Building boom: Too much of a good thing?
Developers pile on the trendy condos and townhomes in northwest Denver, but a closer look shows that this hot market might be in danger of overbuilding.
By John Rebchook, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published April 9, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated April 9, 2008 at 11:18 a.m.
Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.
Photo by The Rocky Illustration
Developers pile on the trendy condos and townhomes in northwest Denver -- one of the few bright spots for home sales in a tough real estate market -- but a closer look shows that this hot market might be in danger of overbuilding.
Photo by Linda McConnell / Special To The Rocky
Construction proceeds on a project south of 32nd Avenue on Wyandot in the northwest Denver neighborhood of Highland. There are 58 projects in Highland under way or about to begin, for a total of 414 units, the highest number of any northwest Denver neighborhood. Prices for the new units in Highland range from $238,018 to $900,000.
Northwest Denver, with increasingly trendy neighborhoods such as Highland, Jefferson Park and Sloan's Lake, has been a bright spot for home sales in a mostly dismal real estate market.
But a new in-depth analysis found that those neighborhoods may be getting a little too much of a good thing - if more than $375 million in new condos and townhomes flooding the market are a good thing.
Northwest Denver, as well as consistently hot real estate pockets such as Curtis Park, the Golden Triangle, Baker and Hilltop, could be poised for overbuilding.
The good news for buyers is that developers are more likely to negotiate on price than they were three years ago, when they were selling new condos and townhomes faster than they could build them.
"I don't think the sky is falling," said Paul Tamburello, who heads the Tamburello Team at Distinctive Properties and who analyzed the northwest Denver market.
"But I do think that developers should know what is out there. If Kaufman & Broad builds a 200-unit subdivision in the suburbs, everyone knows about it. But when dozens of developers are building one, two or three townhomes on lots, it's much more difficult to track."
Susan Powers, principal of Urban Ventures, has closed about 17 of the 27 units in her Highland Bridge Lofts at the end of the 16th Street pedestrian bridge across Interstate 25, and is working on the next phases.
Powers said activity from people shopping for units has picked up but no one is quick to pull the trigger.
"The days of being able to sell from plans are over," Powers said. Also, investors hoping to buy new units and flip them have disappeared, she said.
Powers also said it will be more difficult for developers to get financing in the future, helping to keep a lid on the supply.
"Overall, I think that is healthy for the market," Powers said. "Definitely, we're in a time in the market when some (developers) may not have the stomach for it. It's a much harder market today than it has been in the past."
But developer Don Gooden, who has about a half-dozen projects under way in Highland and West Highland and is buying three other lots, said he is "quite amazed" about the level of activity.
Gooden, who will be moving into a new townhome he is building at West 31st Avenue and Newton Street, said most of his buyers are couples with no kids, with combined incomes of $300,000 to $400,000.
Tamburello hired college intern Christi Mosher, daughter of developer Bill Mosher, to track construction projects. He also analyzed data from Metrolist, which tracks sales and listings by Realtors.
His data include condos and townhomes recently completed that are for sale; those that are under construction; fenced lots where older homes have been scraped and are ready for development; and lots that have been sold and for which schematic designs are in the works.
What Tamburello found: At least 755 condos and townhomes are either recently completed, under construction or poised to be built in Highland, West Highland, Sloan's Lake, Sunnyside, Jefferson Park and Berkeley.
And infill developments (construction on lots within an established neighborhood) are springing up almost daily, he said.
Based on sales from the MLS, the 755 units, many priced at $500,000 or more, equate to a 10-year supply of unsold homes, he said. But there is a caveat. Many developers don't put all their sales in the MLS.
For example, one developer who built a 20-unit condo project along West 29th Avenue only placed three of the condos on Metrolist.
That means more homes are selling than the MLS shows, but it also means there is a greater supply of unsold homes than listed in the MLS.
Deviree Vallejo, a broker with Kentwood City Properties, said northwest Denver is the only place where she is selling homes still in the framing stage.
Vallejo said she knows a number of developers who are buying land now, with plans to bring new units to the market in two years.
"Two years from now, we are going to be in a completely different market," Vallejo said. "We're going to be in a market that is in recovery. I believe a lot of money can be made in a down market, if you take the right kind of risk. I'm not worried at all about northwest Denver."
rebchookj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5207
Northwest Denver construction at a glance
Neighborhood Projects Units Price range
Highland* 58 414 $238,018-$900,000
West Highland 24 61 $589,000-$799,000
Sloan's Lake 16 34 (only two listed in $575,000 range)
Jefferson Park 11 234 (only one listed at $252,200)
Berkeley 30 73 $300,000-$734,0000
Sunnyside 2 12 (one listed at $225,750)
828 total units
755 unsold
73 sold**
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
April 9, 2008
7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
richiscool writes:
I live in Berkeley and can tell you that developers are DESTROYING NW Denver. Affordable working class homes are being scraped at a mad rate and are being replaced by square glass and concrete "loft style" homes that dwarf those on either side. Developer greed catering to vapid "look at me!" buyers will ruin an affordable place for working class people and their families.
April 9, 2008
8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Don't forget that the developers can only build the Yuppie housing if the city politicians let them. Of course the politicians will let the developers do it, it's more tax revenue. Both are greedy as all get out. The only two things that a politician values are power and the money that comes from it.
Scott
April 9, 2008
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
ashlandbus writes:
I think it goes beyond the politicians allowing it. It relates to existing zoning laws, many of which in NW Denver permit these scrape and builds. I love living in Sunnyside. Been here for several years. Granted, the new homes that are being propped up on the West part of the neighborhood are quite the eyesore, they also bring new life into the neighborhood. I am in the East part of the neighborhood where these haven't popped up yet. I can tell you, however, there are some 1940's apartments across the street that I wouldn't mind seeing torn down. These aren't working class apartments, unless you consider crack dealers working class.
April 9, 2008
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
BetterEducated writes:
We left our Highlands home in 1990 when the kids needed to go to school.
April 9, 2008
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Novo writes:
It's nice to see some larger home being built in the neighborhood. I have lived in the Highlands for over 15 years. I'm tired of seeing all my friends leave once they have children, because they can't find a large enough home in the area. There are some great homes in the area but there are even more that need to go.
The Highlands is turning into a real neighborhood now.
April 9, 2008
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
westsloper333 writes:
I left Highlands and moved to NE Denver - I recently bought a great 1928 bungalow just north of city park for next to nothing. 2.5 miles to LODO/downtown, the same to stapleton, got the zoo and history museum and park right there (no, I'm not a realtor). Let the rich yuppies have highlands. By the way scott - residential property taxes do not cover the cost of city services they require (roads, police, infrastructure) and property rights allow developers to build as long as their plans fit within the zoning parameters. The city serves to regulate development....if you don't like what the city does...run for office and be part of the problem.
April 9, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
jamesdenver writes:
Scrapeoffs need to be limited. Or at least the home built in its place. To have two or three homes demolished for a tall mini McMansion that overshadows all other houses is pathetic.
http://www.futuregringo.com/index.php...
April 9, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
cmgreenw writes:
I choose to live in Highlands because I work downtown and I don't want to spend time commuting and pay for the gas. Seems like the smart decision to make rather than living in a cookie cutter suburb. I can ride my bike to work and save even more money.
April 9, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
westsloper333, I know about property tax on residential. Still though, a more expensive home on the same size lot(s) is more money in the politician's pocket. The basic services cost the same regardless of the home price. Therefore, the politicians are "losing" less money with a higher valued home on the same lot(s). That's assuming the politicians are smart enough to know this.
BTW, I can't run for political office. My parents were married to each other when I was born ;-)
Scott
April 9, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
The scraper developers are devaluing the property of their neighbors with much older existing homes. They're stealing money.
If one of them makes a bundle on a scraper then the other developers that seek property in that neighborhood look right past the existing structure on the lot since they're going to scrape it anyway.
Property value at that point amounts to whatever they think your empty lot would be worth b/c they don't want your house and they won't pay you any more to get it.
April 9, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
BetterEducated writes:
Novo, the problem is not that the houses aren't big enough to have children. The problem is that the schools suck.
April 9, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
bleidel writes:
Where to begin? My wife and I live right on the border between Sloan's Lake and West Highland. We love living in the city and being right next to Downtown Denver while still living in a real neighborhood. We loathe the idea of moving east of E-470, north of Highway 7, to Highlands Ranch, or some other cookie cutter suburb full of cul-de-sacs and siding houses with no character when we have kids ONLY for the school system. (Before you berate that, there's no "wrong or right" with any of these places, they're just not our personal preference.)
The only way to ever improve the horrible school system in Denver is to achieve a critical mass of couples who want to STAY in Denver because they love their neighborhood when they decide to have kids and raise families, rather than move out to the ever-more-far-flung 'burbs for the schools. This critical mass will DEMAND acceptable places to send their kids to school and will be willing to pay for it. If these hundreds of new families flood DPS with kids who would've previously gone to the schools in the suburbs, the quality of these schools will natually rise as a byproduct.
The first step in this process is to build the size and type of houses in Denver's neighborhoods that young couples, families, and working professionals actually WANT to live in. People these days, for better or worse, want the 2000-3000 square foot house, and they'll move to wherever they can get it, even if it's nowhere near anything. Houses that were acceptable in for families in the 1950's are no longer the American Dream today, again, for right or wrong.
I keep seeing venom-filled tirades like "vapid 'look at me!' buyers" (richiscool), "Yuppie housing" (Scott), "tall mini McMansion that overshadows all other houses" (westsloper333) Folks, the houses being scraped are generally 900 square foot houses from 1950 . . . not exactly grand old Victorians, beautifully restored Denver Foursquares or Bungalows, or anything that the vast majority of folks in the market would be looking for anyway. These types of homes are still selling themselves for pretty pennies just as easily as new construction, and many people still prefer them, myself included.
(Keep reading next post . . .)
April 9, 2008
1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
bleidel writes:
(Continued from previous post . . .)
I'll admit that we'd PREFER to see a better mix of new single family homes going up in addition to the luxury condos and lofts. Single family homes would likely would keep
more families for the long term and provide more stability than would the multi-unit developments. But we'd MUCH rather see tons of new development of the sort we're seeing now than none at all!!! The status quo isn't good enough, people! A lot of the status quo is run down, trashed-out apartments, tri-plexes, and four-plexes, that like ashlandbus said, "aren't working class apartments, unless you consider crack dealers working class". All of the new development IS bringing new life to the neighborhood! Shops and businesses are thriving. Has anyone been to Toast on 23rd and Osceola? That business is a wonder today that couldn't even have survived where it is 10 years ago, and it's due to the changing demographic.
Richischool, you say that "developers are DESTROYING NW Denver"! And jamesdenver, you call this "pathetic" and needing "to be limited". Look at these:
ELEMENTARY: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/CO/sch... - 769th of 878 in Colorado, 72% Hispanic
MIDDLE: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/CO/sch... - 268th of 272 in Colorado, 89% Hispanic
HIGH: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/CO/sch... - 263rd of 281 in Colorado, 86% Hispanic
What is there to destroy right now? And what's pathetic? We have some of the worst schools in the entire state!! Dang them for building nice houses and improving the socioeconomic mix of the neighborhood!!! (Because right now, let's face it, the schools are not a "mixture".) If that's greed and destruction, then I'm all for it. And if that, westsloper33, is "letting the rich yuppies have Highlands", then someday, I hope they do. No one is forcing current homeowners to leave their homes as they redevelop Highland and Sloan's Lake for the future.
We've lived in our house for 6 years and it's been exciting to be in the middle of the transformation of our neighborhood. I hope it continues, and even accelerates! I agree with "BetterEducated" saying "I'm tired of seeing all my friends leave once they have children". We have many, many friends who have and that's part of the problem. How can we be part of the solution?
Brian
April 9, 2008
3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
BetterEducated writes:
Dear Brian,
We are a family of Denver natives born in the early '50s. NW Denver was my hangout from the time I met my first boyfriend (a Holy Family graduate, back when Holy Family had a campus at 44th & Tennyson)until 1990.
We lived at 3133 Raleigh for well over ten years and were not allowed to school our kids at Edison -- just across 32nd Ave -- because they were slated to go to Valdez instead.
I am VERY sorry to tell you that even some of we die-hard NW Denver residents couldn't take DPS any longer. We simply couldn't justify the expense to our children of remaining there. We would naturally give anything to have our old bungalow back --- now that our kids have both graduated with high honors from Platte Canyon in Bailey.
It wasn't our neighbors that made our faith and hope falter. It wasn't school test results. It was the attitude of DPS administrators who made it clear our children were not important, period.
This being the case, we aren't surprised that -- a whole generation of schoolchildren later -- North High is just beginning to see some academic "progress" from the bottom of the heap. That's just unacceptable.
I pray you, Brian, will be able to do more with DPS than we could. The value of kids growing up together -- dating each other's siblings, going to get a coke with people you've known since kindergarten -- all the stuff we valued most about Community -- we had to move away from Denver, for them to have that experience, and boy was it costly from just about every perspective.
After the kids graduated, one of their sweetest friends was murdered at their high school in Bailey. But the fact all those kids had been raised together -- that gave them (and we parents) something to hold onto. What do kids in Denver hold onto when life's unfairnesses strike? Their parents' lushly gardened bungalow and quick commute to work? There's gotta be more than that.
Of our friends who stayed in Denver, one of their daughters dropped out in 8th grade, the other made it halfway through 9th. These girls came from sophisticated, caring families just like yours, they were not unaware of the hazards nor inattentative to their children's needs.
My home city is so beautiful....if only....(sigh)
April 9, 2008
4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
kevinjjones writes:
Brian,
I salute you for staying put. Your outline for the preconditions of reform has a hint of the pioneer spirit about it.
I suspect if I had children, I'd be too committed to Quality Education(tm) to take the risk of being on the vanguard of school reform and neighborhood renewal.
April 9, 2008
4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
bleidel writes:
Thanks BetterEducated, that's a really sobering story from good people who obviously loved the Northwest Denver neighborhood like we do. It's really sad this happened for your generation, and that it's still happening for ours. Hopefully all of the current and future redevelopment and influx of the "evil yuppies" to West Higland, Sloan's Lake, Berkeley, and the like can finally help right the DPS ship. At least it seems like Michael Bennet does care and is really trying, which seems to have been a rarity among Denver's school leaders for a long, long time.
That's what infuriates me when people blindly rail and fight against change, even if it's for the better. As a good friend of mine replied to me, "People glorify the older places in the neighborhood as some great working class haven that would have been awesome had all of those meddling developers and yuppies not come and screwed it up."
If it was truly that awesome before, why would so many people have to leave when they have kids, just to get them a decent education?
The neighborhood is SO rich in culture, with so much beauty and character, fun things to do, and fun places to shop and recreate. The quality of the schools is just so damning that it overrides everything else for a lot of parents. If redevelopment and a huge influx of people who demand better schools is all that's keeping people from staying, then God bless the scrapes . . .
April 9, 2008
5:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
jjez writes:
All good points being brought up here! I grew up in Aurora, near Fitzsimons. When Denver cracked down on the drug dealers and prostitutes, they moved into my neighborhood. Now that same neighborhood is seeing a revitalization from the new University campus. I haven't been back there, but I don't think the scraping has started yet. But I wonder what is going to happen to all of the people who live in those areas who can't afford a 3,000 sf house. Urban renewal is a wonderful thing! But if only those who make $300,000-400,000 a year can afford to live there, what happens to everyone else? Where do the working-class poor go? And I'm not talking about illegals. What about their right to the American Dream? Part of the foreclosure crisis is because people bought beyond their means. Over-spent on their dream house and now because of unforseen circumstances, they've lost it. Developers need to also build affordable housing. So that people like me will have a nice place to live too! Because everyone dreams of having a place to call home, even those of us who make less than $400,000 a year.
April 9, 2008
5:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
First of all why subject your kids to the hazards of a crummy public school system.I live in a community who is predominantley african american.Those who can afford to send their kids to private school.No one wants to worry while they are at work their kid might encounter some thug at school with a gun.Also the teachers in our community complain there is not harsher discipline for the truly bad kids.Can't kick them out of school because then they just roam the community breakiing into homes and creating other problems.So what do you do with the ones who do not want to learn and disrupt the class room.Also what do you do with the parents who don't want to or can not control their kids.Nothing because if you do anything the first thing after that is a civil suit.So everyone suffers because of it,the ones who want to learn can't. The ones who don't want to learn could care less for the effect they are having on their fellow students.So what do you do to change this,it begins at home.But first you have to change the parents of the you can't tell me how to raise my kids it is my business.So someone come up with a solution to the problem and you can fix the system.Until then there is r eally not much you can do about it.
April 9, 2008
8:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
italiaboy9 writes:
Oh bull crap about oh DPS is sooooo bad, blah blah blah. Many of you left the city because you didn't like the diversity, plain and simple. Move to the suburbs where the "other half" couldn't move to. Schools are what you make them. For god's sakes, you pay taxes to these schools and then you complain and complain about how bad they are but many of you probably don't even ask your kids if they have homework, or actually get involved in what's going on in their classes.
As far as your property values being brought down by the 800K home next door. Get a grip. It's the total opposite. Some of these homes do need to go. Some of them should stay. Density brings in more people, more families, more safety, more retail options, more tax base...
April 9, 2008
9:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
skite writes:
As an above commenter said, where to begin? I want to start with the Rebchook video. At the end he’s standing in front of a Sprocket Design condo on 32nd. The camera only frames the condo, not the blockface, and there is no shot of the replaced house. You can see that structure at www.rightzoningnorthwestdenver.com and clicking on the W 32nd Ave button. It was not a “shack”. By not showing the blockface, the video fails to show that the condo violates the setbacks of the adjacent world-class restaurant and the adjoining east block structures. Not a legal setback, but the actual setback on the ground. The 32nd Ave business district is a draw because of the cachet of contemporary businesses in vintage structures, some originally homes, some commercial. Putting this snout to the street in the middle of these vintage structures does nothing to enhance the value of the district; in fact, reduces its value.
Next, there is no truth to the notion that the current “scrape and replace” development is the key to our neighborhood’s revitalization. West Highland was a mostly working-class neighborhood in the 30’s and 40’s; declined in the 50’s and 60’s (school integration); and begin coming back in the late 70’s through the 90’s. Rebchook could have looked in the archives for “Northwest Denver Rich in Victoriana” in the Denver Post, Sept 2, 1978 for a good sense of this period and the foundations it laid. The truth is that restorationists and re-habbers did the heavy lifting in the 80’ and 90’s; the scrapers are just skimming the cream, not adding value.
See continuation next commnt...
April 9, 2008
9:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
skite writes:
Continued from last comment:
Now, the “scrapers fix the schools” meme: another half truth at most. The new condo/attached home structures are NOT child friendly; go look at them. No yard, cheap half-inch interior wall boards easily destroyed by teenagers, junky particle stairs; give me a break! Brick houses traded for plywood?!? No, these houses are for not-very-savvy 20-somethings with no-down mortgages or for empty-nesters who are think houses today are built the way they were 40 years ago (remember 2x4’s became smaller in 1967 with no change in the nomenclature!). They are not built for raising kids! Public education and Denver schools are a major issue our country’s future; scrape-offs are not part of the solution. That is an incredibly self-interested developer position and it’s sick.
Another meme: we need density to stop sprawl. Another half-truth. Blueprint Denver addresses the issue upfront and plans for the population growth required by upzoning large areas of the city for density while holding back density in the neighborhoods with our historic brick housing stock. Again, small time developers and their deep pocketed friends don't get it for very self-interested reasons...
It is not sustainable to destroy brick housing and replace it with plywood housing. That's nuts! Update and add-on: that's the smart growth way. Build new with density along mass transit lines, but even there, if old structures are convertible, DO IT!
GET REAL AND GET FACTUAL!
April 9, 2008
10:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
To Mr Skite
Wow thank you for opening my eyes to what is going on.Me I do no like new homes that do not reflect the neighborhoods charm.If you are going to remove a historic property then replace it with something remotely similar to the neighborhood.I am a fan of the Frank Lloyd Wrights of the world.These homes are part of the community and can not be replaced.But if you are going to do it then build the new property to blend into the co-existing neighborhoods.Thus you are not devaluing the current property and bringing neighbors to look forward to their new neighbors.
April 10, 2008
6:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
dnvrguy1 writes:
I am a Sloan's Lake resident and I am not a realtor or developer. I lived here 15 years and I plan on staying here for a long time. I think it is great people are so passionate about this neighborhood. It tells us we have something special here. As I see Kathryn Degenreux, Daniel Markofsy and Steve Kite and Jude battle the issues weekly, it is a struggle for me to take sides.
Do know many structures were lost during the urban renewal days of the 70's and most of us would like to have them back. The structures that replaced them are forgettable and we drive past them like they were not even there. I have pictures of Lo Do when it was a vacant warehouse district.
I think architects, developers and builders have a moral and ethical responsibility to build within the envelope of the communities perception of it's character. Clearly if that was happening all of this would be sailing through without resistance.
Change is constant and healthy for a community. There is always resistance to change because people like predictable circumstances.
I see three main issues that need to be addressed. (1.) The perception (true or not) the schools here are not very good. This funnels development to people who do not have kids and development that is not kid friendly. It is market driven.
(2.) Some of the quality of construction is not very high. Colorado has this subculture from the old mining days of get rich quick independent ventures. It is very difficult to get a contractors license in Denver. This doesn't serve the city or its' residents. If Denver had the same license requirements as Douglas, Jefferson, Larimer and Summit counties we could attract higher quality builders and actually increase competition and lower construction costs. We need to put out the message tract housing building techniques don't fly in this neighborhood.
(3.) Balance and diversity is big here. No one wants the cookie cutter projects. Too much of anything is too much. No one wants tract housing quality standards and every project looking the same. We need more single family developments and some comps to financially support the financing of those projects. Right now we have a boat with no brakes.
Keep the historical flavor and character, increase competition for builders, make this the place where things were built to last, create an environment where the schools draw the market to build single family homes too.
Kevin
April 10, 2008
7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Novo writes:
People like skite and the wackjobs at rightzoning Denver love to tell people what they should think, and what kind of home they have to like. The ones he likes obviously. He has no problem filling the comment section with half truths and blatant lies to get his agenda through. Such as the new homes not being child friendly, I guess skite would prefer we all live in homes filled with lead based paint chips like he ate as a child.
The Highlands is a great and vibrant neighborhood that needs to change with the new times. We can't live in the past forever, our homes should show evidence of the changing times and the new residents that Northwest Denver is attracting.
April 10, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
skite writes:
Novo/Vliet: thanks for the civil words; you're an example to all your fellow scrapers. Often the choice presented by you and your friends is "do nothing" v. "scrape and build new". The actual choice is "re-hab" v. "scrape/build new". Lead paint, asbestos, old wiring, old plumbing: all these are routinely dealt with by re-habbers while not destroying the existing brick housing stock. The cheap mortgages of the past few years combined with inequitable property rights protection for existing homeowners have made profits on scrapes too tempting and out of whack. Incentives for rehabbing would help to balance the playing field.
April 10, 2008
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
DMarkofsky writes:
The main problem I see with Mr. Kite's approach is that he and his colleagues would like to simply take away property rights which are bought and paid for. For most of us any personal financial security is tied up in our homes and must be respected.
We clearly love our Denver neighborhoods. That is why I fight for my and your property rights and legal due process rights.
Neighborhood character is also given by how we all get along. Hostile downzoning and name calling is not the answer. Theh downzoning process has been shameful. I challenge our politicians to give us the support to work collaboatively on neighborhood plans, not to apply divisve policies such as downzoning.
All, please come to City Council April 28th and tell Council we want to work together to have great neighborhoods (and schools!)
April 11, 2008
8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
skite writes:
One final comment: Mr. Markofsky is a practicing real estate attorney. He knows, better than the rest of us, that a simple downzoning is not a “taking” under the law. Even the high-powered legal consultant brought in by Mr. Markovsky told him and his cohorts that the rezone issue was a political matter not a matter of legal or constitutional rights. Yet, he continues to repeat that it is. Repeating it will not make it so. As an attorney, he has some obligation to the rest of us to accurately relay to us the true bearing of the law on matters of the day. He’s studied it; we haven’t.
On the other hand, there are real rights to sunlight, privacy, views (“bought and paid for”) that are daily taken by private developers from adjacent property owners with no consideration or compensation. Unfortunately, these “takings” are currently perfectly legal in Colorado. We should all support doing something useful to protect these rights of homeowners.
For more information, see www.rightzoningnorthwestdenver.com/proprites.html.
Thanks and good day!
April 16, 2008
10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
sunshine5280 writes:
I live in Berkeley as well (renting) and am looking to buy a home. I have mixed feelings about the scrapes and there are some good points noted in these comments. On our street, there have been 2 scrapes recently. One of them is going to be a duplex with each side offering 3 levels, with 5 bedrooms and 3baths, with little or no yard. My question is this: why isn't this being replaced with a nice, single family home of the size people move to the 'burbs for, instead of 2 connected units? I figure it is greed. Those units are going to be in the 500K price range EACH. Granted, the house that was on the property needed to be scraped, but why the duplex? I realize our area is zoned R2, but why not build houses that people w/families are interested in, and more importantly, can afford?
April 19, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
DMarkofsky writes:
Steve Kite,
I feel deeply that I owe my community, which is why I am working in my personal time to oppose this hostile and unpopular downzoning and the misrepresentations and fear you and others working with you have spread around the neighborhood where I live. You are a wealthy and slick community activist, living in a million-dollar home and masquerading as an average Joe suffering at the hand of developers. But the people are wising up to your deceptive ways.
That is also why I, unlike you, would not make the two untrue statements you make in your post above. Your claim that I call this a "takings" and your claim of "high-powered legal consultants" are untrue.
I believe that "sunlight, privacy, and views" deserve respect and consideration when drafting laws and when the government is taking discretionary actions. Indeed, these values are already covered and have been carefully considered under the Denver Zoning Code and are evident in the bulk plane - which is identical under R1 & R2.
Also, I have never called this a "legal takings." I know it is not a "legal taking" and have said that many times. However, in plain English usage going from R2 to R1 takes away rights.
Finally, there are no paid legal consultants whatsoever. We are all donating our time and efforts.
Personally, I believe you are simply being hypocritical. You are wealthy. You live ina million dollar mansion. You want what you want and the rest does not matter. You look over the rest of the neighborhood from your 3,000 square foot, beautiful historic Victorian Mansion sitting on 16,000 square feet of land. Also, your co-downzoning applicant is perfectly content to block the sunlight of her neighbor to the north while sitting in the air conditioned comfort (an A/C unit illegally sited and installed without a permit, but granted a variance on April 8, 2008) of her 3,000 square foot house which she built in the mid-eighties and which is 26.5 feet tall and only 5 feet from the north lot line.
The truth shall set you free.