Downzoning blues

Council set troubling precedent with wholesale action

Rocky Mountain News

Published May 5, 2008 at midnight

Text size  

• 16 Comments
• Email
• Print

We hope the occasionally ugly battle over downzoning in Denver's West Highland and Sloan's Lake neighborhoods is not a preview of skirmishes to come.

Unfortunately, that could be the case if the Denver City Council continues to rely on involuntary, comprehensive downzoning to implement Blueprint Denver, the city's road map for transportation and land use.

Blueprint Denver was supposed to be a guide, we thought, not the equivalent of rigid law.

In this instance, the council, by a vote of 11-2, said 63 acres in West Highland and 52 acres in Sloan's Lake that had been zoned to allow multifamily housing (R-2) could now be used only for single-family homes (R-1).

We sympathize with the concerns of those seeking the downzoning. Surging density in a neighborhood can transform it, and not always in pleasant ways. But this council's action, however well-intentioned, sets a troubling precedent.

First, it compromises the rights of landowners who can no longer use their property as they had always anticipated. Almost equally important, it gives residents in other neighborhoods a green light to demand similar treatment.

We hope it doesn't come to that. Indeed, the lesson city officials should take from the West Highland/Sloan's Lake brouhaha is that involuntary downzoning is a zero-sum game that pits neighbor against neighbor.

Denverites who worry about how development might affect their neighborhood someday are free to act to stabilize their communities now. When other neighbors are agreeable, they can get together and approach the city with a proposal for a consensual downzoning that doesn't stir controversy. They won't be able to shield every block or property from change, but they will be able to make a significant difference.

Over the past two decades, more than 150 residents of South City Park applied to have their property downzoned. They didn't insist that every parcel on every block be downzoned, and the council has approved applications with no opposition from owners who didn't participate.

Congress Park has begun to take a similar approach.

Another way to minimize the impact of development is with an overlay of reasonable design guidelines.

In northwest Denver, more than 20 percent of the affected landowners signed a petition protesting the application for downzoning; this meant at least 10 council members would have to approve the downzoning, rather than the usual seven-vote majority.

The 11-2 vote took place after a 10-hour council meeting at which more than 130 residents testified for or against the change.

Councilwoman Carla Madison said the vote signaled that the council is serious about implementing Blueprint Denver. That document envisions mature neighborhoods like West Highland and Sloan's Lake that aren't near major commercial or transit centers as "areas of stability" that should have their character preserved.

By all accounts, the council vote was closely watched in other neighborhoods. There's been talk of downzoning in West Washington Park for more than a year; the plans were put on hold as the West Highland and Sloan's Lake proposals moved forward, but now they're likely to be revived.

Residents who think downzoning is a way to protect their neighborhood from scrapeoffs and pop-tops may be in for an unpleasant surprise. Downzoning may bar apartment buildings on some parcels. But it can't prevent landowners from knocking down smaller dwellings and replacing them with "McMansions" - so long as the new buildings accommodate only one family.

In other words, neighborhoods will continue to evolve, and not always in ways that city planners, Blueprint Denver and some residents had envisioned.

• May 5, 2008

  9:44 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  bradkevans writes:

  The real mistake here is thinking that Blueprint Denver is the 'Bible' for Denver's future... that a document developed in the late 90s some how could be without flaw is the actual flaw in this council's thinking. I am amazed that a "plan" when faced with an actual majority of landowners asking for their property rights not be taken away, is so blindly followed. Actually it doesn't surprise me... just look at the Taliban... and we can see that another minority of voices controlling the debate. Just as 2 applicants were able to change the future course of an entire neighborhood.

  We will find in coming months that Blueprint Denver isn't all that it's cracked up to be. While a guide about Denver and its future growth, it can be helpful, but not recognizing that it's a plan, and that even the best laid plans don't always work out for the best - is where this council has gotten it wrong. Giving away individual's property rights (the few we've got left) to the whims of those who don't like development has set a new standard by which others throughout Denver's inner city neighborhoods shall now follow.

  Thank you City Council for caving into what seemed fashionable, and for mistakenly thinking that BPD is the answer to every problem that Denver has... let's see how far that'll get us.

• May 5, 2008

  10:36 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  bxwatso writes:

  One thing the article misses is the economic harm of such regulations.

  The only reason someone builds a duplex or such is because it is more profitable than a single family home. Developers will bid higher amounts for more desirable lots with favorable zoning.

  The main reason why unimproved, poorly maintained houses sell for a great premium in certain neighborhoods is because developers bid the prices up. Basically, the lot contains all the value, and the City is limiting the value of the lot.

  If the City restricts development a little, prices for unimproved lots will fall a little. If the City outlaws development, prices will fall by half or more in certain neighborhoods.

  For those who wish to outlaw development in their neighborhoods, please consider what your home equity would look like if your property value fell by 25 to 50%.

  I suspect that the residents of Sloan's Lake who have driven away multi-family developers will have mixed feelings when their homes take longer to sell and prices fall a bit.

• May 5, 2008

  12:48 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mountain_man writes:

  Congratulations on the City Council's wise decision in respecting the will of the majority. First and foremost, this action allows the neighborhood character to survive. Look at what a hodge-podge mess Capitol Hill became when apartments and condos replaced neighborhood homes in the 1960's & 1970's and then came to a skidding halt when the economy collapsed in the 1980's. Now it's a mish-mash with no cohesiveness. Many other neighborhoods face the same fate when the current economy puts the kibosh on McMansions. Secondary benefits include less traffic in what were one live-able quiet neighborhoods and reduced impacts on the City's storm drains and sanitary sewers as less runoff and sewage are generated from the new larger homes.

• May 5, 2008

  2:02 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  STitus writes:

  There are so many misconceptions in these comments. I don’t understand why anyone feels that a neighborhood with only look-alike single family homes retains it feeling of community while areas with diverse architecture, home size, and quality lack the requirements for a positive character. Do owners of paired homes not share in the community with single-family home owners. Capitol Hill’s “hodge-podge” is what makes this neighborhood so interesting and vibrant. If you want gentrification, move to the suburbs. The concept that builders construct duplexes just because they are more profitable is also incorrect. While profit is, of course, a consideration, it’s demand for this product that gets builder’s attention and it is ignorance of this concept that is part of City Council’s flawed judgment on this issue. Along with taking away property rights – a shortcut to economic disaster – limiting construction of a product that buyers are demanding will certainly dampen an already tenuous real estate market. In addition, it is redevelopment of these neighborhoods with this kind of home that has made them desirable communities. By restricting redevelopment, and cutting off a major source of reinvestment in the community, City Council has set the stage for destabilizing an area they consider stabilized. Denver’s real estate market has been saved by demand for Central Denver homes – most of them part of multi-family developments. City Council should be encouraging higher density projects and supporting construction of product that is in demand, not thwarting it.

• May 5, 2008

  2:04 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  peterpi writes:

  First off, in an article I read, several usual suspects in Northwest Denver were mentioned. I wonder if this downzoning issue was politics by another means. All articles I read said there was vehement opposition to the downzoning.
  Second, any time you see "downzoning" and "West Washington Park" in the same sentence, hold on tight to your wallet and grab a property attorney. In the mid 1990s, the southwest corner of Lincoln and Alameda had two empty buildings. Someone bought the property those two empty buildings sat on, and proposed a McDonald's. The neighborhood association went bersek. They said the McDonlad's would exponentially increase air pollution and dramatically raise the number of asthma cases. They also said the McDonald's would bring unsavory characters to their neighborhood. So they tried to forcibly downzone the lot. They could have purchased the property, and developed it into a park or whatever, but that would have been hard work. Much better to stick it to the property owner. Fortunately, their request was turned down flat cold, and a McDonald's was built. No word on whether that corner rivals Los Angeles for smog, and no word on whether people walking on that block are dropping dead from diseased lungs.
  I've often felt like downzoning was a way for snooty neighbors to manage someone else's property without having to pay for it.

• May 5, 2008

  2:04 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Bullony writes:

  For those of you congratulating DCC, I hope your neighbor imposes their will on you, house color, size, fence, anything, because that's what this was. It was NOT a majority in the neighborhood that wanted this, read the transcripts from the meeting!

  A week before the meeting, one of the applicants was in front of zoning for having an air conditioner that went 4 feet into the 5 foot easement. She did not apply for a permit (you or I would have had to apply for a permit and pay a fee). She said she didn't apply because she was afraid she would get turned down. Fee waived and permission granted to leave the air conditioner. There are MANY variances on this woman's property. Was this her reward for doing the city's dirty work? Rick Garcia's assistant attended this hearing. Hhhhhhmmmmmm

  Carla Madison comments about passing this because this is an area of stability, not near any ...tranist center yet the planning board who so vehemently supported this has plans to open up a road (Meade Street) tying Sloans lake directly with Colfax so that we can have quicker access to Light-Rail. (I guess my kids need to learn about prostitutes sometime). Carla may want to do her research before providing sheep like courtesy votes to political animal Rick Garcia.

  One thing good about this is that now voters might just pay attention.

• May 5, 2008

  2:07 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  peterpi writes:

  Thank you, STitus

• May 5, 2008

  4:07 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  I looked out my window today I saw my neighbor across the street painting their house some putrid green color. That's out of CHARACTER. And they were painting their blond brick home to boot! I told my husband Abner how terrible it looked. I hate the color green. Its specious! I like that word specious. No one should be allowed to paint their home such a color. And then my other neighbor, they decided to build a house bigger than mine. How dare they! My house was the biggest on the block! Just who does my neighbor think they are! It's out of scale. My house used to be of greater scale.

  I kept telling my husband Abner, but he doesn't seem to listen to me. I had to tell someone how upsetting all this change was and how it didn't suit my taste. That's when I found Slick Rick! What a saviour. Thanks Rick, for helping us take over the neighborhood the way I want to look. No one else should have any rights. Just you and me and our secret pact of friends. You're my hero!

• May 5, 2008

  7:05 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  DMarkofsky writes:

  I am a victim of the downzoning and fought hard against it. Staying at the City Council hearing last week till 3:00 AM was par for the course.

  Thank you Rocky Mountain News for having the courage to say the right thing. City Council was took the bait hook, line and sinker from our slick neighborhood NIMBY’s and their co-conspirators at Peter Parks’s Planning Party. My Councilman Rick Garcia got to pay back some political favors to his supporters. Only Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz and Councilman Charlie Brown had the guts to do the right thing and vote no.

  A few facts for this discussion:

  Froward69 wrote “whereas multifamily zoning allows for value to rise for the owner who lives in his/her gated community in Littleton or parker or evergreen.” Wrong. The vast majority of the opposition to downzoning was from longtime owner residents who held onto their large lots with a small home because they knew the land was where the value lay. Many elderly residents lost a chunk of their retirement nest egg in this downzoning.

  mountain_man wrote “Congratulations on the City Council's wise decision in respecting the will of the majority.” Wrong. This was not the majority. The downzoners never had more than 23% provable support - and that was only for the fee waiver ($41,500). Opposition had 39% provable in Sloan’s lake and 35% provable in West Highlands.

  mountain_man wrote “Secondary benefits include ... reduced impacts on the City's storm drains and sanitary sewers as less runoff and sewage are generated from the new larger homes.” I’m a bit confused because others argue that more, not less “runoff and sewage are generated from the new larger homes.” Regardless, unless the population stops growing, all we have done is cause more sprawl. Also, the City never studied how build-out under the R2 zoning would impact utilities. We have seen Xcel come out and upgrade service lines. That benefits everyone. Its far cheaper to re-string wire on existing poles than to install brand-new service to raw land.

  Next, a few kudos:

  STitus wrote “By restricting redevelopment, and cutting off a major source of reinvestment in the community, City Council has set the stage for destabilizing an area they consider stabilized.” Yup. They screwed us.

  peterpi “I've often felt like downzoning was a way for snooty neighbors to manage someone else's property without having to pay for it.” Yes, you nailed it.

  GladysKravitz – Made me laugh. Thanks! :-)

  We lost the battle, but not the war.
  Daniel Markofsky

• May 5, 2008

  7:05 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  DMarkofsky writes:

  I am a victim of the downzoning and fought hard against it. Staying at the City Council hearing last week till 3:00 AM was par for the course.

  Thank you Rocky Mountain News for having the courage to say the right thing. City Council was took the bait hook, line and sinker from our slick neighborhood NIMBY’s and their co-conspirators at Peter Parks’s Planning Party. My Councilman Rick Garcia got to pay back some political favors to his supporters. Only Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz and Councilman Charlie Brown had the guts to do the right thing and vote no.

  A few facts for this discussion:

  Froward69 wrote “whereas multifamily zoning allows for value to rise for the owner who lives in his/her gated community in Littleton or parker or evergreen.” Wrong. The vast majority of the opposition to downzoning was from longtime owner residents who held onto their large lots with a small home because they knew the land was where the value lay. Many elderly residents lost a chunk of their retirement nest egg in this downzoning.

  mountain_man wrote “Congratulations on the City Council's wise decision in respecting the will of the majority.” Wrong. This was not the majority. The downzoners never had more than 23% provable support - and that was only for the fee waiver ($41,500). Opposition had 39% provable in Sloan’s lake and 35% provable in West Highlands.

  mountain_man wrote “Secondary benefits include ... reduced impacts on the City's storm drains and sanitary sewers as less runoff and sewage are generated from the new larger homes.” I’m a bit confused because others argue that more, not less “runoff and sewage are generated from the new larger homes.” Regardless, unless the population stops growing, all we have done is cause more sprawl. Also, the City never studied how build-out under the R2 zoning would impact utilities. We have seen Xcel come out and upgrade service lines. That benefits everyone. Its far cheaper to re-string wire on existing poles than to install brand-new service to raw land.

  Next, a few kudos:

  STitus wrote “By restricting redevelopment, and cutting off a major source of reinvestment in the community, City Council has set the stage for destabilizing an area they consider stabilized.” Yup. They screwed us.

  peterpi “I've often felt like downzoning was a way for snooty neighbors to manage someone else's property without having to pay for it.” Yes, you nailed it.

  GladysKravitz – Made me laugh. Thanks! :-)

  We lost the battle, but not the war.
  Daniel Markofsky

• May 6, 2008

  11:29 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mountain_man writes:

  Mr. Markofsky...My bad....You are correct about more runoff and sewage comes from the new larger homes. That is what I meant to say. The new larger homes produce more of both and overwhelm the storm and sanitary sewers. So to me, preserving the existing home sizes and character is a good thing for the residents and taxpayers and the environment. Bigger homes use more electricity for heat and A/C, hence more CO2 emissions. More sewage & runoff means we need more sewers which cost more money which leads to higher taxes for everyone. All this at the expense of greedy developers.

• May 6, 2008

  1:53 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  I was walking around the neighborhood and saw another new home being built. There used to be an old 1950's Ranch that had a leaky basement, and worn out brick and foundations. It gave the house some CHARACTER. What's wrong with that? I told my husband Abner but he just says, Yes Honey! Thank goodness things will stay the way they are without modern innovation. I like living in the 50's. McCarthy was such an example to us back then, spying and ratting out our neighbors. Everyone knowing each others business. Perserving the American Way. This down Zoning is just the trick, thanks to Slick Rick and friends.

• May 6, 2008

  4:49 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  STitus writes:

  Still more misconceptions: While it may require more energy to heat 3,000 square feet than it does to heat 1,500 square feet. New homes are so much more efficient and better built than almost anything built before 1980 that it actually requires less energy to heat a larger new home than a smaller old one. Even with major upgrades, it’s nearly impossible to insulate an old home to the same level as modern new construction. As for sewage and runoff, homes don’t produce sewage, people do. A family of four living in 3,000 square feet flushes the toilet no more than if they lived in 1,500 square feet. In addition, builders pay significant fees to the city to cover any impact of new construction on infrastructure like sewers, roads and water systems. Increased density in an established neighborhood is far and away the greatest benefit with the least impact: no new infrastructure is required and existing infrastructure, like sidewalks, power distribution, curb and gutters, etc. are improved at the expense of the developer. New construction actually improves tax revenue which is increased by the higher value of the new homes (and overall greater value of existing homes nearby) and ultimately our schools (funded by property tax revenue) are the beneficiaries. As for greedy builders lining their pockets, it seems silly to argue the merits of capitalism, but…. Real estate development is risky and difficult, and requires a great deal of up-front capital. The return on this investment is no greater than any other business. The majority of homebuilders are small businesses whose owners take a lot of pride in their work. I’m sure the best of them are making a comfortable income, like any other successful businessman or woman. Mountain_Man, If this concept is distasteful, I’m sure you can find a nice hacienda in Cuba.

• May 6, 2008

  4:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  Gene: Of course I took Abner's last name...it wouldn't be lady-like to keep my maiden name. That's the way we did things back in the past as things should remain in NW Denver....in the past. No changes, no reform, no new fangled fancy shmancy homes, unless it meets mine and my few neighbors' apporoval. BTW: You may think I am crazy but I think there is witch in the neighborhood too.

• May 7, 2008

  9:48 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  cauxier writes:

  I really don't understand the positive benefits of downzoning for the community and city overall. The land values are certainly harmed by eliminating the abilty to build a duplex vs a single family home. Meanwhile, because the duplex option is no longer available, the overall cost of a home to a family wishing to buy is higher. So *both* land values and affordability of housing are harmed. Meanwhile, higher density is almost always better from an environmental, resource, city services and taxes standpoint. The DCC is effectively promoting urban sprawl and NIMBYism, which is very disappointing. What on earth did the DCC argue was the compelling reason to go against basic tenants of good urban growth/planning and harm landowners? I've recently relocated here and am not entirely familiar with the issues in this case, but from what I gather this is just nuts!

• May 7, 2008

  4:31 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  GladysKravitz writes:

  Gene: Actually I don't think we have just one witch in NW Denver...I think there is an entire coven.

Featured

• Boulder Wildfire

  

  See photos from the Boulder County fire.

• Legislature Blog

  

  The Rocky's Lynn Bartels and Ed Sealover provide live updates from the Capitol.

• Rocky multimedia

  

  The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.

• Who's next?

  

  Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.

• Weekend plans?

  

  Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.

• Winter Escapes

  

  Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.

• Sam Adams' Open Mic

  

  Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs

• Bronco Dean's rant

  

  Listen to Bronco Dean's rant on what's next for the Broncos.

• Live updates

  

  Sign up for mobile alerts and breaking news e-mails to keep up with the latest news.