishonest, why should that person not be able to seek redress? There is no minimum number of cars in a crash. Why is there with defective construction? And why would the Legislature think that effectively intervening in civil matters is its responsibility?
The excuse being offered is that construction defect lawsuits are an affordable housing issue. But that borders on absurd.
For starters, as a political issue or societal concern, affordable housing is so vague a term as to be undefined. Affordable housing means different things to different people – and at different times of life.
Does it mean workforce housing? Are senior citizens being priced out of a place to live? Is it a question of young families not being able to buy a house? Or does it simply mean some people think the rent is too high?
But what does any of that have to do with defective construction? The idea that lawsuits over construction defects interfere with the development of affordable housing sounds a lot like saying that the only way to make housing affordable is to allow shoddy building. And it might be true that using second-rate material, unskilled laborers and perhaps fixtures that fell off a truck could result in lower housing costs.
But does the Legislature really want to go there? By requiring a majority to sue, the bill Ulibarri backed last year essentially would have said that if fewer than half the units in a condo project were defective, their owners would have had no recourse. Is that fair? Is the desire to boost the state’s stock of affordable housing so important that it trumps all other concerns?
Incoming Speaker of the House Dickey Lee Hollinghorst, D-Boulder, seems to question that. “My feeling is that we need a much more comprehensive approach than just construction defects,” she said.
She would speak to other issues first. In particular, she rightly singled out student debt, which may have more to do with what young families can afford than the price of housing.
Senate President Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, was even more to the point. Carroll, who will be Senate minority leader in the coming session, simply said, “the best way to get affordable housing isn’t necessarily taking a whack at people’s rights.”
The Legislature should walk away from this “reform.” It has no business limiting homeowners’ abilities to seek legal recourse and no legitimate interest in protecting builders accused of trying to pass off defective work. Let the courts handle lawsuits.
