DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[TakeFive]

rds70... Thanks. I sorta recalled it was a bit kinky. Given that Broadway isn't on a 7% grade the height allowance wouldn't vary much, lol. I also vaguely recalled that Eviva was using most of the allowable.

So no SkyHouses in the Golden Triangle. I'm wondering if they didn't find the one site that fits their formula nicely and finding another may be very difficult. SEC's of 19th and Lawrence or 20th and Blake are all I can think of that might work for another SkyHouse.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

So no SkyHouses in the Golden Triangle. I'm wondering if they didn't find the one site that fits their formula nicely and finding another may be very difficult. SEC's of 19th and Lawrence or 20th and Blake are all I can think of that might work for another SkyHouse.

Out of curiosity, where are you getting the idea that there will be a second skyhouse in Denver? I'd be surprised if they are even thinking of a second with the first one just barely starting construction. I could have missed some information that you have though.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by bcp

an under-use of allowed height is a shame...but there are many factors contributing to that...not sure we can blame 2x6's

even a 5 story CMU clad with brick building would be a shame if it grossly under-used it's height allowances.

Right, but I think it's one of the stronger critiques against stickbuilds; they have a natural height limit. I dunno how well stick builds age, so I can't speak to that concern. As for build quality, I'm also not familiar with the pros and cons of stick v cmu. Maybe those areas allow for stronger critiques. I don't know.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Not if we'd have to wait 30 years for a higher building.

Which I also don't disagree with, but I think you missed the first part of my reply

Also the defects bill died yesterday. But Hancock appears to be pushing for a city level solution (so Denver only): http://m.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/cap...d-be-the-next-city-to-push-forlocal.html
We will most certainly have to wait until after city elections for any city level proposals I'd imagine.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Denver

Out of curiosity, where are you getting the idea that there will be a second skyhouse in Denver? I'd be surprised if they are even thinking of a second with the first one just barely starting construction. I could have missed some information that you have though.

Well it just stands to reason. I mean why wouldn't they; they could; they might...
/sigh - Who knows?

Additionally I had mentioned Simpson Housing earlier and they are not only a partner in SkyHouse Denver but also in the 1st four SkyHouses in Texas: one in Austin and Dallas and two in Houston. Sooo... who knows?

Since you were wondering the 1st project in Houston, SkyHouse Houston, was also the first residential project to take advantage of Houston's downtown tax incentive of $15,000 per unit. They broke ground in February on a 3rd Houston SkyHouse, this one just south of the 1st project in downtown but it appears that Simpson is not a part of that one. It was designated the 14th in the SkyHouse series and broke ground a week before SkyHouse Denver.

Aren't you glad you asked?

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/r...mA+ElKTwGoSbqOBYu5F/O7W7Amf&t=1430271957

[DownhomeDenver]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/r...mA+ElKTwGoSbqOBYu5F/O7W7Amf&t=1430271957

This is a big deal to me. I love that the ULC is buying up land to get more affordable units out there for those that need it.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Also the defects bill died yesterday. But Hancock appears to be pushing for a city level solution (so Denver only): http://m.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/cap...d-be-the-next-city-to-push-forlocal.html
We will most certainly have to wait until after city elections for any city level proposals I'd imagine.

Good catch; another good article by Ed Sealover, Denver Business Journal. Couple of things:

Mayor Hancock didn't blink in his support for SB177 including being the first to testify in favor. That essentially committed him to give the state legislation a chance before moving forward on something with City Council. Given it is City Council votes he needs I'd guess that he and/or members of his team have already had many conversations with City Council members.

BTW, this is priceless:

Clark said, however, that reform supporters felt stung by a Tweet sent out by House Democrats after the vote that read: “Bill to shelter shoddy home builders collapses in House State Affairs.” ...

“I think a lot of people were sad. And then after the Tweet from the Dems insinuating that we were in support of shoddy construction, that was insulting,” Clark said. “I think it may have made us mad enough to try to find another way.”

Who were the idiots that thought that was a good idea? Gah.


seventwenty... I guess I could share something else with you (but let's keep it between us). I really am curious what Simpson Housing will do. They go waay back and have had a fondness for concrete construction, especially in SE Denver near Tamarac Dr. north of Hampden Ave and north of I-225 as well as several nice projects near Babi Yar Park. My guess though is that they do something on their own rather than another SkyHouse.

DownhomeDenver... I agree; I saw that too.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I'm wondering if they didn't find the one site that fits their formula nicely and finding another may be very difficult. SEC's of 19th and Lawrence or 20th and Blake are all I can think of that might work for another SkyHouse.

Why wouldn't any site in the CBD be suitable for another SkyHouse?

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Good catch; another good article by Ed Sealover, Denver Business Journal. Couple of things:

Mayor Hancock didn't blink in his support for SB177 including being the first to testify in favor. That essentially committed him to give the state legislation a chance before moving forward on something with City Council. Given it is City Council votes he needs I'd guess that he and/or members of his team have already had many conversations with City Council members.

I think there is likely a significant issue of whether in fact municipalities can legislate in this area. Generally speaking, a municipality has no authority to enact ordinances that are inconsistent with state law.

There is one exception and that is for home rule cities. Home rule cities can legislate on any matter that is purely of local concern, even if inconsistent with state law, and can legislate on matters of state wide concern or mixed local and statewide concern, provided that their regulations do not conflict with state legislation.

The issue for these local ordinances will be do they conflict with state law and, if so, are they enforceable notwithstanding such conflict?

If I had to lay money on this, I'd bet that these ordinances won't pass legal muster as this is matter traditionally regulated at the state and not local level (assuming that the regulation conflicts with state law).

This article in Westword from October suggests as much.

http://www.westword.com/news/will-lakewo...w-construction-defects-ordinance-6050974


I would suspect at a minimum there would be doubt as to whether these ordinances are enforceable. If there is any substantial doubt, then the ordinances aren't likely to help because any developer (and their insurer) would know there is a real risk the local ordinance won't be enforced and thus, they would not have their desired effect.

If you are curious about a more technical discussion of this issue in general, you can find it here.

https://legisource.net/2011/11/03/when-c...-state-law-home-rule-cities-in-colorado/

[bunt_q]

I won't opine on the legality of these ordinances - suffice it to say, I feel reasonably good about their chances in court.

I am very proud to see Mayor Hancock stepping up on this issue. For the longest time he seemed like a lackluster Mayor who didn't really stand up for anything. To see him leading this charge - a very important issue that his own party is CLEARLY in the wrong on - is great.

(I will add - and this is just my personal opinion - I think it's highly unlikely the state chooses to participate in any litigation against a municipality on this issue. I would love to see some piddly condo association with their moldy-ambulance-chasing construction defect attorney take on this issue... and get absolutely trounced by the governmental affairs folks of some big downtown firm, who will also stick them with a $250,000 legal bill. I'd also like to see a boatload of primary challenges for state house seats before the next general. Starting with my own state rep - the useless hypocrite, Susan Lontine.)

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

(I will add - and this is just my personal opinion - I think it's highly unlikely the state chooses to participate in any litigation against a municipality on this issue. I would love to see some piddly condo association with their moldy-ambulance-chasing construction defect attorney take on this issue... and get absolutely trounced by the governmental affairs folks of some big downtown firm, who will also stick them with a $250,000 legal bill. I'd also like to see a boatload of primary challenges for state house seats before the next general. Starting with my own state rep - the useless hypocrite, Susan Lontine.)

1. The problem isn't the state suing the city. The problem are plaintiffs lawyers suing developers. The plaintiffs lawyers don't need the state's help. They can sue under existing state law and ask the court to ignore the local ordinances as conflicting with state laws.

2. The losing side doesn't pay attorneys' bills in Colorado. Particularly on an open issue of law like this. Thus, no $250,000 legal bill. Also, plaintiffs lawyers regularly win huge judgments against big companies, usually defended by big downtown law firms.

3. It may not really matter who hypothetically might win such a fight, if the developer or insurer thinks there is a significant risk the local law will be struck down, they are unlikely to assume that they are protected by the ordinance. I suspect the uncertainty itself will continue to have the same impact as the existing state law.

4. This needs a statewide solution.

5. I think the politics on this are lot more uncertain. Query this: if this issue were put to the voters who would win? It would be very easy for opponents of change to demagogue this as "big developer" "big corporation" move to screw the little guy.

I do agree the Democrats need to pull their heads out and I also support the local ordinances, even if they might be of doubtful validity. At a minimum they help build momentum and support for reform.

[PLANSIT]

For those of you interested in approved development plans - Denver has launched a new mapping layer.

http://denvergov.org/maps/map/sitedevelopmentplans

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

1. The problem isn't the state suing the city. The problem are plaintiffs lawyers suing developers. The plaintiffs lawyers don't need the state's help. They can sue under existing state law and ask the court to ignore the local ordinances as conflicting with state laws.

2. The losing side doesn't pay attorneys' bills in Colorado. Particularly on an open issue of law like this. Thus, no $250,000 legal bill. Also, plaintiffs lawyers regularly win huge judgments against big companies, usually defended by big downtown law firms.

3. It may not really matter who hypothetically might win such a fight, if the developer or insurer thinks there is a significant risk the local law will be struck down, they are unlikely to assume that they are protected by the ordinance. I suspect the uncertainty itself will continue to have the same impact as the existing state law.

4. This needs a statewide solution.

5. I think the politics on this are lot more uncertain. Query this: if this issue were put to the voters who would win? It would be very easy for opponents of change to demagogue this as "big developer" "big corporation" move to screw the little guy.

I do agree the Democrats need to pull their heads out and I also support the local ordinances, even if they might be of doubtful validity. At a minimum they help build momentum and support for reform.

1. The court can't just ignore the ordinance without invalidating it. You think the CCD doesn't get involved on appeal when the validity of its own ordinance is at issue? Of course they do.

2. Not necessarily. But generally true, yes. Although big plaintiff's judgments are not common in Colorado.

3. You might be right. But it only takes one to get the issue litigated. After all, we got to this situation as a result of CDARA litigation outcomes.

4. Would be nice, but we're not going to get one. And absent that, I'll take local. Lots of things need higher level solutions, but at the end of the day, I don't care what happens in Grand Junction if Denver can cobble together a fix.

5. True, but I'll put my money on a coalition of big business (wins with nearly all conservatives), together with local governments across the board and advocates for the poor and affordable housing (wins with enough liberals; liberals like me) any day of the week. That sells in Colorado, and Colorado voters are savvy. Plus, the group of Dems that have been killing this in committee in an annual basis are a dwindling bunch. They are not representative of the state.

Are you an attorney?

[seventwenty]

Yeah reading the factors surround the final 5 factor (mixed state & local interests) test, the C&C of Denver could make a compelling argument stating that local interests surrounding affordable housing, zoning, the ability to live and work within the city, etc would be sufficient for local control. And that people who fear defects could choose to live in a surrounding city.

Granted I do need to look at more analysis surrounding home rule. That final factor test isn't the only thing courts would examine, but based off a quick reading Denver could make a case and win by a preponderance of evidence or whatever the standard would be.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

5. I think the politics on this are lot more uncertain. Query this: if this issue were put to the voters who would win? It would be very easy for opponents of change to demagogue this as "big developer" "big corporation" move to screw the little guy.

It's not as though voters love trial lawyers out for a big payday?
Consider that many Dems already favored SB177 and the Mayors and the reality of no condo construction (that matters).

Want more affordable housing choices? Vote R.
Not a slam dunk but which Dems will still support the lawyers and which won't in next year's election?

[seventwenty]

Denver Post editorial on defects death: http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_28006994/colorado-lawmakers-spurn-condo-market

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Want more affordable housing choices? Vote R.

My favorite part of this is when all of the board's single-issue voters elect people who support more condo construction but oppose mass transit expansion, public investment in the city center, and taxes spent on cultural programs…

Considering all the annoying anti-growth articles recently in the local papers and BS I see shared on social media I would bet that all of the pols from urban districts get a ton of contacts from people complaining about new construction and not supporting it. Most people I have talked to are more likely to connect higher prices to soaring demand brought on by people moving here, not to lack of supply.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

1. The court can't just ignore the ordinance without invalidating it. You think the CCD doesn't get involved on appeal when the validity of its own ordinance is at issue? Of course they do.

2. Not necessarily. But generally true, yes. Although big plaintiff's judgments are not common in Colorado.

3. You might be right. But it only takes one to get the issue litigated. After all, we got to this situation as a result of CDARA litigation outcomes.

4. Would be nice, but we're not going to get one. And absent that, I'll take local. Lots of things need higher level solutions, but at the end of the day, I don't care what happens in Grand Junction if Denver can cobble together a fix.

5. True, but I'll put my money on a coalition of big business (wins with nearly all conservatives), together with local governments across the board and advocates for the poor and affordable housing (wins with enough liberals; liberals like me) any day of the week. That sells in Colorado, and Colorado voters are savvy. Plus, the group of Dems that have been killing this in committee in an annual basis are a dwindling bunch. They are not representative of the state.

Are you an attorney?

I am an attorney, and have worked this issue in a case (state law vs. home rule) some years back.

There's enough here to give both sides an argument. I do note that I am not aware of any precedent where a home rule city has sought to change underlying state tort law, though there was a case where the City of Telluride tried to change the state landlord tenant law and impose local rent control. The Supreme Court ruled against the town, and found that consumers expect statewide uniformity on landlord tenant law.

It might be possible for a city to seek a declaratory judgment that its law is enforceable, not sure on that one. I believe the City of Denver has done that in the past on some "home rule vs. state law" issues. That could give a developer the certainty they need.

[DenverPoke]

FYI- There is a piece of construction equipment on site at Eviva Cherokee! Nobody is there but it looks like they may be taking down utility and parking poles.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

My favorite part of this is when all of the board's single-issue voters elect people who support more condo construction but oppose mass transit expansion, public investment in the city center, and taxes spent on cultural programs…

We are not going to see any more mass transit expansion in the next decade or longer, unless it's done at the local level. So that is irrelevant. Give me one example of state republicans opposing taxes spent on cultural programs? It seems to me that support for the SCFD is quite bipartisan. I think you're making stuff up. The main differences between the parties at the state and local level are social issues, and it appears the courts are taking care of those issues for us. So I am not seeing much of a disadvantage to voting for state level republicans. (My preference would still be primary challenges to get more populist dems and fewer rich-white-people dems.)

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

There's enough here to give both sides an argument. I do note that I am not aware of any precedent where a home rule city has sought to change underlying state tort law, though there was a case where the City of Telluride tried to change the state landlord tenant law and impose local rent control. The Supreme Court ruled against the town, and found that consumers expect statewide uniformity on landlord tenant law.

It might be possible for a city to seek a declaratory judgment that its law is enforceable, not sure on that one. I believe the City of Denver has done that in the past on some "home rule vs. state law" issues. That could give a developer the certainty they need.

All very good points. Of course, Denver will not characterize it as "changing underlying state tort law." You might be right, though. A GOP takeover of the legislature is certainly the cleaner solution.