DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

As soon as I read this I jumped on the Hot Line

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Good, we could use a few years to catch up.

The Big Guy aka Joe said he'd see what he could do to help.

Reading the summary of the recently passed budget out of the House in Colorado at CPR was interesting.

6 quick highlights from Colorado’s $36 billion spending plan — the largest ever
March 31, 2022 By Andrew Kenney - CPR

My oh my; no austerity in Colorado with that $36 billion budget. Then add in all the government cheese on top.

Interestingly different from business in the desert but on the whole I thought it to be largely 'pragmatic'. Enjoy it while it lasts which it won't.

[TakeFive]

I couldn't agree more...

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

But I also believe, much like a national economy that’s too hot can cause inflation and could use a cool down, a local economy that’s too hot can cause labor shortages, skyrocketing rents, increased homelessness, etc. We could use a cool down while developers catch up.

I mostly agree with you (and before this housing crisis would have 100% agreed with you) but now I see all growth is not good and bigger isn’t always better. Something in this booming economy is broken and it’s severely hurting people (ironically) economically.

The winds of change are out there. It can be like a forest fire that can smack you when you least expect it.

Between world 'events' and Fed intentions, we are likely to see Big Changes but the timing and the specifics can only be speculated about at the moment.

Given this a a development thread it will be interesting to watch the pace of new ground-breakings going forward. While not yet at an inflection point, as we move through the Summer into Fall things could become radically different.

[TakeFive]

Breaking...

Biden, U.S. Department of Transportation to invest $181M in Colorado transit
Apr 06, 2022 By: Sydney Isenberg - Denver7 News

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden and the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announced Wednesday a $181 million investment in Colorado transit as part of an overall $20 billion investment in American transit.

Politicking aside what are the Nuts and Bolts?

Colorado is set to receive $181,560,111. According to the White House, Denver-Aurora will receive $113,739,727, Fort Collins will receive $6,450,842 and Colorado Springs will receive $11,411,805.

I trust that RTD by necessity will stick to the guidelines.

According to the FTA, transit agencies will be able to use the funding to modernize their fleets with new buses and railcars, address repair backlogs and transition to new technologies in order to address the climate crisis.

[DenverInfill]

"6 quick highlights from Colorado’s $36 billion spending plan — the largest ever"

Why wouldn't it be the largest ever? The state's population is also the largest it ever has been and since government services are largely driven by population, why would we expect the state government spending to go down? Simply accounting for inflation would make the budget larger than the previous year. So what's the point of the "the largest ever" part of that headline?

[TakeFive]

You raise an interesting question
(or you could be getting a little cranky, lol)

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

"6 quick highlights from Colorado’s $36 billion spending plan — the largest ever"

Why wouldn't it be the largest ever? The state's population is also the largest it ever has been and since government services are largely driven by population, why would we expect the state government spending to go down? Simply accounting for inflation would make the budget larger than the previous year. So what's the point of the "the largest ever" part of that headline?

This would be the go-to paragraph: https://www.cpr.org/2022/03/31/colorado-budget-plan-2022-highlights/

The state has more money to work with this year because of a strong economy with healthy tax revenues and a massive influx of federal COVID relief.

“After two incredibly painful and challenging years, the arrival of a global pandemic and the crisis that ensued … we are bringing Colorado back strong,” said state Rep. Julie McCluskie, the Democrat who chairs the Joint Budget Committee.

Actually, the 1st sentence is the more important.

Colorado lawmakers in the coming weeks are set to approve a $36.4 billion budget, including $16 billion that state lawmakers control directly.

The $16 billion represents the General Fund pot which are discretionary $'s, the money that everybody fights over.


Let's have a little fun by pointing out a difference between Red State thinking and Blue State thinking.

The pandemic hangover
State lawmakers are bracing for the economic after-effects of the pandemic. One of the biggest single items is a plan to spend $600 million to replenish the state’s unemployment program.

Here's the more relevant part.

That money will pay off about half of what the state owes the federal government after the state had to pay out enormous unemployment benefits. Without it, businesses would face steeper costs to pay the debt instead. The money would come from state spending, but could ultimately be backfilled by federal stimulus dollars.

AZ's Governor Ducey didn't have time for any 'formalities'. Early on they used 'some' Stimulus $'s to augment the unemployment fund so they wouldn't have to borrow as much money from the Feds. Then, with this year's budgeting they took more Stimulus $'s and paid back every penny they owed the Feds so that employers wouldn't be burdened.

If you look at this map you can see where AZ has the 6th lowest unemployment tax to employers while CO comes in 43rd. Just part of an ongoing effort by AZ to compete with Texas by being more business friendly.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

"6 quick highlights from Colorado’s $36 billion spending plan — the largest ever"

Why wouldn't it be the largest ever? The state's population is also the largest it ever has been and since government services are largely driven by population, why would we expect the state government spending to go down? Simply accounting for inflation would make the budget larger than the previous year. So what's the point of the "the largest ever" part of that headline?

Our largest ever budget is about the same size as California's budget surplus. For context.

EDIT: Actually, I lied, latest estimates have California's surplus up to an estimated $60 billion.

[Cirrus]

I mean I also have friends & family who've worked for the census and can cite research on 2020 specifically but whatever.

As for people choosing segregation, if your community has zoning then they're not choosing it.

But I really don't feel like longwinded internet debates these days, so I'm'a leave it at that.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Our largest ever budget is about the same size as California's budget surplus. For context.

EDIT: Actually, I lied, latest estimates have California's surplus up to an estimated $60 billion.

One thing that is unique with Colorado compared to many states is their sales and use taxes. In Colorado the sales tax is (now) 2.9% whereas in CA the State sales tax is 7.25% and in AZ the State sales tax is 5.6%.

In Colorado's much of the sales tax paid is at the city and/or county level. In AZ and presumably CA the higher state sales tax means monies are then distributed among various/smaller jurisdictions.


Quite Fair

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I mean I also have friends & family who've worked for the census and can cite research on 2020 specifically but whatever.

As for people choosing segregation, if your community has zoning then they're not choosing it.

But I really don't feel like longwinded internet debates these days, so I'm'a leave it at that.

Candidly, I can only speak to what I know about where I live. COVID clearly made it more difficult to count 'certain' demographics which are never easy even in non-COVID times - according the feedback I received.

Certainly not interested in any long zoning debates. In Phoenix people choose where they want to live for whatever reasons they wish. That said, given Scottsdale's high housing costs, for example, the majority of people choose to live somewhere else. But there is no exclusionary reasons why anybody can't live there since that would be illegal.

It's also true that many people prefer to live among people that they identify with 'culturally' or ethnically and if that's what people want to do then I honor their choices.

[adelaide52]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I wouldn't put too much stock in these population estimates. Not only is the accuracy of the 2020 Census itself in question given that it took place during the darkest days of COVID but the annual estimates since then are still influenced by a lot of disruption and uncertainty. I think it'll be better to wait for 2023 or 2024 estimates before coming to any conclusions about which areas are growing or not. Also, keep in mind that every year when they release the newest intracensal estimates, they re-estimate all of the previous years' estimates back to the start of the decade. It'll be interesting to see how the July 2020, 2021 and 2022 estimates change over the remaining years of this decade.

The studies from moving companies are pretty worthless. The most robust and reliable data on intercounty and interstate migration is the SOI Tax Stats data from the IRS because it's not a sample. It's actual counts of movers based on the address from their Federal tax return. You can get it going back to 1991 if anyone is interested in historical trends.

The drawback is that the release is about 2 year after the fact.

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-migration-data

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...Biden, U.S. Department of Transportation to invest $181M in Colorado transit
Apr 06, 2022 By: Sydney Isenberg - Denver7 News...

Kind of seems like we got ripped off with this one, not even half of our proportional population share. I get that's not how dollars are allocated, but sure seems we got the short end of this one. Maybe that's also telling of how decent our infrastructure is in Colorado. I've never understood why people think we have it so bad here...drive the rust belt, wyoming, montana, idaho, upper midwest, south...their roads and bridges make us look like the Taj Majal.

[rds70]

It looks like the Amacon towers might be officially under construction.

There were workers and steel beams, assuming for shoring and excavation, on the site this morning.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by rds70

It looks like the Amacon towers might be officially under construction.

There were workers and steel beams, assuming for shoring and excavation, on the site this morning.

1900 Lawrence is almost there as well. Hensel Phelps was moving all of jersey barriers to the site perimeter and installing the construction fencing yesterday.

[TakeFive]

This is good stuff... except for one thing

Originally Posted by adelaide52

The studies from moving companies are pretty worthless. The most robust and reliable data on intercounty and interstate migration is the SOI Tax Stats data from the IRS because it's not a sample.

The IRS will miss a big chunk of what I'd call the "underground economy."

For those who don't make enough money to pay income tax, 'legally' they are not required to file a return and lots of people don't bother.

Thank your lucky stars

Originally Posted by laniroj

Kind of seems like we got ripped off with this one, not even half of our proportional population share. I get that's not how dollars are allocated, but sure seems we got the short end of this one. Maybe that's also telling of how decent our infrastructure is in Colorado. I've never understood why people think we have it so bad here...drive the rust belt, wyoming, montana, idaho, upper midwest, south...their roads and bridges make us look like the Taj Majal.

I wouldn't be smart enough to know the formula used with transit $'s. I always looked to PLANSIT to understand that stuff.

But I suspect you're right that the 'traditional' transit allocation likely favors the transit-heavy cities. The nice thing about the Obama years is that funding was made available for cities to build up their transit profile - like Denver (or Phoenix).

BTW, Taj Mahal is one of my favorites.

-----------------------

Originally Posted by rds70

It looks like the Amacon towers might be officially under construction.

There were workers and steel beams, assuming for shoring and excavation, on the site this morning.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

1900 Lawrence is almost there as well. Hensel Phelps was moving all of jersey barriers to the site perimeter and installing the construction fencing yesterday.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Here is Amacon today:



Here is 1900 Lawrence today:



Exciting times

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Our largest ever budget is about the same size as California's budget surplus. For context.

EDIT: Actually, I lied, latest estimates have California's surplus up to an estimated $60 billion.

It's disgusting, we have a $60 billion surplus, but no no lets not build homeless shelters and affordable housing.

[TakeFive]

What an amazing day in the Rockies

It's certainly beautiful at the corner of 22nd Street and Blake.


Source

Breaking the Amazing

Over at Mile High Stadium - The NY Post has reported that Rob Walton/Greg Penner are submitting the 1st bid to buy the Broncos at a price north of $4 billion. Yes, this would be the most ever paid for a sports franchise. Rob retired as Chairman of Walmart in 2015 at which time Greg Penner became Chairman. Greg is Rob's son-in-law.

Good times if you're a Colorado Sports fan.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

It's disgusting, we have a $60 billion surplus, but no no lets not build homeless shelters and affordable housing.

That's why money isn't the problem...zoning is. No amount of money in the world can force municipalities to rezone the land to let building proceed. This is why I propose the federal government establish a housing entity which acquires land from developers then leases it back to them...strategy being the feds don't have to abide by local zoning rules and as a property owner, they can allow anything. They typically abide by local zoning most of the time, but they're not legally required to.

This would obviously trample on the 10th amendment and state's rights, but it seems to me individual freedom and liberty has been sufficiently trampled on by zoning that it's merely a course correction.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by laniroj

That's why money isn't the problem...zoning is. No amount of money in the world can force municipalities to rezone the land to let building proceed. This is why I propose the federal government establish a housing entity which acquires land from developers then leases it back to them...strategy being the feds don't have to abide by local zoning rules and as a property owner, they can allow anything. They typically abide by local zoning most of the time, but they're not legally required to.

This would obviously trample on the 10th amendment and state's rights, but it seems to me individual freedom and liberty has been sufficiently trampled on by zoning that it's merely a course correction.

Most states don't need to comply with local zoning either. There's no reason you need the feds for this - the states could do a lot of direct building too.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Most states don't need to comply with local zoning either. There's no reason you need the feds for this - the states could do a lot of direct building too.

Same problem as with local leaders, state leaders will never do it because of local politics. WTF does the head of HUD or HHS care about local politics? Yes there is some correlation in a national election every 4 years with this kind of proposed power taking, but nothing like local political blowback should a governor or state sens/reps get involved and initiate something like this. Just look to CA...the state is trying (and largely failing) despite having a pretty strong mandate from their governor and state congress. Need to simplify the process and have the Feds guarantee partnership for any/all housing anywhere for property developers willing to partner with them - and keep it simple so ordinary folks can maybe build an ADU or duplex, triplex, etc.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Same problem as with local leaders, state leaders will never do it because of local politics. WTF does the head of HUD or HHS care about local politics? Yes there is some correlation in a national election every 4 years with this kind of proposed power taking, but nothing like local political blowback should a governor or state sens/reps get involved and initiate something like this. Just look to CA...the state is trying (and largely failing) despite having a pretty strong mandate from their governor and state congress. Need to simplify the process and have the Feds guarantee partnership for any/all housing anywhere for property developers willing to partner with them - and keep it simple so ordinary folks can maybe build an ADU or duplex, triplex, etc.

Fair.