Changes to Zoning Protest Rules
In one sentence
Plain language
Official record
Public statements
Last checked Aug 5, 3:53 AM
R · S11
Why they voted this way
The speaker supports receding from the Senate's position to protect private property rights, which he views as a fundamental right based on historical principles and the Declaration of Independence.
D · S17
Why they voted this way
The speaker urges voting to not concur with the House amendment because it is unrelated to the bill's subject and bypasses the public process for debate and testimony.
R · S01
Why they voted this way
The speaker argues for rejecting the amendment because it is not germane to the bill and represents a violation of proper legislative procedure.
D · S09
Why they voted this way
The speaker opposes the concurrence request because he believes the House amendment violates Senate rules and changes the original purpose of the bill.
R · S10
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges a vote against the bill because an amendment added after public comments were closed was not contemplated by the committee or the body and prevented proper discussion.
D · S17
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges a 'no' vote because an amendment was added without proper committee review or public comment, making it necessary to return the bill for further discussion.
S06
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports concurrence because the amendment prevents adding housing mitigation fees, which they view as a tax that hinders construction and affordable housing.
R · S04
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges a 'no' vote to correct a procedural irregularity and allow the Senate and House to discuss the issues together.
R · S30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports concurrence because they believe the amendment addresses affordable housing by reducing government burdens and fees.
D · S09
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges a 'no' vote to support the legislative sponsors' recommendation and respect proper process.
D · H14
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it provides cities and towns with necessary tools to address unsafe, abandoned buildings through property tax incentives for demolition or rehabilitation.
R · H58
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment, arguing that demolishing abandoned structures is a local problem where cities lack funds and should establish their own regulations instead.
D · H16
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it gives cities and towns powers they currently lack to deal with abandoned buildings through tax credits, without costing the state money.
R · H09
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because abandoned buildings reduce local tax revenues, lower property values, and create safety issues that this bill addresses.
R · H31
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the second amendment, stating that its language is too expansive and goes beyond what the legislative body should approve.
R · H42
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment as a practical solution to workforce housing shortages by removing legal barriers that prevent using tax increment financing outside of blighted areas.
R · H30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment due to historical evidence that expanding tax increment financing leads to gentrification and pushes out low-income residents.
R · H39
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment as a tool to encourage private industry investment in large, rundown areas that are currently too costly for new development or demolition.
R · H37
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it adds a useful tool to the legislative toolbox for specific situations without harming the bill.
R · H34
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker expresses concern about supporting the amendment due to uncertainty regarding tax increases and a lack of public comment on its ramifications.
R · H04
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment, citing historical failures in other regions where similar systems created long-term tax burdens and failed to regenerate land effectively.
R · S27
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it is too prescriptive for local zoning boards, arguing that state legislators should not dictate how specific communities handle development issues like nuclear reactors.
R · S30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it carves out specific facilities likely to damage property values, providing necessary protection for adjacent residential areas while still achieving the bill's purpose.
R · S28
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it attempts to cover too many diverse topics, ranging from adult entertainment to nuclear plants.
R · S02
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment as an appropriate addition to protect residential areas from controversial activities that would be located in closely packed neighborhoods.
R · S19
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes the current thresholds for objections and governing body votes are already sufficient.
R · S29
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes it infringes on property rights, preferring a higher threshold for zoning changes.
R · S16
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he views it as micromanagement by the legislature over local planning and zoning meetings.
R · S11
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because enumerating a specific list of prohibited facilities in statutes could legally constrain local discretion and allow unforeseen circumstances to be permitted by courts.
S06
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it restores current standards for specific situations, allowing families to protect their neighborhoods from developments like halfway houses.
R · S10
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because requiring two people instead of one to file a protest prevents a single landowner from holding up development projects.
R · S08
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because requiring two landowners to object prevents a single individual from blocking development when only three owners are involved.
R · S25
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because it provides a tax break on the first $50,000 of tangible personal property, which helps businesses and especially small businesses that are the backbone of the economy.
R · S18
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill as a way to provide tax relief to constituents who are under significant pressure from taxes.
R · S26
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker fully supports the bill, stating it is worth doing.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
7 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
11 stored
The amendment changes the zoning protest process to include provisions for abandoned and nuisance properties, allowing cities and towns to designate such properties and provide tax credits for improvements or demolition.
The amendment modifies the zoning protest process to include urban renewal and affordable housing provisions, expanding the application of the Wyoming Urban Renewal Code.
The amendment changes the zoning protest process to include provisions for abandoned and nuisance properties, allowing cities and towns to designate such properties and provide tax credits for improvements.
The amendment removes a previous committee change and adds new language that prohibits cities and towns from imposing certain fees, conditions, or concessions on residential or commercial developments related to workforce housing unless explicitly allowed by state law.
The amendment removes specific sections related to zoning protests and adds a new subsection to an existing law.
The amendment removes the previous changes to the zoning protest process and instead repeals a specific section of Wyoming state law.
The amendment changes the zoning protest process to prevent cities and towns from charging certain fees or imposing conditions on housing developments that aim to provide affordable or workforce housing.
The amendment changes the percentage required for certain actions in zoning protest petitions from fifty percent to thirty-three percent and adjusts some requirements related to voting thresholds.
The amendment adds a new requirement for cities and towns to get approval from three-fourths of their governing body if there is a protest against zoning changes that would allow certain types of businesses in an area.
The amendment allows for more than one person to sign a zoning protest petition.
The amendment changes the number of required signatures for a zoning protest petition from five hundred to three hundred.