Denver city councilors last summer proposed to limit the construction of gasoline stations in in the city, ostensibly in response to a citizen outcry a deluge of new gas stations being built on land that could instead be used for housing.
Actual legislation has now been okayed by the city planning board, and is worse than imagined.
A sweeping ban
The ordinance would enjoin new gas stations from the overwhelming majority of Denver, including near areas where new, higher-density housing is being built. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the proposed legislation is part of the city council’s campaign to make driving in Denver as miserable as possible.
Sponsored by council members Paul Kashmann and Amanda Sawyer, the bill would ban new gas stations within ¼ mile of any existing gas station, within ¼ mile of a light rail station, and within 300 feet of any protected districts, zoned for low-density housing.
A staff study from last May discussed exempting gas stations catty-corner to existing stations, but now there will be no such exemption. There will, however, be an exemption for gas stations that are part of new large-sized grocery stores with over 20,000 square feet of space.
A map produced for the planning board (see figure 1) shows in green the very few areas where new gas stations would be allowed. The light brown areas are the protected districts, and bear in mind that the exclusion extends 300 feet from them. That constitutes one short east-west block or half of one long north-south block in most of the city. The light blue circles are a ¼-mile radius from existing gas stations, and the pink circles are a ¼-mile radius from light rail stations.

Virtually the entire city would be off-limits. Once a gas station is built in one of the green areas, it enjoys an exclusive ¼-mile radius monopoly, giving it a serious competitive advantage unavailable to many already-established stations. In addition, existing stations with no nearby competitors no longer need fear one.
Incoherent arguments
The arguments by the sponsors on behalf of the measure are simply incoherent or don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Proponents argue that many neighborhoods have historically low equity scores because of their proximity to industrial and light industrial areas, and new stations will still be permitted there. But this is manifestly untrue for neighborhoods along the western edge of the city, from West Barnum down to Harvey Park. They have both low equity scores and according to the US Census, a higher-than average percentage of workers who commute by car or truck. New stations in those neighborhoods will be prohibited because of the low-density housing restriction.
Paul Kashmann contends that the bill responds to resident complaints about the explosive number of new gas stations being built. But according to co-sponsor Amanda Sawyer, “Since 2021 there have been 15 new gas station site plans come to Community Planning and Development. One-third of those have come since May 2024 when we released our plan.”
That’s a little over three per year for the three years before the proposal, or one new gas station per 50 square miles per year. Color me skeptical that citizens noticed one new gas station in an area the size of Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park.
According to Sawyer, the exception for supermarket gas stations is because the “financing for grocery stores doesn’t work unless there’s a gas station attached,” so they want to permit that “to encourage grocery stores in food deserts. I don’t know why that is, it’s just the free market.”
But Sawyer goes on to admit that “the city doesn’t have a good map of where food deserts are located.” This makes a mockery of the claim in the supporting documentation that the exemption might help relieve food deserts in equity-challenged neighborhoods. The city doesn’t even know if food deserts exist, much less where.
A solution in search of a problem
I drive by the intersection of Evans and Monaco nearly every day. The new QuikTrip catty-corner to the existing Conoco-Phillips station has lowered prices by 20 to 30 cents per gallon, well below other stations on that route.
Moreover, it’s convenient. Traveling south on Monaco and then west on Evans to I-25, there are no other stations on my side of the road all the way from Stapleton to the I-25 entrance ramp. To get gas, that’s either two left-hand turns across major roads, or slow side-trips onto smaller streets.
Sawyer admits all of this, but is unimpressed. She defends preventing catty-corner stations because “there will be plenty of places in the city for new gas stations, so that exception isn’t needed.” Her commitment to the free market seems conditional at best.
“People aren’t moving out of Denver because of the price of gasoline,” Kashmann was quoted as saying. “They’re moving out of Denver because they can’t afford to live here.” That the price of gasoline, as well as the inconvenience of having to drive a mile or two out of your way, in traffic, adds to the cost of living apparently doesn’t occur to him.
As for housing, the ostensible reason for the bill, instead of repealing actual regulations that get in the way of new building, many years into a housing crisis, the city only has reviews underway to streamline the permitting process. This doesn’t help if excessive rules are artificially limiting the number of permit applications in the first place.
This proposal is simply another attack on automobiles and personal mobility by current city council, in its belief that they are drawing 6-figure salaries to tell Denver residents what they should want, rather than working to satisfy what they actually do want.
Joshua Sharf is a Denver resident and frequent contributor to Complete Colorado.