Economic Realities if Colorado Amendment 309 is Adopted

On November 5, Denver voters will decide whether to adopt an ordinance to ban meat production facilities in Denver (Colorado Amendment 309)(the “Ban”).  If adopted, beginning January 1, 2026, the Ban will prohibit the construction, maintenance, or use of meat production facilities within the City and will require the City to prioritize residents whose employment is affected by the ordinance in workforce training or employment assistance programs. The Ban will singularly impact Superior Farms, an employee-owned USDA-inspected meat production facility.  Superior Farms operates the only meat production facility in Denver.  It has  processed and packaged lambs and lamb meat at its location near the Platte River and Western Stock Show complex since the 1950s. Superior Farms accounts for 15-20% of the total lamb processing in the United States.  If the ordinance passes, Superior Farms would be forced to close its Denver facility.  The impact of this closure is significant because Superior Farms processes roughly 1,500 lambs a day and employs roughly 160 people who would be out of work. We checked in with Merc Pittinos and Kole Kelley at Fennemore Denver for facts about Amendment 309.

If Denver voters approve Amendment 309 the implementation would mark a significant shift in the state’s stance towards animal welfare and sustainable practices. What are the likely outcomes if passed?

A recent CSU study considered three possible outcomes of the ban. In the most extreme case — Superior Farms closes and leaves Colorado — 2,787 jobs and up to $861 million in economic activity would be lost. If half of the facility’s processing activity relocates to other parts of Colorado, those numbers reduce by half. And if businesses elsewhere in Colorado expand their capacity to 80% of the level once processed in Denver, Colorado may still lose 697 jobs and over $215 million in economic activity. You can read the full study here.

If passed, who would enforce the ban?

It’s unclear at this point what agency would be enforce the ban, what penalties would be, or how much that would cost. 

Who is behind the ban?

Pro-Animal Denver  has raised more than $300,000 for this initiative and Initiative 308, which bans the sales of fur products including felt cowboy hats and prohibits businesses from making or selling a range of animal-based products in the city. Initiative 308 is also on the November 5 ballot. The largest funders of Amendment 309 are the Phauna Foundation, the Karuna Foundation and the Craigslist Charitable Fund. The Ban also is supported by 350 Colorado, the Oil & Gas Action Network, Impactful Animal Advocacy, Climate Save Movement, AnimalEquality, Friends of Animals, the Coalition to End Factory Farming, Broken Shovels Farm Sanctuary, Animal Outlook and Planted. 

The proponents placed the measure on the ballot by collecting more than 30,000 signatures. The proponents argue that the ban in the City and County of Denver is better aligned with voter values compared to the status quo.  Proponents believe that a policy change is needed to bolster an animal welfare movement and address broader externalities and public impacts from food systems.

Who is against Amendment 309?

Local labor leaders and unions oppose this ban, including the Working Families Party, the Denver Area Labor Federation, Pipefitters 208, Service Employees International Union Local 105, and Denver’s United Food and Commercial Workers Union.  The initiative is also opposed by the Denver Democratic Party. Opposition to the Ban is also supported by several industry groups including the Denver Metro Commercial Association of Realtors and the Colorado Livestock Association. 

According to the Denverite, there are three committees working against the slaughterhouse ban: Stop the Ban. Protect Jobs; Hands Off My Hat Denver; and Local Food. Strong Denver. Together, they have raised more than $1.6 million, although some of that will go toward fighting the fur ban. The largest campaign donor against the ban is the Meat Institute, a nonprofit trade organization.  Superior Farms and numerous industry-related groups also have opposed the Ban with donations. 

If the ban on Superior Farms in Denver passes, could it set a precedent that impacts other cities and states across the country?

Yes, such a legislative move may encourage activists or policymakers in other regions to push for similar bans, potentially targeting harvesting houses or other agricultural sectors. This could lead to job losses across the country, farms closing, real estate devaluation, substantial rising food costs, and negative impact national food security.

There is also the additional food chain impact. Ordinance 309 passing would take away meat production capacity in a region with a high concentration of lambs.  This would, at best, create a need to haul livestock to other parts of the country or even export and import the products, increasing costs and the cumulative effects associated with the increased inputs required to reach the market.  The Ban would reduce food chain stability and take away a direct local source of lamb for Colorado restaurants, butchers, grocery stores, and consumers.

Merc Pittinos, Director, Business Litigation

Merc focuses his practice on helping clients resolve real estate disputes. He represents clients throughout Colorado. Merc works with developers, landowners, landlords, brokers, and homeowners. He has helped clients resolve disputes involving real estate transactions, loans, leases, easements, covenants, and boundaries. He has written and lectured extensively about Colorado adverse possession law. In his practice, Merc has represented landlords in lease disputes; developers in breach of contract, construction, and foreclosure actions; property owners in title and boundary disputes; and oil and gas companies in title, lease, and joint operating agreement disputes

Merc is a former member of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for the City of Englewood.

Kole W. Kelley, Associate, Natural Resources

Kole advises clients in the agriculture, natural resource, and advanced energy industries related to complex real property and regulatory issues. From his experience sorting cattle and throwing irrigation tubes, to his experience helping clients solve title, survey, mineral, and water issues, Kole brings a practical approach to developing legal project strategies; navigating the federal, state, and local permitting processes; and monitoring the ongoing governmental rulemakings that impact his clients’ projects. Kole provides general counsel services to oil and gas clients, mining and oil and gas transactions, title work, water rights counsel, and public lands law. Kole also has experience representing clients before the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission, drafting oil and gas development plans, and assisting clients as they navigate implementing solar energy projects on federal lands. Kole’s knowledge extends to regulatory matters across the Rocky Mountain West.

10.18.24