DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Stonemans_rowJ]

We need a land value tax. If his dirt is worth $17.5M then he should be paying appropriate taxes.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

We need a land value tax. If his dirt is worth $17.5M then he should be paying appropriate taxes.

This is not a bad idea. StrongTown's Charles Marohn suggests incremental upzonings (Single family zones can build ADUs, places with ADUs can then build townhomes, sites with townhomes can then build 3-story apartments, etc. etc.) rather than dramatic upzonings (basically the game plan for most TOD), so that landowners can't be motivated to sit on under-utilized land for decades. Of course, this applies more to urban center neighborhoods, and not so much downtown proper.

And needless to say that accomplishing this would be complicated at best. It rests on the assumption that the next increment of density would always be available (try convincing NIMBY neighborhoods of that). And it also flies in the face of urbanist dogmas that more density>less density, even if that density only exists on paper (zoning potential) rather than in reality (built sqft). But it is an interesting dilemma to think through, and I can't actually find fault in Marohn's basic assessment of the situation.

Your idea seems a lot simpler, and wouldn't need to ask urban planners to downzone neighborhoods, or to constantly fight incremental upzoning battles. Though I'm sure it's a LOT more complicated than it sounds - tax policy always is.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

In businessden today Geller said it certainly was not a misunderstanding -- they just wanted unacceptable terms to extend the closing- https://businessden.com/2018/02/27/developer-proposed-denvers-tallest-building-fails-close-land/


Complete clown show on all sides.

One kept it to the lawyers, the other decided to blab. While one side is composed of NYC —, and the other side is composed of homegrown Denver —, only one kept it professional on the PR side.

Geller is a —-face just like the Cooks or Dikeous. Slumlord scum.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mr1138

It may seem strange to many of us, because we are urban nerds who like seeing things built, but I think The Dirt calls it exactly as it is by pointing to the line "They put this piece under the limelight" as painting Geller as an opportunist. It seems clear that, to him, there is no joy in seeing his properties developed.

There's no bus here and no conspiracy on Buzz's part. Not sure everybody understands what didn't happen. The closing was scheduled for Feb 12th and Buzz didn't immediately run to the media afterwards; we're just now learning about the failure to close. Obviously many people were aware that the transaction was supposed to close in February and when they didn't see any recording of deeds they knew something was up and started asking questions. That's all; so Buzz gave them a straight-up answer.

This was not a development deal; this was a simple purchase and sale agreement for a piece of vacant land. Buyer didn't need to have the development deal in place to close on the land. If the contract had been written to be contingent on that, then the buyer wouldn't have forfeited their deposit for non-performance. They knew what the were signing.

Who knows what language the buyer wanted in a proposed extension. Buzz is under no obligation to change any terms of the original contract. The buyer was well aware of this. If they could come up with the cash needed to close this deal tomorrow (or next week) my money says Buzz would still sell but he had little faith they could perform.



It's been a few decades but I knew well buyers who would tie up (large) properties hoping to find investors for their deal; they did this by having various contingencies, not necessarily unusual but they were playing games with the seller; if you represent the seller it's like the worst kind of buyer there is. Buzz and his lawyers played it straight up and these guys apparently were rolling the dice at the craps table and you want to blame Buzz? Makes no sense.

As for so-called land bankers, that's a different topic and while interesting it has nothing to do with a legitimately executed purchase and sale agreement and the buyers failure to perform.

[Denver]

Duplicate Post

[Denver]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

There's no bus here and no conspiracy on Buzz's part. Not sure everybody understands what didn't happen. The closing was scheduled for Feb 12th and Buzz didn't immediately run to the media afterwards; we're just now learning about the failure to close. Obviously many people were aware that the transaction was supposed to close in February and when they didn't see any recording of deeds they knew something was up and started asking questions. That's all; so Buzz gave them a straight-up answer.

This was not a development deal; this was a simple purchase and sale agreement for a piece of vacant land. Buyer didn't need to have the development deal in place to close on the land. If the contract had been written to be contingent on that, then the buyer wouldn't have forfeited their deposit for non-performance. They knew what the were signing.

Who knows what language the buyer wanted in a proposed extension. Buzz is under no obligation to change any terms of the original contract. The buyer was well aware of this. If they could come up with the cash needed to close this deal tomorrow (or next week) my money says Buzz would still sell but he had little faith they could perform.


It's been a few decades but I knew well buyers who would tie up (large) properties hoping to find investors for their deal; they did this by having various contingencies, not necessarily unusual but they were playing games with the seller; if you represent the seller it's like the worst kind of buyer there is. Buzz and his lawyers played it straight up and these guys apparently were rolling the dice at the craps table and you want to blame Buzz? Makes no sense.

As for so-called land bankers, that's a different topic and while interesting it has nothing to do with a legitimately executed purchase and sale agreement and the buyers failure to perform.

Closing land is almost alway messy. 95% of real estate development (including buying the land) is putting out fires. And yes — falls through a lot of the time. It has happened to all of us in the industry. I feel safe saying however, that no one here on this blog has ever run to the press after a deal fell through. There is the word of the law and spirt. He may be right in the word but he is very wrong in the sprit.

My current company is active in around $80mm (rounding) of current in development in Denver. We are currently looking for out next deal and I can say with the upmost certainty that we would never a)treat the situation like Geller did and b)that I would not buy land from the man for my next deal.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Denver

b)that I would not buy land from the man for my next deal.

If he had the land you wanted and you had the money then why would you not buy it? Btw, do you normally sign contracts with or without contingencies?

I'm not vouching for Buzz's character; that's why agents and lawyers handle the messy stuff and they're well paid for their time and success. While I can appreciate the putting out fires part; the contract part was clearly straight forward in this instance.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

One kept it to the lawyers, the other decided to blab. While one side is composed of NYC —, and the other side is composed of homegrown Denver —, only one kept it professional on the PR side.

That sounds apt. It's true that not all people are born with the same genteel personna... but it's not required to do business deals. That's why lawyers are needed and how they earn their money.

[TheNightfly]

I don't care if Ursini is a New York —. We need more — to build a few skyscrapers with some balls. Buzz isn't enough of a mover and shaker to earn the criticism of being an —. He's a Denver flake, a weasel land banker. I say this as a native who is tired of the seeing the skyline dominated by our only big 3. If Greenwhich has a means of getting the funding, I'd love to see them side step his — and build something around 19th and Broadway. It's not 16th but it's close enough and it has a train station near it.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by TheNightfly

I don't care if Ursini is a New York —. We need more — to build a few skyscrapers with some balls. Buzz isn't enough of a mover and shaker to earn the criticism of being an —. He's a Denver flake, a weasel land banker. I say this as a native who is tired of the seeing the skyline dominated by our only big 3. If Greenwhich has a means of getting the funding, I'd love to see them side step his — and build something around 19th and Broadway. It's not 16th but it's close enough and it has a train station near it.

I think rest assured Greenwich will not have the means to get any funding for any major project ever after this debacle. They can go back to renovating apartment buildings in nyc after this.

Mind you they have been fumbling this project for 18 months straight. You may be conflating ‘balls’ withe complete ineptitude.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by TheNightfly

I don't care if Ursini is a New York —. We need more — to build a few skyscrapers with some balls. Buzz isn't enough of a mover and shaker to earn the criticism of being an —. He's a Denver flake, a weasel land banker. I say this as a native who is tired of the seeing the skyline dominated by our only big 3. If Greenwhich has a means of getting the funding, I'd love to see them side step his — and build something around 19th and Broadway. It's not 16th but it's close enough and it has a train station near it.

I am right there with you, primarily from an aesthetic standpoint. I think that there is a lot of room for dense high rises between 18th and 20th on Broadway. If Amazon were to come to town, I would love to see a campus located near where F-9 productions envisioned a potential Amazon campus.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

If he had the land you wanted and you had the money then why would you not buy it? Btw, do you normally sign contracts with or without contingencies?

I'm not vouching for Buzz's character; that's why agents and lawyers handle the messy stuff and they're well paid for their time and success. While I can appreciate the putting out fires part; the contract part was clearly straight forward in this instance.

I agree with you on point #1. At the end of the day this guy has land and it's in relative short supply. However, that being said, he doesn't appear "motivated" and there are obviously lots of motivated parking lot owners.

It sounds like you are privy to the terms of this contract? When is earnest money ever paid directly to a seller? Is that common in a commercial deal? He may be facing arbitration and who knows what conditions were written into the contract.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

There's no bus here and no conspiracy on Buzz's part. Not sure everybody understands what didn't happen. The closing was scheduled for Feb 12th and Buzz didn't immediately run to the media afterwards; we're just now learning about the failure to close. Obviously many people were aware that the transaction was supposed to close in February and when they didn't see any recording of deeds they knew something was up and started asking questions. That's all; so Buzz gave them a straight-up answer.

This was not a development deal; this was a simple purchase and sale agreement for a piece of vacant land. Buyer didn't need to have the development deal in place to close on the land. If the contract had been written to be contingent on that, then the buyer wouldn't have forfeited their deposit for non-performance. They knew what the were signing.

Who knows what language the buyer wanted in a proposed extension. Buzz is under no obligation to change any terms of the original contract. The buyer was well aware of this. If they could come up with the cash needed to close this deal tomorrow (or next week) my money says Buzz would still sell but he had little faith they could perform.



It's been a few decades but I knew well buyers who would tie up (large) properties hoping to find investors for their deal; they did this by having various contingencies, not necessarily unusual but they were playing games with the seller; if you represent the seller it's like the worst kind of buyer there is. Buzz and his lawyers played it straight up and these guys apparently were rolling the dice at the craps table and you want to blame Buzz? Makes no sense.

As for so-called land bankers, that's a different topic and while interesting it has nothing to do with a legitimately executed purchase and sale agreement and the buyers failure to perform.

To be clear, I could care less about Buzz's personal motivations, and I wouldn't go so far as to call what just happened a "conspiracy." I was just trying to point out that others have a very valid point in that it appears he isn't all that interested in actually making something happen. And this is perfectly rational if real estate is nothing more to a person than a part of their portfolio of assets (which is all it is to most people, with the possible exception of somebody's primary home). In fact, I think I'd even be willing to defend him a bit - it's his land, and his choice when and under what terms he'll sell. Many on this forum have expressed disappointment when parcels get "underdeveloped." So why would a large landbanker (who doesn't seem to need the immediate influx of cash) let a primo parcel go for anything less than its maximum potential?

Honestly, I could care less about somebody's perceived personality flaws, or what we think about them. It's much more interesting to think about the underlying policy that influences what set of choices a person may find rational.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

I agree with you on point #1. At the end of the day this guy has land and it's in relative short supply. However, that being said, he doesn't appear "motivated" and there are obviously lots of motivated parking lot owners.

Motivation is an interesting thing and not always easy to judge. If a property is listed for sale at a 'reasonable' price then motivation is assumed. There's no shortage of owners that for years have no motivation to sell; then one day they decide they want to sell for whatever reason and deals happen all the time like that. But Robert.hampton reminds us:

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Mind you they have been fumbling this project for 18 months straight. You may be conflating ‘balls’ withe complete ineptitude.

Tell one personal story that exemplifies a few things:
I list a townhome property for a gentleman that is in the midst of developing two blocks downtown. Priced fairly, two (or three) virtually full-price offers show up quickly. I might have indicated to my seller that one particular buyer was fully capable of doing this deal but didn't always perform. Anyway, I get no response to these offers, no counters, nothing, silence. My manager was a bit apoplectic; ignoring full-price offers and offering no feedback as to why? "He was busy." Does this guy want to sell or not?

Only thing I figured is that his lawyers, IIRC he used Sherman and Howard, gave him feedback that made him reticent. Soon, another offer comes in from a buyer that was more of a one-deal-at-a-time type but presumably capable of closing; he wanted to do a condo conversion. I took the forbidden step of suggesting to the buyer's agent (who I worked with) that we offer to put the two parties together. Buyer was predictably fine with that and so was my seller. After consulting with his PA a time slot for meeting was determined.

The first ten minutes were spent getting to know each other and talking a little business. The next 20 minutes were spent talking about 'concentration camps' and other Jewish matters (both were Jewish). Then my seller simply stated he'd send the contract to his lawyer and let him review it prior to proceeding. It was important for my seller to be able to speak with and look into the eyes of the buyer. The rest was handled by the agents and lawyers.

My seller, from Toronto and in his 60's, earlier in life had survived by crawling away from a Nazi concentration camp; nothing fazed him. People can be hard to to read or understand at times except in hindsight. I only had two meaningful meetings with this esteemed gentleman; my initial proposal and our 'forbidden' meeting between both parties.

The buyer was not really as 'capable' as other offers but I suspect that the Seller read his motivation for doing the deal and wanted THIS buyer. Point being, some sellers enjoy/prefer to work with a less qualified but more specifically motivated buyer. It sounds like Buzz was extremely patient to give perhaps a less qualified buyer full opportunity but at some point the buyer has to either perform or forget it. Assuming there was a year-long contract that is more than fair consideration on the Seller's part.

[CastleScott]

I don't care if Ursini is a New York —. We need more — to build a few skyscrapers with some balls. Buzz isn't enough of a mover and shaker to earn the criticism of being an —. He's a Denver flake, a weasel land banker. I say this as a native who is tired of the seeing the skyline dominated by our only big 3. If Greenwhich has a means of getting the funding, I'd love to see them side step his — and build something around 19th and Broadway. It's not 16th but it's close enough and it has a train station near it.

As a Denver native I too agree with you TheNightfly, I watched those big 3 get built while I was a student at Metro State College and since I'm now 59 I could be 90 or dead and buried before Denver gets a new tallest. But I'll say this: with the recent publicity of this lofty project perhaps this is the tool to get something like this going in the future. Oh and btw Sacramento has it's own development buffoons and blunders as well..

[BG918]

Construction fencing is up at the old K-Mart at Cherokee & Alameda. Is that part of the D4 redevelopment around Alameda Station?

[Denver]

Originally Posted by BG918

Construction fencing is up at the old K-Mart at Cherokee & Alameda. Is that part of the D4 redevelopment around Alameda Station?

I believe so. Another Kephart project so do not get your hopes too high!

[Robert.hampton]

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/01/amazon-hq2-denver-housing/

This survey gives Denver a decent chance at HQ2. It seems like a lot of the research has Atlanta near or at the top, but I really think the state has destroyed their chances withe the latest NRA/Delta debacle. I can’t see Amazon getting excited about a state where high level leaders are so keen to tie social issues with business. It certainly helps Denver and I don’t think Atlanta is in the top 10 anymore.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by Denver

I believe so. Another Kephart project so do not get your hopes too high!

According to site development review, it's a 7-story ~300 unit residential project.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/01/amazon-hq2-denver-housing/

This survey gives Denver a decent chance at HQ2. It seems like a lot of the research has Atlanta near or at the top, but I really think the state has destroyed their chances withe the latest NRA/Delta debacle. I can’t see Amazon getting excited about a state where high level leaders are so keen to tie social issues with business. It certainly helps Denver and I don’t think Atlanta is in the top 10 anymore.

Yeah, agree completely with Atlanta. Funny because a lot of people put it high on the list after the top 20 came out. Several people love to put Austin at the top of the list. However, Austin doeasn't even have half the public transit Denver has (or other cities on the list). At this point it's really hard to tell exactly what Amazon is weighing more/less when looking at their prospects for HQ2.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by twister244

Yeah, agree completely with Atlanta. Funny because a lot of people put it high on the list after the top 20 came out. Several people love to put Austin at the top of the list. However, Austin doeasn't even have half the public transit Denver has (or other cities on the list). At this point it's really hard to tell exactly what Amazon is weighing more/less when looking at their prospects for HQ2.

I do worry about our own political issues - namely the 1% growth initiative. If that were to pass it could further inflate costs for Amazon if it chose Denver.