DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[corey]

Sooooo glad nothing with Trump's name on it has ever been built in Colorado! I will never go to one of his casinos, stay at one of his hotels, and if I lived in one if his buildings I would move out.

[corey]

I wonder what it would take to get the federal government to move the Fed. Reserve Bank. Fortunately it is 40+ years old and can be considered to be at the end of it's life. I'm sure it has plenty of problems that a new building would make more economic sense. I think a good price for the block by a developer and probably some prodding by the mayor and other government officials could make it happen. The potential for that block is incredible. I think the improvements to DCPA and the construction of the Hines office building will help push the eventual redevelopment. I have no doubt it will happen sooner or later.

I'm sure there will be preservationist that will want to save the building for it's MCM Brutalistness. Which I might be on board with if it wasn't such a prime site. But I think 95% of people would love to see it gone. You couldn't design a less people friendly block.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by corey

I wonder what it would take to get the federal government to move the Fed. Reserve Bank. Fortunately it is 40+ years old and can be considered to be at the end of it's life. I'm sure it has plenty of problems that a new building would make more economic sense. I think a good price for the block by a developer and probably some prodding by the mayor and other government officials could make it happen. The potential for that block is incredible. I think the improvements to DCPA and the construction of the Hines office building will help push the eventual redevelopment. I have no doubt it will happen sooner or later.

Probably a lot in the near term. The Fed Branch is owned by the Federal Reserve and thus separate from the rest of the government- though that does mean there are local connections with the Denver Board along with the Kansas Baord. You'd have to get the Board to sign off on a move and the cost of building a new facility including the land acquisition cost. That wouldn't be all that cheap, especially if they want to stay close to downtown. Though if they're will to move out to the 'burbs it might be quite end up being advantageous.

The Denver Branch was also recently remodeled which probably pushes any kind of relocation further out in the future.

[mhays]

Good luck getting the FRB to move. But sometimes they do. The branch I used to work next to (Seattle is an outpost, not its own FRB) moved to the suburbs so it would have a larger security perimeter. The building they left is considered historic too. Apparently security is doing ok in Denver, presumably with all the blast protection and truck in/out security that requires. At ours, I used to walk out the alley door of our building and sometimes a guy with a machine gun would be 10 feet away because an armored car was coming or going.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Don't know what costs the other states could be incurring "by following federal law."

I don't think federal law even purports to require states to enforce federal marijuana statutes. All of the "costs" those states are incurring are more likely from enforcing state marijuana laws. Neither Colorado nor the feds are making them do this.



Clearly there is not complete federal pre-emption of marijuana rules. Marijuana has been regulated by the states for many, many decades, with the full collaboration and cooperation of the feds. Again, the feds do not even purport to mandate states to make marijuana illegal. That is likely beyond the constitutional power of congress. The real question then is whether Colorado law directly conflicts with federal law. I agree, there is a solid argument it does by expressly allowing what federal law expressly forbids.





Different situation. There is no question the federal government can enforce federal law over conflicting state law. That's not what's happened here. Clearly the current administration takes the position that Colorado's law is not inconsistent with federal law. The states want to step in place of the federal government and "enforce" federal law."

Still you have a point, a future administration that, for example, did not have the votes in Congress to repeal Obamacare could take the position that the states are free to ignore any Obamacare requirements (or Clean Air Act requirements, or any other federal statute) and if the principal is that an administration can decline at any time to enforce federal law and allow states to act contrary to federal law without consequence, then suddenly whether particular federal laws apply will depend solely on which party controls the presidency.

The standing issues are the easiest way for the court to punt on this issue. Ironically, one party that probably would have standing is a Colorado marijuana business subject to regulation in Colorado. They could arguably sue the state to enjoin enforcement of the regulations on marijuana businesses as in conflict with federal law.

Maybe a marijuana opponent could buy a dispensary, then sue the state on the basis that the state has no authority to "regulate" the "legal" sale of marijuana. Lol.

It is a crazy situation.

The Supreme Court will have no choice but to rule in Colorado's favor and here is why:

1.) One State is Constitutionally prohibited from suing another state. Thus Nebraska and Oklahoma can't sue Colorado and this is exactly what they are doing. This is a law suit. This is a constitutional violation.

2.) The quantity of marijuana flowing into Nebraska and Oklahoma has not increased since Colorado's legalization. The same black market demand exists now as before. So even if less marijuana is being illegally transported across the Mexico-USA boarder and up into Oklahoma and Nebraska and more of it is coming from within our nations boarders from states such as Colorado (or any of the 20+ other states it might be coming from), they have no way to prove how much is from Colorado and thus can't assign a specific monetary damage amount.

3.) They can't prove that marijuana from Colorado costs Nebraska and Oklahoma more to enforce it's laws than marijuana from Mexico has traditionally cost them. More so, they can't even prove which percentage of the marijuana is even coming from Colorado.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by mhays

At ours, I used to walk out the alley door of our building and sometimes a guy with a machine gun would be 10 feet away because an armored car was coming or going.

That happens here too, right along Arapahoe Street when trucks are leaving. 3 or 4 guys with semi-autos walking trucks out. Cool sight.

[ramanboy33]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

The Supreme Court will have no choice but to rule in Colorado's favor and here is why:

1.) One State is Constitutionally prohibited from suing another state. Thus Nebraska and Oklahoma can't sue Colorado and this is exactly what they are doing. This is a law suit. This is a constitutional violation.

States can sue other states.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

The Supreme Court will have no choice but to rule in Colorado's favor and here is why:

1.) One State is Constitutionally prohibited from suing another state. Thus Nebraska and Oklahoma can't sue Colorado and this is exactly what they are doing. This is a law suit. This is a constitutional violation.

Actually, the Constitution expressly allows states to sue each other - in front of the Supreme Court:


US Constitution Article III

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

1.) One State is Constitutionally prohibited from suing another state. Thus Nebraska and Oklahoma can't sue Colorado and this is exactly what they are doing. This is a law suit. This is a constitutional violation.

Well that would have been quite the stunning oversight from the Founding Fathers. Water rights dispute? Fire up the F-16s, boys, we're going to Kansas!

[comoneymaker]

Originally Posted by ramanboy33

Trump's proposal was at the El Jebel Temple downtown (1770 Sherman).

Is there a difference between the shrine and temple ?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by comoneymaker

Is there a difference between the shrine and temple ?

Yes, one's in Berkley (Shrine) and the other is in the CBD (Temple).

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.businessden.com/2016/03/14/hot-platte-street-draws-five-story-60m-office-retail-project/

[transistor]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

http://www.businessden.com/2016/03/14/hot-platte-street-draws-five-story-60m-office-retail-project/

I really like this project, it will activate the corner of 15th and Platte St. in a great way. Also it helps that it looks nice.

[RyanD]

999 17th Street is moving right along:

Central Downtown: 999 17th Street Update #4

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by RyanD

999 17th Street is moving right along:

Central Downtown: 999 17th Street Update #4

No below grade parking?

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

No below grade parking?

Nope. Just a podium.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

http://www.businessden.com/2016/03/14/hot-platte-street-draws-five-story-60m-office-retail-project/

I guess the Nimby's don't shop at Vitamin Cottage.

There were signs up last year there for non-historic status for that building. Cool old barrel-roofed building, but this project is sweet and a much better use of that site.

Now, once the parking lots around Riverpoint get developed? Wow, going to be awesome, especially with Confluence there.

[balugajames]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Here is a reminder of what that could have been. You know... For science!

...

http://www.denverinfill.com/blog_archives/blog_february_2006.htm

I am pretty sure it would have been more like this:

[SandSailor]

http://www.9news.com/money/business/swis...orth-american-hq-in-denver-area/83782973

Found this quite exciting!!!!

[navyweaxguy]

That sounds like another "win" for the Tech Center. A campus.