No more multifamily dwellings in Sloan's Lake, West Highland

Posted by happymike44 on April 29, 2008 at 12:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by timeandagain on April 29, 2008 at 12:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by jconder45 on April 29, 2008 at 12:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by superbad on April 29, 2008 at 1:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by Acemon on April 29, 2008 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Golly. How will they make mass transit work there without the beehive density and social engineering that Denver is pushing?

Posted by Earl on April 29, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

single family does that mean all of your family or even those who pretend to be family can live there? you know like all of your brothers and sisters and their spouses and kids as it happening in some areas of the metro area.

Posted by iammydogsmom on April 29, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by HowardRoark on April 29, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by American100 on April 29, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by jconder45 on April 29, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

timeand again- no one needs to read Ayn Rand. She and her morally bankrupt philosophy need to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Posted by Gene on April 29, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Single family does not mean single family occupancy. Denver used to have an R-O zone district, which evolved from Capitol Hill experiences, where big houses were being turned into apartments and boarding houses, which some neighborhoods wanted to avoid. It was found to be exclusionary, and thus abandoned when “new lifestyle” changes regarding marriage, etc. were challenged in the 1980’s. This is not about single family use, but building style. The old R-O battle was about preventing decreasing neighborhood property values. Ironically, this battle is about preventing increasing property values.

Posted by Gene on April 29, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jconder45,
Timly remark 'dustbin of history' in true Bolshevik style.

Posted by jconder45 on April 29, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by artstarzz on April 29, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

At a time when the city needs more tax dollars ,I would think that would play in here some where . There is room for the people who can only afford a small house as well as the people who can afford a large house . Large house more tax money . I have lived in Denver all my life . I remember when they made the law , If you work in Denver you have to live in Denver . Now the people who stayed can't do what they want with what they own . That is crazy. There are plenty of small towns in Colorado for the people who want to live in a quit place . This is the Big City . Get use to it . I hope this does not spread to the rest of Highlands . Down zoning is a bad idea . This is why we should stay involved in what the council does . Vote . Who rely owns the property we live on . Are we just the care takers ? As a property owner I am starting to feel like a renter and the city is the real landlord .

Posted by jconder45 on April 29, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by unfug on April 29, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As a former planning board member, I can tell you there are two things people hate most- density and sprawl.

Posted by mytwosense on April 29, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by Gene on April 29, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jconder,
Now you have managed to alienate HowardRoark and me.

Posted by Gene on April 29, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

unfug,
Density and sprawl, would seem to be the opposites. So most people hate everything? You are probably correct.

Posted by mytwosense on April 29, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by mmm58 on April 29, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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!!!!

Posted by SteveFesch on April 29, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by timeandagain on April 29, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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...

Posted by American100 on April 29, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by TeresaBinstock on April 29, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by American100 on April 29, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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!

Posted by ptorres on April 29, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by bmenezes on April 29, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by timeandagain on April 29, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by RightBeDone on April 29, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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!

Posted by mytwosense on April 29, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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."

Posted by mylhigh on April 29, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by mytwosense on April 29, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mylhigh: "The problem is that there are many dumb people willing to pay these outrageous prices."

Too true. I couldn't agree more.

Posted by polyglot on April 29, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by Gene on April 29, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mylhigh: "The problem is that there are many dumb people willing to pay these outrageous prices."
mytwosence: "Too true. I couldn't agree more."

My, my's . . It is called a market economy.

Posted by timeandagain on April 29, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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!

Posted by GladysKravitz on April 29, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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!

Posted by mylhigh on April 29, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And what is the problem with the market economy as we speak?...

Posted by mytwosense on April 29, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by kbmoney08 on April 29, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by jay on April 29, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by GladysKravitz on April 29, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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!

Posted by mylhigh on April 29, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by Gene on April 29, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mylhigh: "The problem is that there are many dumb people willing to pay these outrageous prices." 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.

Posted by jay on April 29, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"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

Posted by GladysKravitz on April 29, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by mytwosense on April 29, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by Bob299 on April 29, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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!

Posted by happymike44 on April 29, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by timeandagain on April 29, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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!

Posted by Gene on April 29, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosence:
It was your echo mylhigh that was bemoaning the market and calling buyers dumb, not you. But, What of sense is your class warfare? Did you ever get a job from a poor person? You are probably more "wealthy" than I am, but I don't care. Wouldn't you rather have a wealthy person living next door than a poor person? I think I would, from the standpoint of property values. A good economy benefits everyone, not just wealthy persons. As jconder45 says to me, "come on, (mytwosense) I thought you were smarter than that."

Posted by ashlandbus on April 29, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

timeandagain = Classism at its finest. Oh wait, i think that is a prerequisite for posting on this board. Adios!

Posted by mytwosense on April 29, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by mytwosense on April 29, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by Gene on April 29, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense,
If your neighbors are trying to make a land grab, I know where you live in Boulder ! What would you do to expand the middle class ?

Posted by mylhigh on April 29, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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…

Posted by mytwosense on April 29, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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. :)

Posted by nicktaste on April 29, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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

Posted by jay on April 29, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"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.

Posted by timeandagain on April 29, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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...

Posted by mytwosense on April 29, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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?

Posted by ashlandbus on April 29, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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?

Posted by timeandagain on April 29, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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)...

Posted by jay on April 29, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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

Posted by jconder45 on April 29, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by jconder45 on April 29, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by GladysKravitz on April 29, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by mylhigh on April 29, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by timeandagain on April 29, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.)

Posted by ashlandbus on April 29, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"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.

Posted by jay on April 29, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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".

Posted by mytwosense on April 29, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by timeandagain on April 29, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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...

Posted by jay on April 29, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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

Posted by pdhudgens on April 29, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by MrCrush on April 29, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Last night's decision is the right one for these neighborhoods. Multi-family dwellings will bring density that the area can't handle. It would serve over not too many years to increase the crime and other problems that current residents have worked hard to stem in recent years. Hurray !!!!

Posted by pdhudgens on April 29, 2008 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by BMat on April 29, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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!

Posted by mylhigh on April 29, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by Gene on April 29, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mylhigh,
1. The existing R-2 zoning permits duplex. Is that what you call multi-family? Would you have something against it, if it was "not=for profit?" Is your problem, someone making a profit?
2. The existing grid block street system is more than adequate for a density of all-duplex. Traffic congestion is the normal complaint against any development. It seem really weak in this case
3. You have been downzoned. Property worth less.

Posted by Fresh on April 29, 2008 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

a little off topic, but I have to say that if you live in a homeowners association and allow others to tell you what you can do ( not do ) with your own property, then you are a drone of epic levels.

keep you property value high with your 4 shades of brown you can paint your house though.

idiots

Posted by MrsA100 on April 29, 2008 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gene - some people really do have a problem with someone making a buck, even if they do it honestly.

Homeowners need to attend their city,town,county hearings on a regular basis or things are going to happen that you don't like. Be there.

Sometimes developers are shady but sometimes it's hardworking joe's who save their money, buy low and make a profit on a good product.

Posted by Gene on April 29, 2008 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The mention of developer or builder sets off a lot of people, as seen here. There is usually a fair amount of risk involved, and profits are never guaranteed. It looks to be easy money to the outsider. This was one of many of the factors in this case, but in my opinion should have been low on the list of objections.

Posted by mylhigh on April 29, 2008 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by Kathryn on April 29, 2008 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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!!!!!!!!

Posted by denver50 on April 29, 2008 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by Gene on April 29, 2008 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mylhigh,
I will have to take you one item at a time.. . "Come on you know exactly what it means for someone to buy out properties with simply one thing on their mind." . . You find your neighborhood attractive, and probably other people do also. Most likely because of its proximity to downtown. Do you want to stop other people from enjoying the area like you do? The speculative builder is providing that person who wants to live there, a product he can move into, without doing all the remodeling or building. Sometimes it is not built as a speculative venture, but custom built for a clients' needs. The 'one thing on their mind' is not to make life difficult to existing residents. What would motivate them to do that? The builder is in the business of building. What is wrong with that. So far what is wrong? Agree with me on this? That is just your first sentence deconstructed.

Posted by Kathryn on April 29, 2008 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by Gene on April 29, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Denver50,
So do you think your 50- wide lot in your neighborhood would be more valuable for 2 - $400,00 dwelling units, or 1- $800,000 dwelling unit? . . In your neighborhood. Consider both land value and improvements. If someone wanted to build an $800,000 house, would it be in your neighborhood?

Posted by Big_D on April 29, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Zoning should be set in place by a city planner and left alone. If you didn't want duplexes you should have purchased R1 zoned property to begin with. What a bunch of freaking commies in right wing clothing. Higher density populations near the center of a city? Go fig?

Posted by KevinD on April 29, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by mylhigh on April 30, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by BrandiWine_84 on April 30, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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

Posted by mylhigh on May 1, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.