DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by 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.

Are you just being a big tease?

Now I'm nervous; don't know what to think?

Maybe I'll just Think Out Loud some so I don't have an anxiety attack.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

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.)

A conservative purist thinks cultural stuff should be supported by the private sector and not taxes. But this has not been a hot button issue so it prolly wasn't the best example. But mojiferous point about single issue voters is fine.

Interesting also was his point that many don't understand the demand - supply curve but that's entirely possible. His comment about social media chatter was also interesting. I don't doubt that many have mixed feelings about all the construction, increased traffic etc.

I think in Colorado at the state level, both parties have members that are more practical and business oriented while others are more ideologically bent (over). Picking the best candidate is best.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

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.

Why no transit expansion? It's been an issue brought up continuously in one form or another, and the only reason it's unlikely to happen is because of tax and cost issues, which… by electing people who run on cost-cutting will only make the issue worse. This seems like circular reasoning to me "well, it won't happen so I may as well vote for people that will definitely not make it happen."

And opposing taxes on anything and everything, cultural or not is right there in the state GOP platform. They want to reduce taxes, reduce bloated government, and stand against creating "new public programs". The SCFD is renewed by popular vote, so it doesn't really count in this instance, as the only thing the state legislature does is approve the points of the plan presented to the voters. Regardless, it still isn't popular amongst republicans, their major funders, or associated think tanks because it is a tax.

I mean, by all means, be a single issue protest voter. Vote solely on an issue that may or may not be solved with your vote and will likely bring about other unintended consequences. I know you'll defend your argument until the heat death of the universe now that you've made it, but an anger vote isn't going to do anything to solve this. Especially when there are so many people who are either neutral or opposed to change.

Doing something to convince the growing crowds of NIMBYs that densification in the city center and easy condo development are better for them and their neighborhoods will be more effective than voting for the opposite of everything and crossing your fingers.

And that something has to be more effective lobbying and media management for development issues — the anti-defect-law-change people brought a study and concerned locals to the legislature and anti-development people have been pretty successful in getting NIMBYish op-eds and articles circulated in the Post and Westword… Developers can't just rely on the power of political connections, money, and lack of local awareness to get things built anymore.

I mean why aren't we as a city celebrating every parking lot disappearing downtown? Why isn't the Post boasting about reconnected neighborhoods? Or pointing out that empty lots are dark and lifeless at night and make the city less safe? Why aren't we vilifying the owners of surface lots in the media? Because the NIMBYs are winning the war of public perception.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

And that something has to be more effective lobbying and media management for development issues — the anti-defect-law-change people brought a study and concerned locals to the legislature and anti-development people have been pretty successful in getting NIMBYish op-eds and articles circulated in the Post and Westword… Developers can't just rely on the power of political connections, money, and lack of local awareness to get things built anymore.

I mean why aren't we as a city celebrating every parking lot disappearing downtown? Why isn't the Post boasting about reconnected neighborhoods? Or pointing out that empty lots are dark and lifeless at night and make the city less safe? Why aren't we vilifying the owners of surface lots in the media? Because the NIMBYs are winning the war of public perception.

That's bullshit. The pro-defect-reform people brought numerous studies into the argument displaying the lack of condo construction in Colorado and offering theories about it- studies that weren't bought and paid (not all of them) for by the HOA association of Colorado like the one that came out of Boulder. Using Westword as an example is also rather poor as it's not a publication that is EVER going to take the side of the developers- it's biased too much towards the perceived underdog. A developer has to walk a fine line as it's assumed that any kind of positive media for them is purchased propaganda. You've also got disclosure and foward-looking statements to worry about.

As for why we aren't celebrating all of the development that's occurring, I think that we are. But, stories that have the human element of some 60-year old lady on a pension or 30-year old penniless poetry major complaining about not being to live in their cool, little 'hood draws more eyeballs. It's just like how CNN of FOX covers the Baltimore riots- from the angle that draws the greatest emotional reaction.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Why no transit expansion? It's been an issue brought up continuously in one form or another, and the only reason it's unlikely to happen is because of tax and cost issues, which… by electing people who run on cost-cutting will only make the issue worse. This seems like circular reasoning to me "well, it won't happen so I may as well vote for people that will definitely not make it happen."

I re-posted the above on the transit thread with a response.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The pro-defect-reform people brought numerous studies into the argument displaying the lack of condo construction in Colorado and offering theories about it

I never said they didn't, but a basic rule of politics is making sure that you know your audience and crafting your message to them. Citing condo start percentages is a great start, but add some data from lenders or nationwide builders showing the comparative starting cost for Denver vs. a comparative market. And bring that directly to the public: "Look, lenders and builders say that condos have to sell for at least X to pencil out here. We're never going to get affordable condos for anyone at this cost. The only people getting condos are the super-rich." The argument that was presented instead sounded like developers just wanted to build more condos — that isn't effective messaging and isn't going to get us anywhere.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Using Westword as an example is also rather poor as it's not a publication that is EVER going to take the side of the developers- it's biased too much towards the perceived underdog. A developer has to walk a fine line as it's assumed that any kind of positive media for them is purchased propaganda. You've also got disclosure and foward-looking statements to worry about.

And this is where my argument about parking comes in — painting the anti-development "I need parking" set as exurban hicks that aren't as hip as the urbanites would be easy to do in the Westword. An expose on Dikou or Gart properties and their commitment to keeping our downtown full of surface lots would also work. Here's some easy sensationalist stories:

• Surface lots are lifeless and encourage crime, therefore the owners of the lots at 18th & Market are horrible people.
• Small scale developer wants to build affordable condos for low-income retirees, can't get loans because of defect law or buy land because owner of empty lot thinks it's worth $3 million.
• Streetcar line to Cherry Creek won't happen because NIMBYs in huge mansions fear outsiders.
• Idiots who bought homes in urban neighborhood don't want renters or mixed-use over 1 story, but want you to think it's about preserving the character of their neighborhood, despite existing nearby tall building and nearness to downtown.
• Rich snobs in ugly condo building that doesn't interact with street oppose architecturally interesting tower that promises to reconnect LoDo to Auraria, provide homes for hundreds.

But that doesn't happen now — instead we get messaging from the development community like "creates X jobs", "costs YYY millions", "Has amenities and leases/sells for $ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"
That's going to sell easily in board rooms or in city hall, but in a city rapidly getting more expensive and with a growing population? Not so much.

And as far as purchased propaganda — how is that different from the NIMBYs? I mean, it's not like a lot of development in this city is facing opposition from poor factory workers in their low-income neighborhoods. Painting the NIMBYs as a bunch of fat cats who are out of touch and just want to make sure no one else moves into their neighborhood (and how that drives up prices and makes traffic worse) is easy. The last thing the Westword wants is to seem like it supports soccer moms in million dollar houses.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

We've got some attorneys on here, and you guys seem to be pretty knowledgeable about the law.

When exactly did the law change? Clearly there were numerous condo projects built during the mid aughts.

Is it that there were some huge turds built, developers were sued, and rates went up?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

When exactly did the law change? Clearly there were numerous condo projects built during the mid aughts.

Is it that there were some huge turds built, developers were sued, and rates went up?

Good questions; I look forward to feedback as well.

But whichever law became a litigation jobs act is what the issue is. It wasn't a problem until it was, as typically the case. The examples of doctors and manufacturers is not worth responding to; apples and oranges.

Those who argue that a fix is not needed should ya know, go out and prove it by building lots of condos. Pretending that reality is just a figment of someone's imagination is madness.

[CPVLIVE]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

We've got some attorneys on here, and you guys seem to be pretty knowledgeable about the law.

When exactly did the law change? Clearly there were numerous condo projects built during the mid aughts.

Is it that there were some huge turds built, developers were sued, and rates went up?

Here is a link to an article in Westword. Hits on all the pertinent details. It's from 2013 , but the article is still relevent as the issues are exactly the same today.

http://www.westword.com/news/has-condo-development-hit-a-wall-in-denver-5121852 Westword 2103

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Interesting also was his point that many don't understand the demand - supply curve but that's entirely possible. His comment about social media chatter was also interesting. I don't doubt that many have mixed feelings about all the construction, increased traffic etc.
.

The Sunday Denver post this week was filled with nimby opinion pieces about all of the development occurring in and around Denver. Reading through the Denver post facebook comments there is always someone bitching and moaning about population growth.

Many people seem to think the legal weed has also caused population growth. I don't buy it, but interesting nonetheless

[TakeFive]

This is Big

"National Western funding bill squeaks out of Colorado Senate after heavy criticism"
Apr 29, 2015 by Ed Sealover, Denver Business Journal

House Bill 1344... authorizes the state to issue $250 million worth of bond-like certificates of participation to help fund facilities for Colorado State University on the proposed expanded National Western Center campus in north Denver

LOL, Senators from Aurora tried to play spoiler but failed. While I can't blame them for their frustration I would have advised taking the high road: you never know when good karma might come back around. It passed by a 19-16 margin.

There's a few minor changes to the bill that the House which originally passed it easily, will have to approve but it looks like a Go for Denver.

Cheers to bipartisan cooperation.

i.chzbgr.com

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CPVLIVE

Here is a link to an article in Westword. Hits on all the pertinent details. It's from 2013 , but the article is still relevent as the issues are exactly the same today.

http://www.westword.com/news/has-condo-development-hit-a-wall-in-denver-5121852 Westword 2103

So the Homeowner Protection Act passed in 2007 is a significant part and a bill passed in 2010 that was thought might help in fact did the opposite regarding insurance issues.

If Zocalo isn't interested in facing the risk as a premier builder that says a lot.

"It really becomes an issue of, do we feel comfortable in projects that have that dangling sword over them — this potential construction-defect issue? And for me and for many developers, the answer is no," says David Zucker, the director of development for Zócalo Community Development, the firm behind the popular RiverClay condos in Jefferson Park.

Chetter Latcham, president of Shea Homes Colorado was articulate. One of his best points:

"There are problems routinely in the construction process, and I think if you ask the builders, what we would like is the right to remedy," Latcham said. "We're happy to fix things that are our problem. The issue becomes when we get the attorneys and insurance companies involved, then the builders are no longer allowed to fix the problem, and so you end up with these very large settlements that then drive up the cost of construction and the cost of insurance."

As always there's good (sounding) arguments on either side but denying the real world predicament is sheer lunacy. Denying thousands of potential buyers that option is surely NOT the answer. SB177 sounded like a reasonable attempt at compromise that might actually, hopefully make a difference IMO.

[seventwenty]

Westword did a good job of setting the tone. So I'll just point ya'll in the direction of the old bills and session laws. Maybe some legal articles from Colorado Lawyer (which may or may not be advocating a particular side) or cases here and there.

So let's start from the beginning and work our way forwards. The 2001 legislative session, with the first passing of the Construction Defect Action Reform Act (CDARA). After significant lobbying by Colorado’s insurance and construction industry, the Colorado General Assembly passed CDARA hoping to regulate all claims and litigation in which a party is claiming construction defects. CDARA was House Bill (HB) 01-1166 or Session Law 132, starts us off. Read more about the bill from a legal perspective from Colorado Lawyer here. Crucially, that bill created Article 20 of title 13 Part 8, the defects part of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which has been revised as we shall see. Read all the sections if you feel like it. There are related laws to CDARA (aka part 8), but I'm not going to point you directly to those parts because it's 11:20 p.m.

Then in 2003, CDARA II was enacted as HB 03-1161 or Session Law 118. Read more about it in Colorado Lawyer here.

After CDARA some cases in like 2005 and 2006 came about, which you can read here.

So those are the bills and laws some in Westword stated were all but written by developers, and you can see how things are starting to shake out in the courts. It's also important to note that the Dems captured both chambers in 2004 before winning the governorship in 2006. The prior laws were enacted with at least one (maybe both) chambers Republican. It's equally important to note that shitty condos such as Beauvallon were also being built.

Against the backdrop of of shitty condos and an all Blue statehouse, HB 07-1338 or Session Law 164 passed in 2007. This one is short. It added 13-20-806(7)(a), which states that homeowners don't waive their right to sue even if the contact states they do. It was designed to roll back CDARA. Here's a 2007 Colorado Lawyer article about it., and here's a pro HOA lobby group's thoughts on the then bill.

Then the economy tanked. Hard. So hard everything got fucked and not a ton was being built. Personally, I blame Cirrus for the economy tanking, and you should listen to me on this point.

So where were we? Oh yeah. Laws. Here's the 2010 thingy from Westword, which is more properly noted as HB 10-1394 or Session Law and another Colorado Lawyer article. This bill was about preventing insurance companies from writing limitations into policies that would allow them to get out of covering builders who were sued for construction defects.

Since then, nothing. The 2013 reform bill died. So did the 2014 bill (though an affordable housing bill did pass last year). And of course this year's bill is dead.

So there are the pertinent bills. Sorry I couldn't track down the legislative hearings, but you can do that downtown if you wish.

If y'all wanna do your own research. Here's what I can give you:

Current Bills
Bills from prior years (whether the bill became a law or not)
Colorado Session Laws (bills that became law in a given year)
Colorado Revised Statutes (clunky interface because Lexis hates you)

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Westword did a good job of setting the tone. So I'll just point ya'll in the direction of the old bills and session laws. Maybe some legal articles from Colorado Lawyer (which may or may not be advocating a particular side) or cases here and there.

So let's start from the beginning and work our way forwards. The 2001 legislative session, with the first passing of the Construction Defect Action Reform Act (CDARA). After significant lobbying by Colorado’s insurance and construction industry, the Colorado General Assembly passed CDARA hoping to regulate all claims and litigation in which a party is claiming construction defects. CDARA was House Bill (HB) 01-1166 or Session Law 132, starts us off. Read more about the bill from a legal perspective from Colorado Lawyer here. Crucially, that bill created Article 20 of title 13 Part 8, the defects part of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which has been revised as we shall see. Read all the sections if you feel like it. There are related laws to CDARA (aka part 8), but I'm not going to point you directly to those parts because it's 11:20 p.m.

Then in 2003, CDARA II was enacted as HB 03-1161 or Session Law 118. Read more about it in Colorado Lawyer here.

After CDARA some cases in like 2005 and 2006 came about, which you can read here.

So those are the bills and laws some in Westword stated were all but written by developers, and you can see how things are starting to shake out in the courts. It's also important to note that the Dems captured both chambers in 2004 before winning the governorship in 2006. The prior laws were enacted with at least one (maybe both) chambers Republican. It's equally important to note that shitty condos such as Beauvallon were also being built.

Against the backdrop of of shitty condos and an all Blue statehouse, HB 07-1338 or Session Law 164 passed in 2007. This one is short. It added 13-20-806(7)(a), which states that homeowners don't waive their right to sue even if the contact states they do. It was designed to roll back CDARA. Here's a 2007 Colorado Lawyer article about it., and here's a pro HOA lobby group's thoughts on the then bill.

Then the economy tanked. Hard. So hard everything got fucked and not a ton was being built. Personally, I blame Cirrus for the economy tanking, and you should listen to me on this point.

So where were we? Oh yeah. Laws. Here's the 2010 thingy from Westword, which is more properly noted as HB 10-1394 or Session Law and another Colorado Lawyer article. This bill was about preventing insurance companies from writing limitations into policies that would allow them to get out of covering builders who were sued for construction defects.

Since then, nothing. The 2013 reform bill died. So did the 2014 bill (though an affordable housing bill did pass last year). And of course this year's bill is dead.

So there are the pertinent bills. Sorry I couldn't track down the legislative hearings, but you can do that downtown if you wish.

If y'all wanna do your own research. Here's what I can give you:

Current Bills
Bills from prior years (whether the bill became a law or not)
Colorado Session Laws (bills that became law in a given year)
Colorado Revised Statutes (clunky interface because Lexis hates you)

Nice summary! I think the bottom line is that the way the law has evolved over last 10 years has created a real problem for developers in Colorado and that most on here anyway agree some sort of fix is needed. As far as local ordinances go, they may or may not help is my sense. There's clearly uncertainty around whether in fact a home rule city can overrule the legislature on this point. Unfortunately, insurers and developers aren't likely to risk the uncertainty, even if more cities act to try to supersede state law.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

=LOL, Senators from Aurora tried to play spoiler but failed. While I can't blame them for their frustration I would have advised taking the high road: you never know when good karma might come back around. It passed by a 19-16 margin.

There's a few minor changes to the bill that the House which originally passed it easily, will have to approve but it looks like a Go for Denver.

I understand Aurora trying to ruin this because of the attacks that have been directed at the Gaylord project and the legislation that is currently going through the process that would put some serious hurdles in the projects path. Especially since Aurora seems to be signaling that they feel it is unlikely that they could get voter approval for the Gaylord incentives. But what the Legislature is proposing in SB 284, along with the Adams County court decision, seems like it would have far-reaching consequences in any city that wants to use TIF for a greenfield development. Might make it a bit harder for some of these large housing projects that are proposed to get public funding for infrastructure.

[seventwenty]

And in Auraria news: Tivoli is once again a brewery... 43 years later: http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_28017877/tivoli-building-at-auraria-denver-is-track-new

And CU-Denver students and CU regents approve a new/revamped wellness center: http://www.ucdadvocate.com/student-election-sees-record-turnout/

You can read more about the wellness center here: http://www.ucdadvocate.com/sga-proposes-cu-denver-rec-center/

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I understand Aurora trying to ruin this because of the attacks that have been directed at the Gaylord project and the legislation that is currently going through the process that would put some serious hurdles in the projects path. Especially since Aurora seems to be signaling that they feel it is unlikely that they could get voter approval for the Gaylord incentives. But what the Legislature is proposing in SB 284, along with the Adams County court decision, seems like it would have far-reaching consequences in any city that wants to use TIF for a greenfield development. Might make it a bit harder for some of these large housing projects that are proposed to get public funding for infrastructure.

Oh noes, not more messy unintended consequences.

Yes, I read about SB 284 and I hate it since it has a provision that specifically targets previous contractual relations between the state and private enterprise. By targeting one specific project in one city it's ugly use of state legislative power.

Consider this from yesterday's DBJ by Cathy Proctor about the new DIA hotel and transit station:

The hotel has space for conferences and meetings of all sizes, from the full ballroom to 12 meeting rooms. DIA officials say they expect companies and people to fly into Denver for conferences at the airport, because Denver is geographically central to the United States.

So by saving the inconvenience of going downtown the new DIA hotel becomes a direct competitor to downtown hotels, right? It shouldn't impact the larger conventions but certainly stuff that downtown hotels thrive on. How much hand wringing and protests were lodged against this project?

With respect to House Bill 1344 that has the state floating $250 million in bonds for the National Western Conference redo, the legislature had no problems with not letting the voters decide.

Each project/situation is different so there's always "reasons."

As a huge supporter and proponent of "regionalism" I abhor the breakdown of cooperation and mutual respect and support. I abhor anything that is anti-competitive or punitively limits growing the economic pie. We're not talking about a toxic waste dump here for example.

"Agricultural land" is often merely a zoning designation for lower property taxes having nothing to do with agriculture. It's used/exploited all the time.

Whether Aurora voters would approve of Gaylord is unknowable. I'm inclined to thing they might well approve it. Aurora sought to take advantage of a loophole they considered doable. Taking advantage of loopholes is not illegal and happens all the time with all manner of things. Now, should the courts decide that it wasn't proper that's fine. The state legislature should stay out of it. If they want to pass a bill they deem needed that isn't retroactive that would be appropriate but as you suggest there may be unintended consequences. The rush to fix one thing can be ill-conceived... in hindsight.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

seems like it would have far-reaching consequences in any city that wants to use TIF for a greenfield development. Might make it a bit harder for some of these large housing projects that are proposed to get public funding for infrastructure.

There are plenty of other financing tools available for greenfield development on ag land. Urban renewal does not need to be a part of that toolkit. For crying out loud, it's the one good tool we have that is not sort of inherently an engine for sprawl.

[FrancoRey]

Going back to the defects law; sorry if this has been answered, but what exactly allows apartment builders to not face the same defects suits if and when their properties are converted to condos?

I know it's a inconsequential question since I doubt any apartment properties would convert to condos anytime soon. But would this law also have the same hampering effects to a builder of an apartment property if they wanted to do a conversion? Or is this a loophole that would allow a builder to build 'apartments' only to switch to condos shortly thereafter? (not like anyone would want to in this housing market, but is it possible?)

If so and I had lots of money and I didn't care about losing it I'd totally do it, ha.

[EngiNerd]

There is a 6 year statute of limitations on filing a defects lawsuit in Colorado, and I have yet to hear of an apartment complex younger than that which was converted to condos. Plus unless there has been a case before that has resolved the issue, it could very much be up in the air how the ruling would go. Now if say improvements were made to the property to convert to condo, then it could reset the clock so to speak on those new improvements, but everything previous would not apply.

"Section 13-80-104, C.R.S. provides that in no case shall any action be brought against any architect, contractor, builder or builder-vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property. The exception is when the defect manifests in the fifth or sixth year from substantial completion in which case the action must be brought within two years after the date upon which the cause of action arose. § 13-80-104(1)(a), C.R.S.; § 13-80-104(2), C.R.S. If the cause of action arose on the last day of the sixth year then the latest date any suit could be brought would be two years from that time and eight years from substantial completion.

http://www.hkjp.com/Articles-Table-of-Co...-Litigation-Primer-011508-2-00174608.pdf