No more multifamily dwellings in Sloan's Lake, West Highland
By Daniel J. Chacon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published April 28, 2008 at 11:01 p.m.
Updated April 29, 2008 at 5:18 p.m.
Photo by Linda McConnell/Special to the Rocky
Kevin Dickson, who is against rezoning, listens to discussion during the 10-hour City Council meeting last night.
Photo by Linda McConnell, Special to the Rocky
A duplex next to a single-family home on Newton Street is an example of the housing mix that some residents in the West Highland and Sloan's Lake neighborhoods oppose.
Photo by Linda McConnell, Special to the Rocky
Larry Behrendt holds his baby Logan as he signs up to speak in favor of maintaining the present zoning of Sloan's Lake area at the Denver City and Council meeting Monday night.
After a nearly 10-hour meeting that ended just after 3 a.m. today, the City Council approved a rezoning that will prevent the construction of duplexes and other multifamily dwellings in two northwest Denver neighborhoods.
The council voted 11-2 to rezone 53 acres in West Highland and 62 acres in Sloan’s Lake from R-2 to R-1, putting an end to so-called scrape-off redevelopments to make room for higher density multiple-unit properties.
Council members Charlie Brown and Jeanne Faatz voted in opposition. Though they raised several concerns with the proposal, both said the issue boiled down to property rights.
Council members who supported the rezoning said it was in line with Blueprint Denver, the city’s land-use and transportation plan.
About 130 people testified at the two hearings, and at least twice that many showed up to listen. The huge turnout - and the divisiveness of the issue - prompted council members to call on sheriff’s deputies to keep a close eye on the hearings.
The zoning changes, which go into effect in January 2009, created ill feelings among divided neighbors.
"Anytime you have emotions that are this high and (evoke) this much passion on what you think is right, you always run the risk of conflicts and personal issues entering the scene," said Councilman Rick Garcia, whose district includes the two neighborhoods.
A rezoning usually requires seven affirmative votes from the 13-member council to pass. But more than 20 percent of the affected property owners signed a protest petition, requiring a supermajority - or 10 votes - to gain approval.
Supporters said the increased density from the multiple-unit structures was ruining the character of the two neighborhoods, which are comprised of predominately single-family detached homes.
The outcropping of multifamily structures has cast shadows on gardens, increased traffic and created parking wars, among other quality of life issues, they said.
Anthony Cooper, who supported the rezoning proposals, said the two neighborhoods aren't designed to handle the increased density allowed under the current zoning.
Traffic and lack of parking are already problems, he said.
Multifamily dwellings "fit into the neighborhoods like galoshes on a duck," he said. "They just don't fit."
But opponents said the rezoning infringes on their property rights and would hobble the redevelopment they say has revitalized the neighborhoods.
Todd Silverman said he bought in the area 10 years ago for several reasons, including the "potential the zoning would afford."
It's unfair that now "certain people want to take away those property rights," he said.
Realtor Susan Pearce agreed. She also said the rezoning could lead to higher housing costs.
"Fewer units will mean rising costs," she said. "Once the price of property goes beyond a certain point, our teachers, our policemen, our young accountants, our young families, will not be able to live in the city, and eventually, their allegiances will go to the suburbs because that’s where they’re living."
The percentage of single-family detached homes in West Highland would drop from 87 percent to 37 percent if all the zone lots were developed under the current zoning. In Sloan's Lake, it would go from 71 percent to 22 percent.
The development potential threatens the existing neighborhood character as envisioned in Blueprint Denver, said Deirdre Oss, a senior city planner.
Similar neighborhood fights have played out in other areas, including City Park and Congress Park. A plan to down-zone West Washington Park, which has seen a rash of so-called pop-top and scrape-off redevelopments in recent years, has been on hold.
"This is not a unique situation," said Peter Park, manager of Community Planning and Development. "We’ll deal with it again."
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 29, 2008
12:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
why change someplace for the worse.I would not want to live someplace that is overcrowded and noisy.So why not preserve this neighborhood and leave it alone.Stop making some developer richer then he is already.
April 29, 2008
12:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
I am still watching this public hearing (12:30 a.m.) and I am fascinated by it....
There are two women - a youngish little troll with glasses and an old hag sitting with her - that have been sitting in the audience all night (right behind the dais) rolling their eyes and yawning like they are bored...Or they look like they are going to cry over this issue - which is pathetic. I think they just need to leave. I know they have nothing better to do but their presence is very distracting.
Also, when did making money or being a developer become a bad thing? Some of these knuckleheads need to read a little Ayn Rand and get a grip on how things work in the world.
April 29, 2008
12:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
jconder45 writes:
Screw the developers' "property rights". The rights of the people actually living there should prevail. We need more neighborhoods of single family "starter houses", not less. If the deveoplers want to raze houses to build "multi-family dwellings", let them do it in Highlands Ranch. I don't live anywhere near these neighborhoods, but I am entirely on the current homeowners' side.
April 29, 2008
1:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
superbad writes:
The person arguing that downzoning will price out teachers and cops is an idiot. The scrapes being done in this neighborhood all follow exactly the same pattern:
1. Buy a small single family house on a 6250 sqft lot for ~$200k.
2. Knock it down.
3. Build a gigantic duplex as cheaply as possible (~$400k). Bonus points if you make it ugly and totally out of scale with the rest of the street.
4. Sell each half for $400k-600k to someone intent on proving the greater fool theory.
5. Take your $200k profit and repeat step 1.
In the end, you've simultaneously made the neighborhood more expensive (by eliminating modest starter houses), and less desirable (by replacing them with junk). The people against this are the absentee landlords renting out those $200k houses and waiting for the day when they can demo it and cash out. This shouldn't have anything to do with city council. Let the property owners in the affected area vote- every lot gets one vote, majority wins.
April 29, 2008
6:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Golly. How will they make mass transit work there without the beehive density and social engineering that Denver is pushing?
April 29, 2008
7:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
iammydogsmom writes:
While I'm happily surprised the new zoning passed I doubt it will produce the result the supporters were expecting. I live in the Berkeley area where older homes are being demolished at an alarming rate to be replaced not only by duplexes but by much larger single family homes.
The house across the street from me, a modest single family, was purchased by a developer(who lives in the neighborhood BTW) for $190,000 and then knocked down to be replaced by a huge single family home. Asking price for the new house? $600,000!
While the idea of stopping multi-family homes from being built in the area sounds good, it doesn't guarantee affordable starter homes for young families wanting to live in the city nor does it guarantee the preservation of older homes. I don't know about you but I certainly couldn't afford a $600,000 home.
The fact that the new zoning doesn't go into effect until January of 2009 only serves to speed up exactly what the down zoning was meant to prevent. You'll see houses being knocked down left and right and duplexes, tri-plexes, or worse being built at lightning speed.
April 29, 2008
8:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
HowardRoark writes:
I'm a broker that works the central Denver neighborhoods and I do a lot of work in Sloans Lake/West Highlands. I have studied the zoning code inside & out. I feel for all the unsuspecting home owners in these areas that just took a $50K, $75K, $100K or more hit to their property values and don't even know it. There is inherit value in the zoning of land and this vote just wiped that all away. I forsee lawsuits being filed against the city when some of these homeowners realize what just hit them.
April 29, 2008
8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
American100 writes:
I'm a broker and also a builder. There is a lot to be said for restoring older neighborhoods without destroying the charm and original flavor of the neighborhood.
I don't live in Denver but do spend a significant amount of time there. I love those cute old neigborhoods and believe they should be protected.
Too bad most of them are crime ridden.
April 29, 2008
8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
jconder45 writes:
timeand again- no one needs to read Ayn Rand. She and her morally bankrupt philosophy need to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
April 29, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
jconder45 writes:
Gene- I imagine it's been used by many non-Bolsheviks as well. But by all means, continue with the name-calling and red-baiting.
April 29, 2008
8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
jconder45 writes:
Gene- by the way, if you knew anything about bolshevism, you'd know they didn't use terms like "morally bankrupt". That's a term used by those who subscribe to traditional systems of morality, like myself. And, in case you didn't know it, Ayn Rand was an atheist.
April 29, 2008
8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
unfug writes:
As a former planning board member, I can tell you there are two things people hate most- density and sprawl.
April 29, 2008
8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
American100, I used to live in that general vicinity, but on the other side of Federal Blvd. Those neighborhoods are definitely charming, however, a lot of the houses are in crumbling disrepair. Still, they command some unbelievable prices, because people value brick over plyboard. People long for the quality of the past, and can you blame them? Architecture is so unimaginative these days, and the materials used are cheap with a relatively short lifespan.
I don't know what the answer is. Even if a developer chose to refurbish these homes and resell them, either way your average home owner is pretty much priced out of the Highlands neighborhoods today. It's just indicative of the whole housing market, which is seriously overinflated.
April 29, 2008
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
jconder: "timeand again- no one needs to read Ayn Rand. She and her morally bankrupt philosophy need to be consigned to the dustbin of history."
No kidding. Rand was an incredibly talented writer, but the merits of following her philosophy today are non-existent. Nevertheless, her fictional characters are more "real" to her fans than actual business leaders today, who possess few of the principles found in the heroes of Rand's books. If anything, the bad guys in her books are startlingly similar to many of the crooks in office and running corporate conglomerates now, with their suave doublespeak and systematic unraveling of the rights of private citizens.
April 29, 2008
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmm58 writes:
Hooray for the residents! It's their neighborhood! Government and other agencies seem to think that they can dominate and control everything we do anymore. They try to treat us like we're stupid! We know better and we know that there are those of you who are out there wanting to make money and chase our diverse populations away to another neighborhood for your own benefit. What's next? Isn't is sad enough that so many people have to pay mortagages yet have additional association fees too? Some of us grew up with a sense of community and we will protect it. We will make it what we want it to be, not what you think it should be! Power to the People!!!!
April 29, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveFesch writes:
Since when is Denver City Council concerned about property rights? My property in Denver is being STOLEN by RTD via eminent domain. They say they need it for a road widening project because of Fast Tracks yet Denver owns land across the street from mine that will be nothing more than vacant land when they move their maintenance facility.
If Denver was concerned about private property rights they'd use their land for their improvement projects rather than confiscating private property.
Denver and RTD are wasting YOUR tax dollars by acquiring land for development purposes and NOT necessarily the voter approved Fast Tracks project like they claim.
Denver concerned about private property rights. Please.
April 29, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
mmm58-
Did you just celebrate this decision as a victory over "government and other agencies [that] seem to think that they can dominate and control everything we do anymore...Power to the People"?
I have news for you. The government DID do this. This issue was babysat by the planning commission (GOVERNMENT), $40,000 in legitimate filing fees were waived on behalf of the applicants (by the GOVERNMENT), Peter Park (GOVERNMENT) and his staff carried the ball across the finish line, and the City Council (GOVERNMENT) approved it.
You are terribly misperceived, misinformed and - when you say that it is "sad enough that so many people have to pay mortgages" - STUPID!
Good luck to you in your non-producing life wherein you despise property ownership, individual rights and money. Those greedy developers that create and produce for you and your ilk will continue doing so. You just continue sitting at your coffee shop and believing that you add value...
April 29, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
American100 writes:
MMM58 - I have never heard anyone say "chase our diverse populations away to another neighborhood".
I have heard "let's run the criminals and gangs out of the neighborhood" though.
Ridding the neighborhood of crime is one of the best ways to increase values.
April 29, 2008
9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
TeresaBinstock writes:
An apparently anonymous individual offered, "...when did making money or being a developer become a bad thing? Some... need to read a little Ayn Rand and get a grip on how things work in the world."
Western civilization has provided many blessings. For instance, we've washed chemicalized farmland downstream and thereby created dead zones in oceans. We breathe air that spin-doctors tell us isn't so polluted, even as an increasing number of scientific studies show that various human pathologies increase in accord with levels of air particulates, smog, and ozone. Fortunately for investors, the EPA's honchos have become servants who deliberately hide findings of adverse effects - just as "developers" and mortgage-density financiers tend to dominate planning boards and legislative councils in nearly all towns in America.
Two categories of writing rival Mein Kampf for evil effects. Hayakawa's "Language in Action" augmented spin-doctoring. The writings of Ayn Rand have led many sincere and trusting individuals into beliefs and attitudes rooted in avarice.
Many of western civilization's enforced principles such as "progress" and "growth" need be redesigned in an era of biospheric and intra-body pollutants. Indeed, these modifications to western civilization, its lifeways, and its belief systems would be beneficially enhanced by indigenous wisdoms wherein Mother Earth, neighborhoods, and people are honored and respected, not seen merely as something to be forever exploited and intoxinated.
Perhaps the time has come for our society's excess of development profiteers to go the way of the dodo.
April 29, 2008
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
American100 writes:
TeresaBinstock said "just as "developers" and mortgage-density financiers tend to dominate planning boards and legislative councils in nearly all towns in America."
Easy enough to change that Teresa. The community has the opportunity to show up to meetings whenever they want but usually don't until they hear about something they don't like and then it's up in arms and everybody else is the bad guy.
Lots of time board positions go uncontested at re-election.
Developers, builders, brokers show up because they are in business.
Free industry Teresa. Everybody wants to make more money, some figure it out and make it, others just begrudge those who do. Suddenly making money is a bad thing.
It's not unethical for a builder, developer, broker to show up and have a voice and then get their way.
SO QUIT YOUR BITCHIN' AND SHOW UP TO THE MEETINGS!
April 29, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
ptorres writes:
Its not surprising that Council person Rick Garcia does not have the B’s to back business and allow development in his district. Let’s just move everyone to Edgewater & Lakewood that is doing well with development of new housing. By the way Sloan’s lake is starting to look like a mud pound so Garcia lets just drain the lake and send every one across the street for future growth development. If only the voters could see through your Long Ranger mask "HORSE THIEVES STEAL "SILVER"" would be reveled.
April 29, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
bmenezes writes:
Good decision. Now, let's work on the process of having some neighborhood architectural design guidelines so that the carpetbagging developers who still will be buying scrapeoffs and putting up "contemporary" architecture that resembles shipping containers (Exhibit A, the hideous structure at the northwest corner of 32nd and Osceola) will have to at least pay design lip service to the overall look and feel of the surrounding neighborhood.
April 29, 2008
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
TeresaBinstock -
Are you for real? Really for real?
I don't know what you are saying but I suspect you need to smoke another joint and wander over to the coffeehouse (obviously not Starbucks - profiteers!) for the day.
Us meanies will take care of everything.
Peace.
April 29, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
RightBeDone writes:
I love that all these folks who have been in Denver for the last decade move into a neighborhood and say, "this is the neighborhood's character." What character? Having grown up in Sloans lake before the Californians moved in, and the suburbanites moved back, I have to say, I liked it better when they were building multidwelling buildings. Houses don't make a neighborhood. People do. These new people moving into Sloans Lake who don't know the difference between Highlands and Berkeley, they suck!
April 29, 2008
10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
timeandagain: "Those greedy developers that create and produce for you and your ilk will continue doing so. You just continue sitting at your coffee shop and believing that you add value..."
For someone who so desperately wants to identify with the "producers" you seem to have little understanding of who they are actually producing for.
Do you know that construction materials are increasingly outsourced from countries like China? That's creating an economic boom for them, not any sort of revived manufacturing boom here in the United States. Do you know that the typical construction worker on one of those overpriced condos in the Highlands is likely a lowly paid immigrant, illegally here or not, rather than an American citizen?
One thing you can be sure of, once these homes are so overpriced that only the well-to-do can afford to live in the neighborhood, the rents for local businesses will skyrocket so high, that only corporate-owned businesses will be able to afford to open shop there.
So who are these developers actually creating wealth and goods for? ONLY the rich and their well-paid executives. Which I imagine is just fine with you, but nevertheless, disproves your withering assertion to mmm58 that the output of all this production is going towards his/her "ilk."
April 29, 2008
10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
mylhigh writes:
Seems like the upset people are the people with the $$$$$ on their mind. Instead of investing in our neighborhood (the same neighborhood most of you don’t live in) go invest elsewhere. When you look at the rate that a multi-dwelling unit’s value has increased compared to single family home something isn’t right. The problem is that there are many dumb people willing to pay these outrageous prices. So of course, if I was a developer…
Also, density is one thing but in the right place, nobody wants to all of a sudden have eight new neighboring families.
April 29, 2008
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
mylhigh: "The problem is that there are many dumb people willing to pay these outrageous prices."
Too true. I couldn't agree more.
April 29, 2008
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
polyglot writes:
WAIT - hold the phone. I thought we were all suspose to be increasing our density so that we can preserve the land and ride light rail. I am so confused - oh wait - I get it. Land planning and environmentalism is really about stopping growth and the enconomy.
April 29, 2008
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
mytwosense:
Not sure where to begin with that... Construction materials are "outsourced from countries like China" because liberals like you don't like logging in your backyard. They are "outsourced from countries like China" because manufacturing ANYTHING here in the US is overpriced. Why? Because liberals like you support unions and increased government bureaucracy and regulations and taxes. Liberals like you support organizations like the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association (ambulance chasers) and they like to sue insurance companies and employers on behalf of the "poor" and "down-trodden". So doing business here is expensive because liberals like you have screwed up EVERY TYPE of insurance (health, auto, disability, homeowners). They are "outsourced from countries like China" because gas prices are so high because liberals like you don't want any domestic drilling. (And you want the government to tax gas at 17 different levels.) That is why everything is "outsourced from countries like China"...
Those "lowly paid immigrants" are climbing over themselves to come here and work. Whether or not they pay income taxes, they do pay rent (which goes towards their Landlord's property taxes) and they purchase retail goods locally (sales taxes). You see? It is complicated economic theory but stay with me here!
When "rents of local business skyrocket," they do so because people are coming to that attractive area to shop, eat, drink (spend money) and that means more sales taxes. Higher rents mean higher property values and - guess what that means? - higher property taxes! Are you getting it here? Guess what, if the local businesses are selling a great product or providing a great service do you know what that means? More sales! Yes, they make more income even though they are not a big, mean corporation.
Finally, regardless of where something is manufactured, when a big, mean, greedy developer buys his concrete, wood, steel, drywall, doors, windows, landscaping materials, light fixtures, flooring, plumbing materials, electrical materials, rents the backhoe, haul-off, chain link fence, pays permit fees, hires architects, engineers, greases the inspectors, etc... ALL OF THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY!!! Do you get that?
Do you know what else new residential development means? Higher property taxes! Higher demographics! More money in your neighborhood! Better schools! Better government services so that people like you can spend their day in the coffeehouse!
You must have missed the economics lecture at whatever art school you attended...
Best of luck to you!
April 29, 2008
11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
Denver City Councilman Rick Garcia is a liar! He went back on his word and betrayed his district. He has had a conflict of interest in this matter from the beginning and refused to do anything about it.
Here is why: Rick's Administrative Aid is Pat Defa. Her husband Ray Defa was the original signatory on the Down Zoning applications and is an activist of the Highlands Neighborhood Association.
In December 2006, at a meeting sponsored by Garcia, he was confronted with this conflict of interest. He openly declared to everyone that Pat Defa is not involved in this issue in his office. Yet, on September 5, 2007, Pat Defa petitioned the City for a fee waiver of $41000 which was granted by Peter Park at CPD. SHE SHOULD NEVER HAVE SIGNED IT! SHE SHOULD HAVE REMAINED IMPARTIAL. The proponents would have been able to achieve the requisite number of signatures without her support. Thus is begs the question. What other support did Pat Defa, with Rick Garcia's blessing, give and receive in this matter by virtue of her position and influence within the Councilman's office and as a public employee. This is not right! Talk about falling on DEAF ears...it's more like Garcia has Defa's ear, instead of those of his constituents...HE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF! It creates a glaring specter of breach of ethics, trust and insider influence.
I hope the City Ethics Board looks into this.
This fight is not yet over!!!
PEOPLE OF DENVER BETTER WAKE UP. IF THEY CAN DOWN ZONE YOUR HOME WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT...YOUR HOUSE IS NEXT!
April 29, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
mylhigh writes:
And what is the problem with the market economy as we speak?...
April 29, 2008
11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
timeandagain, no missing your point about higher property taxes, as you made it several times. However, that is not a point that disproves more wealth is being funneled to the already wealthy.
Let's start with a glaringly obvious fact: Only wealthy people can afford to pay high property taxes! This effectively prices out everyone else from such neighborhoods. Also, as a portion of those taxes go to the local schools, it will be mostly children of the wealthy who benefit since they will be the ones attending those schools.
Again, the rich are benefiting, the low-income and middle class are not.
And all of the subcontractors you mentioned hire low-wage immigrant workers, who, yes, pay out a good portion of what they make towards rent. I supposed you could view this as a booming little industry - that slumlords benefit from. Again, NOT the poor or other low-income people.
I could also directly refute every blame you assigned to liberals for the current state of our economy, but I don't have the time. I will address just one of your claims for now, that liberals are to blame for high gas prices.
Do you know how much domestic drilling is already taking place in this country? Do you know how many drilling leases and grants have been dispersed in the last eight years? An incredible amount. Have gas prices fallen as a result of this increased drilling? No.
Worldwide demand and tight controls by OPEC on production are to blame for much of our pricing woes, my friend, and if you think that opening up ANWR will lessen your pain at the gas pump, you are dead wrong. In fact, you might want to ask yourself why most supporters of domestic drilling OPPOSE any restriction to keep what is produced domestically only sold domestically.
Get your nose out of "Atlas Shrugged" and do some real research on every side of the equation.
April 29, 2008
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
kbmoney08 writes:
I couldn't agree more with a few comments on developers putting up the worst-looking new structures imaginable. If I lived in a handsome brick house I'd worked hard to restore, I wouldn't want some piece of garbage, modern shed of a house within 500 yards of mine. Someone above said people make neighborhoods, not houses, and that's absurd. This is about neighborhoods losing character. Leave capitalism and politics out of it.
April 29, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i live in whittier/city park west and hope we can get something similar passed in our neck of the woods. i've seen this happen twice in two years within a two block radius from my home. not a fan.
April 29, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
I find it interesting about all these comments about UGLY new homes being built, McMasions, Monstrosities etc.
I got one question for you: WHO APPOINTED YOU THE Aesthetics Police? It's not your house! You want conformity, the tiny boxes on a hillside looking all alike....GO MOVE TO A COVENANT CONTROLLED HOA.
MIND YOUR OWN BEESWAX!
April 29, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
mylhigh writes:
The people involved in these structures being built obviously don’t care about land planning and environmentalism and the interests of the neighborhood or residents. What they do care about is lining their pockets. Come on now, we all know that. Just like what one person said about the materials used and the laborers hired (low paid, immigrants (illegal most likely)), of course they are not US citizens and why is that? Whole separate issue for another time and place but only proves that it still boils down to the $$$$$. We can’t have it both ways, there are pros and cons to everything but it seems like the people reaping the benefits right now are the developers. Making money is not a bad thing but go where people don’t stand up.
April 29, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"I got one question for you: WHO APPOINTED YOU THE Aesthetics Police? It's not your house! You want conformity, the tiny boxes on a hillside looking all alike....GO MOVE TO A COVENANT CONTROLLED HOA."
easy trigger....this is what the councils and neighborhood associations were put in place for...no one is going commie on you here...take a breath
April 29, 2008
12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
Msg to Jay:
Why is this skin off your nose as what color, or what type of brick, stonework etc, I use on my house. You won't comment because you know you are wrong. Why is it your biz? If muy neghbor didn't keep their yard clean, had weeds, didn't take care of it...yep I would have something to say about it. That's why we have codes. But just becuase you don't like the architecture? You have no right! Period!
I belong to my neghborhood association and we don't invade those rights. We respect them. We respect diversity. Once you start to tell me what style or look I can have, where do you stop? You gonna restrict who can live there too?
Can the Gay couple live there...afterall...we kept hearing SINGLE FAMILY HOME ranted several times last night at Council. WHAT IS A SINGLE FAMILY? Check out CPD's definition...it say's MARRIED... guess the non-married co-habitating, straight or gay couple are not allowed in R1 anymore.
April 29, 2008
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Gene: "That is the definition of a market economy. There is no problem I see. If someone is willing to pay the price, then there is a buyer. That makes a market demand. The seller is supplying a demand. You are the one critical of the buyer as being dumb."
Gene, as I described in my posts, this particular manifestation of a "market economy" is largely benefiting the wealthy and since it's the dominant form of how a "market economy" is practiced today, that is a problem.
Whether or not you agree is dependent on your own personal philosophy, of course.
April 29, 2008
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bob299 writes:
The irony is that a single-family home can still be replaced with single-family structures. University Hills is zoned R-1 and the scrape-offs have started. It seems to me that someone can afford half a duplex for $350,000 instead of a single-family house for $700,000 or more.
People who argue that increase density in the city is anti-environment are hypocrites! Suburban and exurban sprawl eat up more wildlife habitat, farmland, etc. than any other environmental "problem." If these people were truly green, they'd be welcoming urban density. If you want to live in the city, then LIVE IN THE CITY! Otherwise, move to the western slope and live in a commune.
Good job NIMBYs, Good job!
April 29, 2008
12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
What I was glad to see is that it made sure that neighborhood was protected.I lived in a neighborhood that built several 4 unit dwellings in the neighborhood.I moved because I did not know who these people were.I also did not like the fact that there was no more on street parking because of the new units.It was noisier with more people coming and going all hours of the day and night.So when this passed I was happy to see at least a attempt to preserve a way of life.
April 29, 2008
1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
Just as a point of clarification, if we are talking ascetics, West Highland and Sloan's Lake are ENTIRELY different areas.
West Highlands includes may of these pleasant, historic homes that make sense to salvage. Many Victorians or early 20th Century properties that have some ascetic & historic value. As a resident of a 1905 Victorian in "The Highlands" (i.e. east of Federal), I can certainly appreciate the ascetic nature of many houses in West Highlands.
Sloan's Lake is an entirely different story. It is full of 1940's/50's/60's hideous architecture. The fact that the residents of Sloan's Lake supported this amendment makes no sense to me. I can't stand some of the new crap they are throwing up over there (single and multi-family). But many of those original homes are far worse.
As far as density is concerned, my home in the Highlands (which I remodeled to preserve 100% of the Victorian character) and sits between a new, tasteful duplex and another old Victorian. The duplex has two very nice, polite families that live there. They maintain their property, are quiet, respectful, etc. The old Victorian on the other side is a single-family dwelling. It is owned by a Mexican family that has been there for many, many years. Nice people but at least 6 adults live in the house at any given time (repeatedly there have been as many as 16 people living in the house for as much as 6 months at a time). Trash is strewn everywhere and their backyard looks like something out of Sanford & Son. Attention Developers: You may come and scrape the old Victorian house next to me anytime (and put up a shiny new duplex!
April 29, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
ashlandbus writes:
timeandagain = Classism at its finest. Oh wait, i think that is a prerequisite for posting on this board. Adios!
April 29, 2008
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Gene, trust me, I'm not even close to wealthy. Nor do I have prejudice against those who are, unless they got their wealth by exploiting others. I used to think America was the one country where a poor person could rise above the financial aspects they were born into, however, I think it's much harder to do that now than it used to be. Just out of curiosity, why do you assume I am wealthy? I'd be interested to know what makes you think so.
Also, you ask: "Wouldn't you rather have a wealthy person living next door than a poor person?"
Well, that's an interesting question you pose. Because this summer, I moved from a neighborhood where the people who lived above me were poor, to where I live now, with a neighbor who is decidedly rich.
My former neighbor who lived in the apartment above me, was incredibly generous, despite the fact she lived in abject poverty. When she found out I was pregnant, she gave me some lovely gifts for the baby, and I have the feeling they were gifts that were originally given to her own toddler. That couldn't have been easy to part with, as she could hardly afford to replace them.
On the other hand, my present neighbor appears to be trying to make a "land grab" of a piece of our property over and beyond an easement that was generously given to him by the previous owners of our house. Despite the fact he's probably got 10 times as much land as we do. (Actually, I rent, so it's not my land or house, but my landlord's.)
Of course, this is just my personal experience. It's true that poor neighborhoods are often marked by trash and litter. I don't why...ignorance, maybe, or perhaps just a general apathy fueled by a rather depressing life in general.
April 29, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Gene: "A good economy benefits everyone, not just wealthy persons."
True, but again, I do not believe the present incarnation of our "market" economy is necessarily a "good" one, as I do not see examples of how it significantly benefits the poor and the lower-income. I also do not see how it is expanding the middle class, either, which instead seems to be shrinking.
April 29, 2008
1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
mylhigh writes:
Its all a cycle timeandagain you might just be a little tiny bit further into it (or least think you are). Sorry to hear about your complex. I wont even go further into this topic because I wont waste time with what I see as a bigot. You are right ashlandbus.
Isnt it amazing how these things all of a sudden come up. Is this truly the underlying purpose of opposing downzoning because I think higher of my neighbors than this. Now back to the real topic…
April 29, 2008
1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Ha ha! No, I'm not that person. We don't live anywhere close to Boulder, plus we rent.
You ask what I would do to expand the middle class. Well, you can't get to a solution until you first fully face a problem and understand what is causing it. I'm still in that stage, so will have to get back to you at a later time on my idea of a solution. :)
April 29, 2008
2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
nicktaste writes:
to the the people spending too much on 1/2 of a new duplex: some developer just cashed in on your ignorance and expect your new neighbors to recognize your foolishness as well
April 29, 2008
2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"I belong to my neghborhood association and we don't invade those rights."
as was I. i'm surprised you havfen't been on the board long enough to go through the review process for new structure architecture.
i smell bs.
the point is that if an historic neighborhood wants to limit new construction to maintain certain asthetic principles, that is entirely within their right as a neighborhood. the alternative is the curtis park area...it looks absolutely horrible. most of the atrociously out of place new mutlifamily buildings in curtis park were built by a group of neighbors who were after profit and investing back in their hood. good for them i say. i just don't like the absolutely fugly buildings they erected. they are an eyesore that is a great example of projects that attempt to do good by an area but fail miserably.
April 29, 2008
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
mylhigh & ashlandbus:
I am no more of a classist or bigot than either of you. We just have different intolerances...
However, I would venture to guess that each of yours is more deeply rooted in your respective bitterness about what you don't have or what could have been...
April 29, 2008
2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
timeandagain: "However, I would venture to guess that each of yours is more deeply rooted in your respective bitterness about what you don't have or what could have been..."
This is a remarkably similar sentiment often expressed by a local owner of a fur store to the protesters outside his business: "You're just mad because you can't afford a fur coat!"
That kind of logic is dumb. Do you see people outside BMW car lots protesting? Or, to use timeandagain's analogy, protesting outside luxury homes?
April 29, 2008
2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
ashlandbus writes:
Wrong timeandagain. I live right up the block from you in Sunnyside. Been there for a number of years. Own a remodeled Victorian. Live next to the same neighbors as you. Well, most of my neighbors represent the latter of your description. Still, as people, they have just as much a right to be there as I do. And, I also got to know them, and I can tell you they truly are wonderful people.
Timeandagain, it is, actually, neighbors like you that bother me most. You knoew the demographics and state of the neighborhood when you arrived. Did you purchase blindly from afar? Perhaps from Texas?
April 29, 2008
2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
I am not talking about material things (BMW's and furs) but leave it to you to misconstrue.
My only point is that both classism and bigotry go two ways (not just one)...
April 29, 2008
3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i'm not sure what conspiracy theory you're referring to in regards to "bigotry" and "classism", timeandagain.
please explain your point a little further
April 29, 2008
3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
jconder45 writes:
timeandagain- "Good luck to you in your non-producing life wherein you despise property ownership, individual rights and money. Those greedy developers that create and produce for you and your ilk will continue doing so. You just continue sitting at your coffee shop and believing that you add value..."
That's what reading Ayn Rand will do to you- you start talking about the worth of human beings as being measured by how much they "add value". God deliver us from this kind of soulless capitalism.
April 29, 2008
3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
jconder45 writes:
What really makes this redevelopment craze unnecessary for Denver is the fact that, unlike other cities like S.F. or New York, we have hundreds of square miles of open, cheap land just to the east. Yeah, I know the concerns about "sprawl", but there is a difference between sprawl in the South Platte Valley and sprawl between here and Watkins.
April 29, 2008
3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
MSG to Jay
"I belong to my neghborhood association and we don't invade those rights."
as was I. i'm surprised you havfen't been on the board long enough to go through the review process for new structure architecture.
i smell bs.
the BS is your own....where does it say in the tenets of your association that homeowners have to conform to JAY and his rules. If you are talking about desginated historical hoods/homes thats one thing. Sloans lake is niether.
April 29, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
mylhigh writes:
I don’t know why we are giving timeandagain the time of day. Apparently he/she/it is in a different “class” which seems to be below his “bad” (according to him) neighbors. I guess I shouldn’t say this but if we were to categorize…
Besides I find it hard to believe timeandagain because it’s the first “100 percent preserved” (yeah right) Victorian home owner in the neighborhood that would like to invite developers to tear down his neighbors homes to build some oversized and overpriced contemporary towering units to sandwich such a Victorian home.
April 29, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
Well, this article and topic - to oversimplify - has to do with the zoning amendment that essentially pits the (presumably) greedy, wealthy, mean developer against the (presumably) poor, neglected down-trodden neighbors that are against growth. Loosely speaking two classes, right?
Now, ashlandbus and mylhigh referred to me each as bigot and classist on this board because of my support for the greedy, wealthy developer perspective. My assumption, therefore is that their support lies with the poor, neglected neighbors that may be priced out of the neighborhood, etc.
To answer your question, Jay, I am just saying that their intolerance of someone who is supporting the wealthy developer is just as much bigotry as my (perceived)intolerance of someone who is a poor neighbor that may be priced out of the neighborhood. Just as disliking someone who is wealthy is just as much classism as disliking someone who is poor. Not so much of a conspiracy theory I don't think?
Just to finalize my point, I don't dislike my neighbors next door that don't keep their house in good repair. I have lived next to them for 10 years and they are nice people. I just wouldn't mind if their home was scraped in favor of a new duplex. (Which is really the whole point of this comment board.)
April 29, 2008
3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
ashlandbus writes:
"As far as density is concerned, my home in the Highlands (which I remodeled to preserve 100% of the Victorian character) and sits between a new, tasteful duplex and another old Victorian. The duplex has two very nice, polite families that live there. They maintain their property, are quiet, respectful, etc. The old Victorian on the other side is a single-family dwelling. It is owned by a Mexican family that has been there for many, many years. Nice people but at least 6 adults live in the house at any given time (repeatedly there have been as many as 16 people living in the house for as much as 6 months at a time). Trash is strewn everywhere and their backyard looks like something out of Sanford & Son. Attention Developers: You may come and scrape the old Victorian house next to me anytime (and put up a shiny new duplex!"
Kind of reminds me of an old manifest destiny painting... development in the sun, under blu skies... with the wilderness strewn in dark shadows and clouds; a seeminlgy unfriendly place.
Your assumption is very much incorrect about me, timeandagain. I have no problem with development. There are some vacant wharehouses and empty lots that are right around my block. There are also hideous 1940's section-8 apartments across the street that bring nothing but drugs and shootings to the block. On the other hand, I have familes that surround me. Ones that bought their homes when they still sold for $30k in the '80's and '90's. Yes, they have garbage strewn all over. One seconds his backyard, in a similar situation as you, as a junk yard. But, just because I dont like his habits or cleanliness, I would never suggest a developer come in strictly for that reason. Not when there is still land available in and outside the city limits of Denver that fit the profile of desirable locale. Frankly, I just think you are maintaining a self-fulfiling prophecy on this one.
April 29, 2008
4 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
you've got an interesting conspiracy theory about your alledged "bigotry", time, but i don't think it passes the smell test.
i was until my term ended an elected member of a neighborhood association. we receieved a lot of feedback regarding this type of development. i dont remember any of it being discriminatory in nature. concerns ranged from parking woes to preservation of the neighborhood architectural flavor. i myself make an excellent living as a small business owner and own a denver square worth as much or more than the units being built by your "mean developers". my brother is a developer. i have nothing against them in the least. what i, and the vast majority of neighborhood residents i've come in contact with are concerned about is preserving some of the things about the neighborhood that make it a valuable place to live. if these neighborhoods decide that certain architectural guidelines must exist in order insulate the area from the type of scarring seen by some of the new development in places like curtis park...that is certainly well within their rights...and doesn't (even by your obviously contrived effort to do so) constitute "bigotry".
April 29, 2008
4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
I actually like the idea of "re-development" of areas where tacky and ugly architecture is currently standing, although putting up cheap and unimaginative structures is a temporary measure, at best. It's just the primary benefits of such redevelopment are usually the wealthy. I don't see how that can change until poverty is eradicated in this country and more people can afford to live in better homes.
And I really don't have the answers on how to alleviate this poverty. Every time I think I do, another factor comes to my attention that I have to consider. It's a problem we've been trying to figure out how to solve for years and years. But, I don't think it's an insurmountable problem. Just one that involves lots of trial and error.
April 29, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
Jay -
Please understand that my post was addressed to 2 individuals that called me a bigot and classist. I was not addressing the re-zoning issue as a whole, only 2 specific posts that were addressed to me. I don't think I believe that bigotry or classism had anything to do with last night's property taking and infringement on property rights. Just the misinformation of the public and collusion between Peter Park's office and a small group of residents.
Speaking of misinformation, these are NOT "architectural guidelines", they are zoning/DENSITY guidelines. This zone amendment will not do anything to address bad architectural taste. Only how many families may live in the home. Both of these neighborhoods will still be subjected to the same ascetic "scarring", the same size of structures, the same footprint and building height. They will only have one front door and be single family residence. Please tell me you understand at least that much about what took place last night at the hearing because, from my perspective, that is exactly the type of poorly informed citizen that got duped...
April 29, 2008
4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
my bad time, i assumed you were trying to imply that there was bigotry or classism at work within these communities that were rallying against expensive multifamily dwellings
April 29, 2008
5:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
pdhudgens writes:
Do those who have supported downzoning honestly believe, I mean really honestly believe, (and yes there will be those who make fun of my syntax) that the "character" of these neighborhoods is not going to change? Have you driven through east Wash Park lately? There are no duplexes being built there!! The old houses are being scraped and large "single family homes" are being built in their places irrespective of zoning. The West Highlands and Sloans Lake neighborhoods are valuable primarily because of their proximity to downtown Denver, and the same thing that is happening in east Wash Park will likely happen here. And there is nothing that anyone, not even the Denver City Council, can do about it.
April 29, 2008
5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
pdhudgens writes:
One other thing - regarding parking. When duplexes, or even single family homes, are built, two and three car garages are inevitably added on the alley. That will take cars off the streets. Just look at north Cherry Creek where the majority of new construction is duplexes. Drive through that neighborhood and you'll see very few cars on the street. Drive through the alleys and you'll see why - they're lined with garages. On my street in West Highlands, especially after 5:00, the streets are lined with cars. Finding a parking place becomes problematical. There is one, preexisting, duplex on my street. Everything else is single family. Once again, check the alleys. Even if a property has a garage, and assuming that the door can actually be opened, an owner can fit at most one car there. You are as likely to see garages unused, or used for storage since the houses are so small.
At this point, this is all pretty much academic anyway. I just wish I didn't have such a strong feeling that the large majority of council members at that meeting Monday night entered that meeting with their minds already made up.
April 29, 2008
6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
These huge new buildings draw equity from their older single family neighbors after a certain level of encroachment. It has already happened in some areas of Chicago and New York.
Eventually your old quaint single family dwelling is only as valuable as the land underneath it because the developer doesn't want the house anyway.
Poof - it's the magical vanishing equity trick!
April 29, 2008
6:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
mylhigh writes:
The point is to stop multi-dwelling homes from being built on existing single family homes simply for profit. You can’t tell me that a developer comes into the neighborhood emotionally attached and caring so much about what he will leave behind after his pockets are filled.
And garages don’t make a difference because congestion is congestion, the more people in the neighborhood the more visitors and traffic. It’s not necessarily a bad thing to have more people but its different when a neighborhood is not suited for it.
April 29, 2008
8:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
mylhigh writes:
Come on you know exactly what it means for someone to buy out properties with simply one thing on their mind. As said before making money is not bad but invest in this manner where neighbors don't care. Who told you that our grid is suited for all duplexes? Lastly, we have no intentions of selling our property so the value today and five years out is not the concern.
Of course value is of every property owners concern but main concern at this very moment is tha we find a good balance before its too late and that will hopefully lead us to a good path. We can't control or stop everything but the true residents should be able to speak out for their best interests. That's most important.
April 29, 2008
8:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Kathryn writes:
My family and I just moved to the Highlands. We have many family members in the neighborhood that have lived there for 30 years. We bought a newer duplex and LOVE it.
Oh the horror you say!
Why we love it:
-modern home with more comfortable living spaces
-very energy efficient
-low maintenance
-environmentally friendly as living close to the city shortens commute
-a diverse neighborhood for housing style
-a diverse neighborhood for family types
-an alley loaded garage (hardly anyone on our block parks on the street... notice this whole neighborhood has alley loaded garages?)
-close to family, whom live in older small brick homes and LOVE ours
-close to retail and restaurant options (which has only benefitted from the development of the neighborhood. Anyone shop at Sunflower, eat at the Coral Room? These wouldn't be in the neighborhood without these improvements)
why the redevelopment that has occured is good for the whole area:
-increased property values for everyone
-increased tax base
-"greener" community (increased density with more people using less)
-preservation of individual property rights
-remove "eye-sore" homes (many people that have come to visit us have described the rat holes that have been scrapped to build in the area)
-create an interesting mix of old and new styles
If you want everything to be controlled your way... move to a covenant controlled community and join the association!
If you want your lot to stay single family, then work to have it rezoned, you can't make that decision for others and take away their value!!
EMBRACE CHANGE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!
April 29, 2008
8:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
denver50 writes:
Hey folks, check the stats. Properties in R1 zones are worth MORE than properties in R2.
Let me say that again, so that it's clear.
PROPERTIES IN R1 ARE WORTH MORE THAN THOSE IN R2.
I have the 2002 and 2007 Denver Assessors data (which any of you trolls can get for just $75). Check for yourself.
That old maxim about higher density being worth more just ain't so.
April 29, 2008
8:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Kathryn writes:
This whole sitution is so "Boulder." The attitude: I get to live here and enjoy it, so I don't wany anyone else too! is very selfish and unfortunate.
April 29, 2008
10:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
KevinD writes:
Just like last night at the hearing, this discussion really isn't getting anywhere. People are just polarizing further. I see it mostly as honest disagreement. This decision, right or wrong, has been made, so let's move forward.
Here's one very positive thing we can ALL take away from the decision. Peter Park is a brilliant guy, hired to implement difficult and cutting edge land use policies. There are many reasons that citizens thought he was wrong on this one, but his management team stood behind him 11-2.
This will give him and his staff confidence that they have the political capital they need to re-engineer the city for an even better future.
This little skirmish went against the developers who actually do the neighborhood revitalization that is occurring around town. Going forward, there will be many more battles that will be in their favor.
How about let's all join together behind this team that we elected by majority vote, and make their job of implementing better zoning easier? They continue to prove that they are worthy of support. How about a new rule: no whining.
April 30, 2008
8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
mylhigh writes:
I am with you KevinD. If you notice we were responding to timeandagain and gave him the time of day when we shouldnt have. Like you said, its been done and lets look at the bright side of things. I stand by the decision and am proud that the people of the neighborhood have stood up and had the city to back them up. At the same time I know there are many unhappy people but we all can make choices here and if people are angry or negative then maybe this isnt the neighborhood for them. Our neighborhood will change no matter what so lets move forward thinking positive.
April 30, 2008
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
BrandiWine_84 writes:
timeandagain - can you explain the "ascetic value" thing to me? I'm pretty confused, I've never really heard houses described as "Ascetic", wouldn't that be personification? hmm. Just seeking a point of clarification, oh wise one
May 1, 2008
3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
mylhigh writes:
I am with you KevinD. If you notice we were responding to timeandagain and gave him the time of day when we shouldnt have. Like you said, its been done and lets look at the bright side of things. I stand by the decision and am proud that the people of the neighborhood have stood up and had the city to back them up. At the same time I know there are many unhappy people but we all can make choices here and if people are angry or negative then maybe this isnt the neighborhood for them. Our neighborhood will change no matter what so lets move forward thinking positive.