Denver's housing crisis has reached a boiling point, with housing inventory short by nearly 70,000 units and a rise in homelessness. But first-term City Councilmember Shontel Lewis has proposed a quarter of a million-dollar study to explore a social experiment being tried in other Democrat run cities.

According to Lewis, this European-inspired model allows people from all income levels to live in the same building. It means that someone making only $26,070 a year, or 30% of the area median income in Denver, could live next door to someone making three times that amount. This "utopian" idea would limit the amount tenants pay for rent to 30-35% of their household income, making housing more affordable for everyone.

But some experts have raised concerns about the feasibility of this model in Denver. Lewis' spokesperson, Vince Chandler, claims that social housing would prevent the "concentration of poverty" often seen in traditional affordable housing, according to Axios.

The inspiration for this idea comes from Austria's capital, Vienna, where social housing has existed for nearly a century. However, what Lewis fails to mention is that the city government owns and manages 25% of its housing stock, a key aspect that will be explored in Denver's feasibility study. This means that the city would essentially be responsible for providing housing for its residents - a costly and potentially risky endeavor.

Other cities, such as Seattle and Los Angeles, have recently considered similar programs, but the success of these initiatives remains to be seen.

READ MORE:

• Evictions Hit Near Record as Denver’s Leaders Fail to Address Growing Homelessness

• Colorado Republicans Continue Fight for Affordable Housing

• Colorado Governor Orders His Administration to Rework its Housing Initiatives After the Legislature Killed His Signature Bill

• Colorado School Districts Utilize Creative Solution to Workforce Housing

Lewis claims that her proposal received support from fellow city council members because it aligns with their efforts to combat climate change.

However, critics argue that the study's funding from the general or climate protection fund could divert much-needed resources from other important projects.