In Denver, involuntary zonings are becoming a habit

Rocky Mountain News

Published December 5, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Editorials

Comments

December 5, 2008

6:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

VVVV writes:

Property rights are in the constitution? You could have fooled me with all of the eminent domain robbery going on. These people should consider themselves lucky that only their zoning has changed and the powers that be haven't robbed them completely blind.
December 5, 2008

7:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

ghoax writes:

it is extremely rare these days for "we the people" to stop anything our government wants to do. Basically, as long as we sit herethe beast can do as it will, unencumbered. Even if "we the people" vote on an issue, judges overturn it and legislate from the bench.

From city councils to the state to the feds the power they have over our lives today is obscene..."we the people" need a mechanism much like the gong show to "gong" these clowns out of power when they continue to diminish our rights.

Right now, we can only hope that a vote would turn things, but, as the last election clearly shows, those who do the damage rely on the ill informed voters to tip the scale in their favor.

With the party in power today, we can't afford to sit back , we have work to do and need to get involved and start writing letters and making phone calls to those who are elected to work "FOR US".
December 5, 2008

8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

pdt2139 writes:

Write councilman Chris Nevitt and tell him to stop this madness. Chris.Nevitt@DenverGov.org

What is next? Will they tell us what color of shirts to wear?
December 5, 2008

8:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

zipper writes:

The second sentence of this piece reflects the spin you are putting on this issue. These are not "small multi-family dwellings", what we are talking about here are duplexes with at total of 6000-8000 sq. ft. of living space, which typically are marketed at a price of $650,000-$750,000 (each side). Some developers actually claim that this is afordable housing. A small multi family dwelling would be the old duplexes in the area, typically 1200-1600 sq. ft. total (600-800 sq. ft. a unit.) These are McMansion style duplexes and triplexes that developers are looking to build, they do not care about increased traffic, parking, density, etc.. They only care about making a quick buck.
December 5, 2008

8:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

pdt2139 writes:

Why has all the down zoning been in the middle/upper class mostly “White” neighborhoods? Is it because they can afford to influence the city council to down zone their neighborhoods. I do not see any information out there about down zoning happening in areas where most of the population is a minority or low income.
December 5, 2008

8:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

pdt2139 writes:

Zipper you can still build the McMansion under the down zoning you just cannot build duplexes anymore.
December 5, 2008

8:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Property rights do not appear in the Constitution.

I challenge anyone to quote the passage in our Constitution that outlines or details these rights.

Best,

D
December 5, 2008

9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

DMarkofsky writes:

Rocky Editors - Thank you.

Zipper - Your logic is flawed. You are supporting R1 zoning that permits 6000-8000 sq foot single family homes. Whether or not R2 dulexes are affordable, R1 McMansions are decidedly not.

R1 will only serve to make WWP more of an elitist enclave. Councilman Nevitt has some of Denver's most downtrodden neighborhoods in his District. Why is he lavishing attention on wealthy WWP?

Everyone - The only chance of stopping Councilman Nevitt's plan is a huge turnout at Denver City Council, December 15th, 5:30 PM. This is not just WWP at risk, all of Denver is.

Downzoning is a draconian approach to an issue the most people don't even see as a problem. But in Denver City politics those who make the most noise get what they want. Don't let these "neighbors" steal your property rights. Make some noise.
December 5, 2008

9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

pipedoctor writes:

If the developers were going to live in the new McMansions/Multiplexs they are building it would be a much different story. But the Developers only own the property for a short period before selling it while many adjacient home owners have owned their homes for years and plan to own them for years to come. I think a reasonable person would say the long term home owner would have the larger stake in the neighborhood.
December 5, 2008

9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

DMarkofsky writes:

Wxdano - The 5th Amendment, says: "No person ... shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In a twist of irony, the 5th Amendment was ratified December 15, 1791, 217 years to the day of the WWP downzoning hearing!
December 5, 2008

9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

DMMarkofsky:

Thank you for your reply. I know exactly what the Constitution says with respect to property - I am a planner (not in Denver).

The text you provided does not contain 'property rights'. It mentions 'deprivation' and 'just compensation'.

Rights to do with your 'property' what you want do not exist in the Constitution. That is: your ability to do what you want with your 'property' is not in the Constitution. The Constitution does not detail the penalty for taking away property rights (which has been done numerous times since ratification - exclusion, slavery, lunch counter). The Constitution does not specify what is 'just compensation'.

The Constitution does not protect 'property rights'.

Why? Our Founding Fathers knew 'property' is a social contract. They knew that 'rights' change. They knew 'just' is not fixed. Thus, they kept the wording of 'property' vague - there is no definition of 'property' because society agrees to define 'property'. The clause "life, liberty and property" was struck and not allowed in the final draft - too hard to protect.

The Private Property Rights (PPR) movement (which has stalled at the moment) has spent years and $millions trying to convince people that property is a sacred right and that doing what you want on your property is a sacred right, and the PPR has tried to put 'rights' and 'Constitution' near each other to make that association.

Now.

None of this is to say I agree with what is going on in WWP. I am not a fan of downzoning, but if the publics want downzoning (e.g. W Highlands), so be it. Zoning is just zoning. Duplexes are not 10-story apartments and do not produce the standard objection of 'too much traffic', and if property owners want to put duplexes on their property, it is not hard to restrict the bulk standards to limit their FAR so they don't look like a cr*ppy McMansion or Mansionette. There are less drastic solutions than taking something away from people (downzoning has been ruled to not be a 'taking', BTW).

Best,

D
December 5, 2008

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

delnorteknight writes:

The area under consideration contains some 40 blocks, of which there are 415 parcels that are large enough to support duplex construction. Of these, 38 newer duplexes have been built since 1990 and 66 were built prior to 1990, with the vast majority being built prior to 1950. There remain approximately 90 parcels that have small houses (less that 1400 SF) that are functionally obsolete and will eventually be replaced. The remaining 225 or so “double lots” have larger, 2-story homes, or larger single-story houses that are unlikely to be threatened.

Framing this discussion with these numbers is important in that there are fewer than 10% of the properties in this neighborhood that only HAVE THE POTENTIAL to be redeveloped into duplexes.

R-1 and R-2 zoning carry the exact same requirements for setbacks bulk and open-space, and, contrary to some of the comments, the maximum size building that can be built upon a double lot is approximately 3500 SF. Duplexes, therefore are ½ that size. I’m real estate professional, and I have working knowledge of these matters.

If Council makes the mistake of approving this bill, not only will every other neighborhood that is zoned R-2 be threatened by this action by the local NIMBY’s, but the larger, more serious effect will be the elimination of thousands of possible redevelopment opportunities that can bring about the smallest increment of increasing density and allowing for more affordable housing. Increased density that is so modest, yet helps to create more demand for public transportation, and supports small neighborhood business. It would be a tragedy for our great city to support a trend that makes housing in our inner neighborhoods more unaffordable, which is exactly what will happen. Instead of duplexes that sell for a more affordable $600,000, you will now be looking at single-family houses of the same size and bulk that sell for 2x that amount.

The effect that is hoped-for in limiting development will certainly back-fire.

Nothing in this bill would ever prevent a builder from tearing down an obsolete bungalow on the approximately 500 parcels that are 1.5 lots (and not suitable for duplex development) and putting up a larger single-family house that can max out at some 2800 SF, and still sell for over $1M. Take a look around, because these houses account for a significant number of scrape-offs we currently see.

The NIMBY’s rule and their uninformed and short-sighted vision will have the unintended consequence of creating conditions such that those of us who have more modest incomes who can currently afford to live in this great neighborhood will eventually be priced out of the market.

The Editor is correct and this is a bad idea.
December 5, 2008

10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

I agree with delnorteknight.

In my view - for whatever reason I don't know - there is a lack of leadership and/or lack of quality advise-and-consent somewhere in the city that is allowing NIMBYism to drive the boat.

This is the first time I have seen these numbers - why are they not in play and out there in the public discourse? A fully-informed public makes better decisions, and a fully-informed public needs to discuss these numbers. Now.

Best,

D
December 5, 2008

10:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

jleedufus writes:

It is my understanding that the WWNPA and Councilman Nevitt are looking at the downzoning as a way to preserve the character of the neighborhood. However, I have to agree with Councilwoman Robb's comments that the character is better preserved with style and form regulation, in fhe form of building code, rather than property restrictions in the form of downzoning. If zoned R1, there is nothing stopping a builder from putting a very large single-family home on the lot EXCEPT what is allowed by building code. Therefore, my opinion is that downzoning is the wrong tact to take in order to meet the objectives that WWNPA and Mr. Nevitt state they are trying to meet.

Additionally, Ms. Robb has suggested that the Dec 15th council vote seems to be pushing through an agenda in a time that people have other matters occupying their time (fall elections, holiday travel and planning, etc..). What is the rush to get the zoning change done prior to the holidays? Despite the time that the WWNPA has spent developing this change, little information has been provided to residents that this change is coming - and darn fast! Shouldn't the persons who are going to be most affected by the council's decisions have an opportunity to hear the issues and make up their minds? I ask WWNPA and the council, what is the hurry? VOTE THIS DOWN, and if it's really necessary and needed to meet the objectives of Blueprint Denver there is nothing stopping you from bringing it back to the table at a later date.

I live in the WWP area, but not the affected area. So, why do I care? Because if the city council is able to impose this involuntary zone change on my neighbors, what's to stop them from doing the same to me?
December 5, 2008

11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

freethinker07 writes:

Wxdano

The term voting rights doesn't appear in the constitution, except in relation to gender and race; nevertheless the courts have held that it exists. In fact, a simple reading of the constitution would allow states to deny voting rights based on religion, nevertheless, I am sure the courts would rule it unconstitutional. The right to privacy doesn't appear in the constitution but the courts have held that it implies that right. The constitution is whatever the courts hold it to be.
December 5, 2008

noon

Suggest removal

WashParkNeighbors writes:

What the Rocky Mountain News has failed to recognize is that this rezoning package is not a habit, but rather is the ongoing job of City Council. This is part of the planned implementation of Blueprint Denver and the Zoning Code Update. In 2002 Council passed Blueprint Denver. Since then they have rezoned many large areas of the City, including Lowery, Stapleton, the Platte Valley, and the Ballpark area and Brighton Boulevard. Within the West Washington Park area this has also included rezoning of Lionstone and Cherokee (the old Gates Factories), and will shortly include a vote on the rezoning of the Alameda Station/ Broadway Market Place to fulfill Blueprint Denver's mandate for these areas of change. Stapleton was reported as largest infill development in the nation, with the boarders of West Wash Park reported as the 5th largest. Council has also passed rezoning of Sloan's Lake, North Highlands, Park Hill, City Park West, South City Park, and on.... This rezoning, small by comparison, is part of the ongoing process of fulfilling the rezoning of the entire City. What the Rocky Mountain News has failed to recognize is that City Council is doing its job, and doing it well. I hope it becomes a long term habit.
December 5, 2008

12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

delnorteknight writes:

WashParkNeighbors: The mission and job of City Council to downzone the entire city? Say what?!?! Isn't the City of Denver actively pursuing a new "form-based" zoning code that will outline "appropriate redevelopment" that will be adapted in the next year or so?

BluePrint Denver is inappropriately being cited as justification that WWP is an Area of Stability. Nothing in BluePrint Denver aims at a moratorium on redevelopment and replacement of undervalued and obsolete housing, which is what is in fact going on in WWP and elsewhere in the city.

Nothing whatsoever can stop builders from exercising their property rights to drop a quaint little obsolete bungalow that some people deem "precious" and put up a much larger single family home that is allowed as a use by right in R-1.

Isn't THAT, after all what this movement really seeks to prevent? What's next? Designating WWP as an Historic District? Or worse: "design guidelines" and more layers of regulation?

This is a bad idea and needs to be opposed!
December 5, 2008

12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

freethinker wrote:

"The term voting rights doesn't appear in the constitution, except in relation to gender and race; nevertheless the courts have held that it exists".

Thank you for your reply.

Exactly.

The courts are a social institution, as societies make laws and societies create courts to enforce laws. And as societies change, laws change.

Society determines property rights as well, via the laws not via the Constitution.

Property rights are a social construct and as society changes, laws and property rights change as well. Slaves are no longer property, nor women, nor the rights of lunch counter owners to deny service to African-Americans; nor are the rights of exclusion the same as they were in, say, 1790 or 1820 (they are very different as a matter of fact than they were in 1790), and rights-of-way are very different because of new transportation technology, and air rights as a property bundle are radically different since the advent of air travel and radio, and so on.

The Founding Fathers knew that society changes, and thus were purposely vague with respect to property in the Constitution; as I stated before, originally it was "life, liberty and property", but 'property' was struck and replaced with 'the pursuit of happiness' after much discussion amongst the members.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify my point.

Best,

D
December 5, 2008

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

delnorte wrote:

"WashParkNeighbors: The mission and job of City Council to downzone the entire city?"

This is not what was written. This affects a number of your subsequent conclusions.

"BluePrint Denver is inappropriately being cited as justification that WWP is an Area of Stability. "

No.

Blueprint Denver is the guiding document and is appropriate justification. (note: I have not consulted the document to verify WWP is an area of stability, but it is reasonable to assume so).

"Nothing in BluePrint Denver aims at a moratorium on redevelopment and replacement of undervalued and obsolete housing, which is what is in fact going on in WWP and elsewhere in the city. "

What happens in Areas of Change is the expectation that redevelopment of obsolete housing will happen; this allows higher density (usually market-driven density, BTW) to infill. NIMBYism usually occurs when NIMBYs don't want higher density development, for whatever reason they give, but they are usually the same all across the country. Moratoria are driven by Councils, not plans.

The problem in these areas across the country is that individual's expectations from home investment (most people's major life investment) often don't align with the larger community's expectations - there may very well be a period where the individual's expectations will clash with the community's, and thus the NIMBY problem. Over the long term, we expect land rents to increase, but homeowners don't like to hear that, as the short-term risk is often unacceptable.

Best,

D
December 5, 2008

1:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

nimbusco writes:

While the discussion here has been refreshingly informed, I wonder about the use of a pejorative like "NIMBY". As Wxdano points out, the problem here is a clash between individual and community expectations. Labeling the individuals "greedy sellouts" or the community organizations "NIMBY" is not really productive.

The root of the problem is that people have essentially different ideas about what neighborhoods and houses are for. Are they investment vehicles or places to live? Is the city obliged to create and maintain a place to live that YOU consider pleasant? Is the city obliged to do whatever it takes to maximize MY return on my investment? I don't know that the city can fulfill all of these perceived obligations simultaneously.
December 5, 2008

2 p.m.

Suggest removal

mark79trans writes:

The commentary on the 5th amendment is interesting or better yet nauseating. It is pretty much despicable when modern thought through the legal academic community invokes the notion of relativism and social change using the courts to usurp the meaning of the constitution. To address, the commentary regarding the "vagueness" of the 5th amendment; that is what the 9th amendment addresses. In other words, the notion of rights including property rights was obvious. The argument at the time against the Bill of Rights revolved around, why give the government more power by stating the obvious. However, this nation finds more ways to destroy the boundaries of government, so this point is pretty much moot. Apparently, in 21st Century America; the notion of individual rights is no longer obvious.
December 5, 2008

2:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

rubbertomahawk writes:

Enough of the Constitution argument!

The Blueprint Denver thumpers will continually argue that their only desire is to implement the envisioned zone map for their neighborhood. The main problem with that argument is the document is now 7 years old and was developed during much headier times. Additionally, the benchmarks and reviews that are a integral part of the Plan, simply have not been addressed. Blueprint Denver is only a guiding document, it is not a rigid plan to be blindly obeyed.

And what about the Zoning Code update? The roll-out process begins next February. I makes no sense to change any zone districts until the big picture is revealed.

And finally my real pet peeve....RNOs or Registered Neighborhood Organizations. The strongest RNO in our City can claim membership of only 10% of the area it represents. The West Washington Park Neighborhood Association is in this category. WWPNA, with their dogmatic leadership, has been vocally opposed to all development and business in their kingdom.
Despite the fact that the City Ordinance that created RNOs, states that all property owners, businesses and residents of represented area may be members, WWPNA had to be prodded to change their by-laws to allow businesses.

WWPNA is the same group that fought for special treatment during the construction of T-Rex to include ramp closures and delayed openings that drastically affected businesses on both sides of the highway. WWPNA fought for the ugly sound walls north of the highway. Notice the difference to the south of the highway where there are no walls.

Remember the Perk and Pub? This was the small business that dared to open a outdoor patio to their coffee shop in the heart of the West Washington Park neighborhood. WWPNA opposed this amenity. If WWPNA doesn't like coffee, they abhor demon liquor. Do not think of applying for a liquor license in their domain.

There is more. WWPNA opposed re-naming the Louisiana light rail station to the more logical Pearl Street station because they felt any association with the popular neighborhood business district would bring parking woes to their neighborhood. They insisted on the current moniker....Louisiana - Pearl.

In addition, WWPNA dominated the Louisiana - Pearl station workshops for the station area plan. Their efforts put parking restriction in place that, at this date, are clearly not needed.

And lastly, it was WWPNA that made down-zoning part of Councilman Nevitt's campaign rhetoric.

As the public hearing on the 15th of this month nears, more West Washington Park residents will come forward to denounce this change. Despite Councilman Nevitt's insistence that the public outreach has been adequate, a whole bunch of folks are going to be in for a big surprise when our City Council rolls over once again.
December 5, 2008

2:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

mark79,

Yes, much of our collective laws and social norms, in addition to mores and ethics in this country have the public good ursurping the individuals' rights in many aspects - welcome to living in a society. BTW, the 9th doesn't clarify just compensation wrt property nor clarify property rights.

Nonetheless, just because living together in a society is obvious doesn't mean all individual's rights have been ursurped. Far from it - although some small-minority ideologies seek to have you believe this 'usurpation' picture to gain advantage for their small minority view. The public sees through this ruse, however.

To wit: recently, the Private Property Rights movements sought to take change to the people and ask for a vote to honor the primacy of individual rights over the public good. That is: voters were asked to give up their property rights (eliminate zoning) so a few could have more rights and do what they wish to their property. To date, every single one of these measures, when standing alone, were resoundingly defeated at the ballot box - in conservative Idaho it was almost 4:1 defeat. Since these resounding defeats, no more Private Property Rights bills have come to the ballot. The people have spoken with respect to individual rights and property.

So, yes, the vast majority of the public likes their property rights just as they are, and see no need to give up their property rights so a few can do what they wish on their property (primacy of individual rights on property), with little or no regard for society's wishes.

This is not to say that property rights do not exist, or should not exist. They do and should. They do and should, however, in the context of the society in which these rights ARE GRANTED. Society grants property rights. When segments of society were asked recently to change these rights, they refused.

This discussion has nothing to do with Eminent Domain, BTW, a different construct.

>>>>>>

nimbusco has an excellent point, but I wonder whether NIMBY is properly a pejorative *per se*, as opposed to being a noun (what the dictionary says); certainly it can be used as such, but so can thousands of other words.

with respect to the two questions:

o Is the city obliged to create and maintain a place to live that YOU consider pleasant?

o Is the city obliged to do whatever it takes to maximize MY return on my investment?

The city *per se* is not, but *politicians* may be obliged to run on these platforms in response to their constituencies. Thus the conflict in many neighborhoods across our country (and other places as well). If groups are organized enough, they'll vote someone out of power who doesn't deliver these things.

Politics: who gets, who pays?

Best,

D
December 5, 2008

3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

conniesz writes:

So how about a compromise - no combining of lots for starters. This is fair as buying one lot does not imply that you are entitled to buy another lot to combine it with. I think ending the combining of lots is quite fair.

However, I do believe that if you own a lot that is zoned R2 you should be able to build that duplex if you really want to. On the other hand, I also believe it is reasonable that the right to build can be limited to the current owner with the downzoning taking effect if/when the property is sold without the duplex having been built.

People will have to risk a little more to maximize the profit on their lot because they'll have to undertake the construction themselves and then sell, but it's better than a complete downzoning.

Compromise is possible - no one actually wins, but no one completely loses either.
December 5, 2008

4:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

bradkevans writes:

Unlike the Sloans Lake, West Highland Rezone, the WWP downzone is a Legislative Rezone brought on this area by Councilman Nevitt. The reality is that there is no "due" process here. The Denver City Council recently passed legislation that required more than 51% percent of the affected property owners to agree to the downzoning. In this instance THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT because this was filed by the council person. This is not "by the people" but by a few people who are convinced that not everyone should have a voice in this process.
If you have ever participated in the council proceedings, city council members will likely vote with Nevitt because they want Nevitt to vote with them when it's in their districts. The only two council members that you will see have the courage to vote against this measure are Council person Brown and Faatz.

On the Blueprint Denver process, it was originally started in the mid 90s... and then ratified in early 2000s... it's a dated document that doesn't take into account how Denver has changed since it was first conceived.
December 5, 2008

5:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

WashParkNeighbors writes:

Many here suggest that Blueprint Denver is too old, and/or is no longer valid. I would point out that the City has already made the decision to update the zoning code throughout the City. And that Blueprint Denver was legislation, not simply a planning document produced by some bureaucrat. It is the blueprint for the future of land use in Denver, carrying so much weight that City Council even renamed its zoning committee to be the Blueprint Denver Committee.

The tenets of the plan were used to redevelop Lowry, the Platte River, and Brighton Boulevard. It was the guiding force behind the redevelopment of the Gates Factory sites, where construction is underway, as well as Stapleton. And is currently guiding the planning for the redevelopment of Union Station, the Alameda Station, the Belleview Station and I won’t belabor listing the rest. All of this required that Council rezone ahead of the full implementation of the Zoning Code Update. Additionally, many smaller builders have and continue to buy smaller properties in neighborhoods such as Washington Park (east and west), Hilltop, Athmar Park, Platt Park, etc., all based on Blueprint Denver. All of this accumulates to billions (with a B) of dollars of investment in the City of Denver based on the certainty of Blueprint Denver.

Developers’ confidence and willingness to invest is based on certainty. If, as has been suggested, Blueprint Denver is no longer relevant, aside from City Council struggling to find a different name for its committee, would cause uncertainty for all zoning in Denver. I am stunned that anyone suggests that the City stop planning the redevelopment of Union Station under the guise that the City's blueprint is no longer valid. Lionstone then should cease construction, and Cherokee stop the pollution clean-up at the Gates Factory sites. The City should also reject the forthcoming rezoning of the Alameda Station/ Broadway Market Place. And countless small builders should stave off their projects until a new blueprint can be written.

The decision to update the zoning code and rezone the city has already been made. Density was decided with the creation of this plan. The moratorium is an interim measure in support of the plan, as the current R2 zone district is actually a multi-dwelling zoning category, which even Peter Parks states goes far beyond duplexes. The moratorium honors Blueprint Denver by restricting construction to only single family and duplex construction for 18 months until the appropriate zone district can be applied as a later rezoning in front of Council (residential zone districts are still being defined).

I am shocked at the suggestion that the City and County of Denver, particularly in bad economic times, put billions of dollars of real estate investment at risk by throwing out the City’s land use plan.
December 5, 2008

5:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

delnorteknight writes:

conniesz makes a good point in that the moratorium on assembleges is appropriate in that such developments of three and four story stacked flats buildings fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood.

BluePrint Denver calls for Areas of Stability to retain their character, and thus the moratorium can be supported by BluePrint Denver.

A larger single family residence or duplex built in a neighborhood containing single-family and duplexes does not fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood, as some try to imply. Different styles of architecture should not be regarded as character changing either, nor should it be the basis of restricting the modest redevelopment going on in WWP.
December 5, 2008

7:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

zipper writes:

Why are developers against downzoning? Because there is less risk and more profit in building a duplex than a single family McMansion. A R-2 lot is is more desirable, and if a R-2 lot has a single family house on it, when that house is scraped, it would not be replaced by a larger single-family house. Downzoning is apposed by developers and speculators because they might lose potential profit, period. My 1100 sq. ft. one story house is not obsolete to me, no used house salesman can throw enough money my way to convince me to sell.Will never be scraped as long as I am alive, I like my $500 a month mortgage payment. Did not know I lived in a elitist enclave,I am far from a elitist, and am sure most of my neighbors are not elitist, although I have met plenty of lawyers with a elitist attitude, who like to point out my flawed logic. Just observing what I see, no deep logical conclusions from me.
December 5, 2008

10:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

JAW writes:

I think it's been overlooked that before the current zoning was created in the 1950s, every other area of the city was zoned something else. They might have been similar zones, but I'm sure the uses changed. And I doubt that every property owner in section of the city submitted a zoning application.

During the 1950s through the 1970s cities were seen as disposable. The current thought in planning is not to dispose of cities but to keep the parts that work (WWP, Highland, etc.) and repair areas that don't (Ballpark, River North). Blueprint Denver is not perfect, but almost any planner in the country will tell you it's one of the best planning documents around.

This is not a taking of property rights. The Constitution only grants the right to own property, not the right do with it as one pleases. The Supreme Court of the US in 1926 held that cities have the right to rezone (Euclid v. Ambler). The Supreme Court also found in 1978 that the city does not owe a property owner maximum return (Penn Central v. City of New York).

Think about the effects of density on trash pick up, water pressure, on-street parking, park use, traffic, sewer capacity, electricity load. These are what planners and engineers are supposed to consider when zoning areas. I'm not against density, but let it go to the areas of change where it can be more easily absorbed.
December 5, 2008

11:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

Hmmm, isn't the WWPNA the same folks who tried to downzone the property at Alameda between Lincoln and Broadway, and thus prevent the owner from developing a McDonald's there because:
a) The air pollution would skyrocket. It would lead to an alarming increase in asthma cases. Yep, people would just drop dead on the spot.
b) It would change the quiet and pastoral "country crossroads" of Alameda between Lincoln and Broadway into a bustling commerical center rivalling Manhattan in New York City.
c) It would change the "charm and character" of the then existing space (a defunct bank and a decaying car wash).
Fortunately, that downzoning effort, against the property owner's will, died.
So now, WWPNA is at it again. I'm liberal, but the last time I checked, here in the US of A, property owners still have rights. They don't deserve to be downsized against their will. I see someone mentioned Councilwoman Robb. I live in her district. She's got a good head on her shoulders. I'll call her up and tell her to vote this turkey down.
I suppose the WWPNA could go out and buy the properties or find someone to buy the properties, someone who fits WWPNA's preferred profile, but that would require money and hard work. Much better and easier to have City Council impose WWPNA's will upon every property owner.
December 6, 2008

10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

DMarkofsky writes:

If you oppose this baseless downzoning, regardless of where you live in Denver, come and speak up at the City Council hearing on December 15th at 5:30 PM. Otherwise it is all but guaranteed to pass by an 11-2 vote. Your home may be next on the chopping block. This is our City. Speak up.
December 6, 2008

4:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

zipper writes:

"Your home may be next on the chopping block", are we talking downzoning here or is the city threatening eminent domain, or is this just some drama to cloud the issue. The issue as I understand it is downzoning would halt a increase in density in a allready crowded area. Try to go to Washington Park on a weekend or drive down Alameda on Friday afternoon. And I do not care how crowded Tokyo or Mexico City is, I live here. And my property is zoned R-2, it will never have a duplex as long as I am alive.
December 6, 2008

4:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

bradkevans writes:

This is a city wide issue. Those that are opposed to seeing this come to your neighborhood are invited to participate on December 15th at city council chambers at 5:30pm.

We've seen these down zone tactics trickle from a neighborhood that could only garner a mere 24% of it's residents supporting the measure over the course of 2 years (west highlands/sloans lake - who btw, got the Councilman Garcia to waive the $80,000 fee for the application) yet the downzone passed by an 11-2 vote in city council. After this down zone application was filed, a measure was passed by city council in response to this application, that requires 51% of landowners to agree to the zoning change, and a lengthy process to achieve the actual measure's success. There is also as a significant fee required to file the application. THIS HAS BEEN COMPLETELY SUBVERTED IN THE CURRENT WWP DOWNZONE because it was submitted on Councilman Nevitt's behalf, and because of this, all neighbor/property owner participation, any fees, or any oversight by those affected, has been ELIMINATED. Is this the will of the people? While Councilman Nevitt claims to have a majority of support from the neighborhood, there is absolutely no official process that has been implemented on his part to determine whether or not that this is the case, nor has there been any formal process that is typically required by the city's own planning department to determine if there is the required 51% of support for the measure. Mr. Nevitt has only ever sent out a letter to a select group of property owners that only gave a "yes I support the down zone" and no spot on the response card that allowed for a "no I don't support." According to Mr. Nevtt's own admission, of the 2800+ affected zone lots, only 450 responded... far less than 51%. Will we continue to allow the voice of those that support these involuntary changes to your property speak for you?

I encourage you to call Councilman Nevitt's office in the coming days to lodge your displeasure with this down zone, his office number is: 720-865-8900.

This is an uphill battle, because the 'normal' way that members of Denver's City Council cast their vote in these situations is "with" the councilman in of the 'affected' district. Unless YOU come and speak your position at the meeting on the 15th, this will continue to ripple into additional neighborhoods. You do not have to live in WWP to sign up to speak at council. Please come out and make your opinion be heard.

WATCH OUT, THIS IS COMING TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD SOON IF YOU DON'T SHOW UP AND PROTEST.
December 7, 2008

12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

OhPlease writes:

WWPNA is a Gestapo. Plain and simple. They've used their power to try and affect change OUTSIDE of their boundaries as well. RNOs have way too much say when clearly, not everyone is as involved in the organization as a select few. Just look at the meetings, you think the entire neighborhood has the time and energy to spend time with this sort of thing? NO. And for this they are penalized by a lack of proper inclusion. Just because some have WAY too much time on their hands and want to shove their will down other resident's throats.

I'm really tired of hearing about developers are just "trying to make a buck." DUH! Big shock there. That's their job, and you have your job too. Let these people make a living. It's one thing to tear down a house and build a skyscraper. It's another to build another home or duplex that, and 99% of the time they do, look great and cared for. This whole argument of the new builds being huge and looming is ridiculous. Have you SEEN the old mansions about town? I've seen some pretty huge old houses so it's not about that. It's that these size queens don't want to share anymore. They have theirs and God forbid anybody else trying to get any.

Denver City Council is useless for the majority of Denver citizens b/c guess what. Most everybody is just busy trying to make ends-meet so they can't go down to city hall and micromanage the process. But there are some that clearly can and those are the ones who get what they want. If you drive around town you can see who gets the best treatment. WWP was described as a kingdom by another poster and how right they are. Denver stinks and I'm glad I'm not living there anymore. The constant onslaught from the neighbors gets to be too much and frankly where I live now, people are ACTUALLY friendly and respectful. The city government treads very carefully.

Councilman Nevitt has a terribly unprofessional manner about him and I am SO glad that he isn't my councilman any longer. He has no interpersonal skills and I hope he's voted out in the next go-round. He's done nothing but cause strife among his constiutents.

OH and I'm quite glad Councilman Brown has the guts to speak up for those not in his district. Someone has to.
December 7, 2008

2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

jessej writes:

We need dense development for affordable housing. Where are the affordable housing advocates? Also, just because someone wants to be downzoned doesn't mean that they should be downzoned. I would never force anyone to develop their property at a particular density (although minimum densities on the zoning code are a good idea) but I also don't want to prohibit smart growth.
December 9, 2008

5:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

It seems that most in these neighborhoods are hypocrites. Since Denver is heavily Democratic, it is reasonable to assume that these neighborhoods vote for Democrats. It is also a reasonable assumption that many in these neighborhoods consider themselves green. Democrats have routinely advocated higher density housing for a variety of reasons. The most recent justification is to fight global warming. Smart growth, pushed very hard by the environmental left, means much higher density. Typically, the environmental left wants others to live in high density neighborhoods but they want to preserve the character (low density) of their own neighborhoods. Typical hypocrisy.
December 9, 2008

11 p.m.

Suggest removal

OhPlease writes:

mmanino:

You're spot on. Notice how quiet the comments have gotten now that people are starting to experience the hypocricy many of us have personally experienced. They've been able to keep it quiet by shouting louder than anyone. Not working right now. Hopefully.

Now let's address that coyote problem out in Parker. Big shock that urban sprawl is causing more encounters with wildlife. Hmm funny how nothing gets done until the family pet or a child gets bitten. It'd be great if people would stop feeding the wildlife and OH... stop trying to push people out of Denver by being world-class JERKS. Denver is only as good as its residents. So much for it being a great place to live.

Now let's talk about Nevitt's totally sneaky work around of Brown's 51% rule. Real nice. See? No matter what anyone does, they still get what they want. Even if they have to lie, cheat or steal. So proud!
December 10, 2008

8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

mmannino wrote:

"Smart growth, pushed very hard by the environmental left, means much higher density. Typically, the environmental left wants others to live in high density neighborhoods but they want to preserve the character (low density) of their own neighborhoods. Typical hypocrisy. "

Smart Growth is also pushed very hard by municipal finance people, public health people, affordable housing people, and people who are tired of living in boring McSuburbs, among other groups.

But anyway, can I see your evidence, please, that the environmental left: 1) wants others to live in high density but 2) they live in low density? Alternatively, there is an implication that WWP is teeming with residents who are members of the environmental left. Can I also see evidence for this implicit claim?

Thank you in advance for this evidence to back the above claims.

Best,

D

Home › Opinion › Editorials

In Denver, involuntary zonings are becoming a habit

Rocky Mountain News

Published December 5, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Editorials

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs