What Is the Karman Line Annexation?
Issue 1 asks whether the City of Colorado Springs should annex roughly 1,900 acres of ranchland east of the city, near Schriever Space Force Base. If approved, this would enable the development of up to 6,500 homes, along with parks, commercial areas, trails, and civic infrastructure. The annexation was originally approved by City Council in early 2025, but after public pushback – including a petition signed by nearly 19,000 residents – it’s now up for a citywide vote on June 17.
Why Is This Controversial?
The proposal has sparked a citywide debate over how Colorado Springs should grow. While many agree on the need for more housing, the location, infrastructure costs, and environmental impact of this particular project have drawn mixed reactions.
Key Stakeholder Positions
City Council
The council voted 7–2 in favor of the annexation. Proponents cited housing needs, military support, and responsible growth planning. Councilmember David Leinweber called the project a way to balance growth and competition in the local housing market. Dissenters, including Councilmember Mike O’Malley, raised concerns about public safety coverage and sprawl.
Colorado Springs Fire Department (CSFD)
Neutral. CSFD did not endorse or oppose the annexation but stated it would require a new fire station (with temporary and permanent phases). The developer has agreed to donate land and equipment to support this.
Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD)
Also neutral, though the CSPD flagged concerns over emergency response times. Current top-priority calls in that area already average 17+ minutes. CSPD did not request a new substation yet, but the plan allows for one if needed.
El Paso County Commissioners
Neutral. The Board took no official stance, partly due to potential conflicts of interest and the fact that the land would no longer fall under county jurisdiction if annexed.
Developers
Strongly in favor. They pledge $128–$147 million in infrastructure investment and frame the project as a benefit to military families, local jobs, and community vitality.
Opposition Groups
Numerous community members and organizations oppose the measure, including local environmental groups, ranchers from the Lower Arkansas River Valley, and the El Paso County Democratic Party. Their concerns center on water availability, sprawl, taxpayer burden, and insufficient housing affordability.
Real Estate and Housing Market Implications
1. Inventory & Affordability
Colorado Springs has a housing shortfall of up to 20,000 units. Issue 1’s approval could help close that gap by introducing a mix of housing types – single-family homes, townhomes, and apartments. Condos may start around $217,500, which is well below the city’s median home price.
Opponents argue the development doesn’t go far enough in affordability. With single-family homes expected to average $560,000, critics say this won’t help working-class families or junior enlisted military personnel in a meaningful way.
2. Development Competition
Currently, much of the city’s developable land is controlled by a single developer (Norwood, owner of Banning Lewis Ranch). Annexing Karman Line introduces new players and increases competition, which could help curb home prices and improve design variety across future communities.
3. Infrastructure & Utilities
Colorado Springs Utilities projects that extending services will cost between $90–$135 million – a cost that could be shared across ratepayers. Supporters argue the city’s rate structure already accounts for future expansion, and over time, new customers in Karman Line will help fund infrastructure.
Opponents highlight that current residents could see higher utility rates, especially in the early years, before the development is fully built out and contributing tax revenue.
4. Environmental & Water Concerns
The project’s estimated water demand is around 1,672 acre-feet per year. City planners assert this is within the city's capacity. However, critics, especially from rural agricultural areas, worry about a continuation of the “buy and dry” trend – where cities acquire water rights from farms, reducing downstream water availability and harming rural economies.
In addition, the land is home to state-threatened species like the Burrowing Owl, whose habitat would be disrupted by large-scale development.
Homeowner Impact by Scenario
If Issue 1 Passes
-
Homeowners near the site may see increased traffic and noise but could benefit from better infrastructure and rising land values.
-
Citywide homeowners may see slower home price growth due to increased supply. This could mean more competition when selling, especially around 2030, when Karman Line homes hit the market.
-
Buyers will enjoy more options in future years, particularly in the mid-range price bracket.
If Issue 1 Fails
-
Housing remains more scarce, which typically benefits existing homeowners by propping up resale values.
-
The city retains open space in the southeast, avoiding potential sprawl but missing out on new housing and tax revenue.
-
Developers may pivot to smaller, county-regulated projects, resulting in less coordinated infrastructure and fewer public amenities.
A Decision About the Future of Growth
Ultimately, this vote comes down to how residents want Colorado Springs to grow:
-
Do we expand strategically with developer-funded infrastructure and long-term housing solutions?
-
Or do we tighten focus on infill development, preserving open land and stretching existing city resources further?
Each side offers a vision for the city’s future. The outcome will not change the market tomorrow, but it will shape housing, affordability, and community design over the next two decades.
