DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by laniroj

I propose a friendly wager on this topic for the forum. What's the over/under for how many projects break ground from the pre-affordable housing fee concept plan rush this summer? Anyone interested? Maybe RyanD or RDS70 can help us track it?

I'll peg my guess at 20% in the next 2 years.

Is this wager based upon market demand, or DOTI and CPD's ability to process the deluge of applications? I am not sure they can process 20% in two years, no matter what is happening with underlying fundamentals or any attributes of the projects themselves.

My bet is under 5 projects total in real terms break ground within 2 years (from that batch, obviously not overall).

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Is this wager based upon market demand, or DOTI and CPD's ability to process the deluge of applications? I am not sure they can process 20% in two years, no matter what is happening with underlying fundamentals or any attributes of the projects themselves.

My bet is under 5 projects total in real terms break ground within 2 years (from that batch, obviously not overall).

Ugh. That might be a worse approval timeline than any of the interconnection queues in the United States.


On DOTI and CDP's project backlog- has there been any serious consideration for outsourcing as much of the planning as possible to clear out the back log? Or is the entrenchment of the rent-seekers too great to make that realistic?

[TakeFive]

So far as processing goes I'd guess it will be more about how many projects even push ahead with the process; it may boil down to whether they want to spend the money or not.

Two years is a pretty big window. While many proposals likely die on the vine, I'll guess maybe half of the projects will move forward; how many actually break ground may be different.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Ugh. That might be a worse approval timeline than any of the interconnection queues in the United States.


On DOTI and CDP's project backlog- has there been any serious consideration for outsourcing as much of the planning as possible to clear out the back log? Or is the entrenchment of the rent-seekers too great to make that realistic?

Initial review for major residential projects is over 15 weeks at the moment.

From DenverGov:

https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Age...anning-and-Development/Plan-Review-Times

Current Delays

Please be aware that plan reviews are currently taking much longer than usual to complete. Permit application volumes are higher today than they were before the pandemic while at the same time the city, like many employers, has been impacted by considerable staffing and hiring challenges this year.

What's Being Done

We are pushing forward with aggressive hiring and recruitment efforts to get teams fully staffed and trained.

We have hired and are now using third-party plan review services to assist with the backlog of applications. The immediate focus is on residential plan reviews.

We have shifted administrative resources to field the high volume of status inquiries from customers so that plan reviewers have as much time as possible to complete plan reviews.

In addition to these immediate efforts, the city is exploring process improvements to reduce resubmittals and limit the impact on customers of staff vacations or turnover. To that end, projects are reviewed in the order they were received by the next available staff member -- instead of being placed in a particular reviewer's "queue." This means e-permits will no longer list a specific reviewer for your project until one is available and the project has been officially picked up for review by that individual.

[Robert.hampton]

https://gazette.com/denver-gazette/sidew...ca0-5a13-11ed-953c-5bf1629fc1a1.amp.html

Pretty spot-on op-Ed from councilman Flynn on how half baked the sidewalk fee proposal is.

[UrbanT]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

https://gazette.com/denver-gazette/sidew...ca0-5a13-11ed-953c-5bf1629fc1a1.amp.html

Pretty spot-on op-Ed from councilman Flynn on how half baked the sidewalk fee proposal is.

Denver gazette is trash. I voted yes. It’s not perfect but we will never get sidewalks if we keep waiting for perfect. We need sidewalks.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by UrbanT

Denver gazette is trash. I voted yes. It’s not perfect but we will never get sidewalks if we keep waiting for perfect. We need sidewalks.

Amen.

I personally won’t be listening to city leaders here. They have an incentive to not support this, as they will be forced into action. They’d rather be focusing on other projects (their pet issues), not this, and so of course they are opposed.

[DenverInfill]

I agree as well. The city has had decades to do something about sidewalks. The same people who have been doing nothing on this issue are now the ones complaining that it isn't perfect.

This is a great example of the citizens doing their homework--the Denver Streets Partnership and others researched this issue for years to identify the best (but not perfect) approach, and got the signatures to put it on the ballot.

YES on 307 so we can bring dignity, safety, convenience, and equity to the most basic form of human transportation. After all, the city's official plans and policies now place the pedestrian at the top of the priority pyramid for the use of the public right of way. This puts funding and action behind those promises.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by UrbanT

Denver gazette is trash. I voted yes. It’s not perfect but we will never get sidewalks if we keep waiting for perfect. We need sidewalks.

What's with the "Guilt by Association?"

AFAIK, The Denver Gazette is the ONLY non-liberal source of news in Denver. As an aside, the CU (medical) community holds a Schnitt-ton of gratitude for the owner of the Gazette. Its called the "University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus." I'd say it holds a close 2nd the the Mayo Clinic - Phoenix which is also relatively new.

It was Kevin Flynn who wrote that critique that was carried by the Gazette. Kevin is a Denver City Council member for SW Denver. It is well reasoned and factual as far as I could tell. That said, one could still choose to be in favor of passing the sidewalk initiative.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Amen.

I personally won’t be listening to city leaders here. They have an incentive to not support this, as they will be forced into action. They’d rather be focusing on other projects (their pet issues), not this, and so of course they are opposed.

I'll bet the farm that DOTI's assessment will be closer to reality.
Note: It's a toy farm but I'd still hate to lose it.

I would favor the initiative passing for one simple reason. Otherwise, I'd be afraid bunt could end up in a catatonic state which I don't want to have to envision.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Is this wager based upon market demand, or DOTI and CPD's ability to process the deluge of applications? I am not sure they can process 20% in two years, no matter what is happening with underlying fundamentals or any attributes of the projects themselves.

My bet is under 5 projects total in real terms break ground within 2 years (from that batch, obviously not overall).

I put that qualification in the tiny writing at the bottom of my post. You can't see it? Tough luck!

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

So far as processing goes I'd guess it will be more about how many projects even push ahead with the process; it may boil down to whether they want to spend the money or not.

Two years is a pretty big window. While many proposals likely die on the vine, I'll guess maybe half of the projects will move forward; how many actually break ground may be different.

A project that doesn't ground break is a dead project - at least technically in the City's system. They either move forward at a point in time or they are dead. They can be reinvigorated at a later date, but different codes, different design will apply.

Also, 2 years is a very short time in the development world. Come to think of it, I can't recall a single project that only took 2 years on the development side - not even a damn renovation project.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

https://gazette.com/denver-gazette/sidew...ca0-5a13-11ed-953c-5bf1629fc1a1.amp.html

Pretty spot-on op-Ed from councilman Flynn on how half baked the sidewalk fee proposal is.

I researched my property and being on a corner, I have 140 linear feet of sidewalk, which looks like it comes out to about $500 per year for us. The sidewalk is currently 17 years old and like new.

I looked up total replacement for it and it looks like maybe $9K to replace all of my 140 feet of sidewalk. So under this proposal, I'd be paying to replace my entire sidewalk every 18 years. I'd much prefer to just fix any part that becomes unusable as that occurs.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by UrbanT

Denver gazette is trash. I voted yes. It’s not perfect but we will never get sidewalks if we keep waiting for perfect. We need sidewalks.

Have folks never been to old Europe and experienced just how poor accessibility on many levels (in addition to sidewalks) is there for the majority of Europeans? All of the large European city centers and the smaller but dense towns strewn throughout have generally terrible sidewalks or none at all. Europe is big on shared infrastructure (ie road is the sidewalk) because they just don't have the space we do. There are spots of the big European city centers that offer amazing accessibility, but the vast majority of that continent has poor accessibility and somehow manages to out-live and out-smart us Americans. That said, their public transportation blows us out of the water. Are we missing something here?

I am all for sidewalks - we are a rich country and government on it's own should be able to provide this stuff for how much money they take in. That said, this conversation is one of luxury relative to much of the rest of the world.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I researched my property and being on a corner, I have 140 linear feet of sidewalk, which looks like it comes out to about $500 per year for us. The sidewalk is currently 17 years old and like new.

I looked up total replacement for it and it looks like maybe $9K to replace all of my 140 feet of sidewalk. So under this proposal, I'd be paying to replace my entire sidewalk every 18 years. I'd much prefer to just fix any part that becomes unusable as that occurs.

Looked up where? That is even less than the proponents' assumed replacement cost that has been heavily criticized by Councilman Flynn and others.

At DOTI's average replacement cost, you'd pay $53,000 for that job. You'd probably pay $40-50k if they did it for you (which under current law, they could order without your permission).

Sounds like you agree with the proponents that sidewalks could be replaced better and cheaper. You just didn't know it.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Looked up where? That is even less than the proponents' assumed replacement cost that has been heavily criticized by Councilman Flynn and others.

At DOTI's average replacement cost, you'd pay $53,000 for that job. You'd probably pay $40-50k if they did it for you (which under current law, they could order without your permission).

Sounds like you agree with the proponents that sidewalks could be replaced better and cheaper. You just didn't know it.

What happens if/when the program ends up costing 4x the proponents estimate? Do our taxes go up 4x, or we just wait 4x as long for the city to replace the sidewalks?

Everyone agrees that sidewalks can and should be dealt with better and cheaper in this city - but that doesn't mean you should support this fee structure. Opponents, like Mayor Webb think it should actually reflect a user fee, not a provider fee as Flynn alludes to in the op-ed.

And I still can't get over the fact a bunch of progressive white people behind this thought the best way to make it equitable was to give a tax break to other progressive white people who are moving into gentrifying neighborhoods

[TakeFive]

Social Equity and Justice; Where the Sidewalk Ends

I have developed very different thoughts about these concepts than those who are much smarter, or at least better educated than I am. I did think Keven Flynn did a nice job of poking holes in how this was handled for sidewalks.

I spend plenty of time 'driving' east of the '51' freeway in Phoenix and in Scottsdale. For variety I like to spend a few hours a day, a couple of times a week 'working' the West Side.

Lots of immigrants in Phoenix and I recently had a string of Asians from China, from So Korea and even Taiwan. Regardless of where in the world we come from people are quite intuitive. It's obvious I'm an elder white guy but riders quickly pick up that I'm friendly and without prejudice. That opens the door to a few minutes of feedback.

Immigrants are of course concerned about the cost of housing. They also are concerned about the rising costs of groceries. Uber/Lyft obviously provide access to wherever they want to shop for groceries. One thing they all have in common is that the safety and welfare of their children are of utmost importance. They may live in crummy houses or modest apartments but I've never heard anyone complain about the crummy sidewalks.

One thing I've found curious is that educated liberal elites are convinced they know what's best for 'the poors' - what they should want and not want. I question their 'street' wisdom.

Being NOT a hard right conservative, one thing I fear about the results of tomorrow's elections (maybe not in Colorado/Denver) is that Republicans will increase their support from minority voters; whether deserved or not is a different question.

Wherever the Sidewalk Ends after tomorrow's vote will be fine with me.

[CONative]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I researched my property and being on a corner, I have 140 linear feet of sidewalk, which looks like it comes out to about $500 per year for us. The sidewalk is currently 17 years old and like new.

I looked up total replacement for it and it looks like maybe $9K to replace all of my 140 feet of sidewalk. So under this proposal, I'd be paying to replace my entire sidewalk every 18 years. I'd much prefer to just fix any part that becomes unusable as that occurs.

As I do, you live in Central Park and your extra mill levies and property taxes (which are considerably higher than a house in Denver that isn't part of a metro district) have been paying for the infrastructure that includes your sidewalk and the sidewalks of Central Park for years (and years to come). You will continue paying for that ON TOP of putting into the general pot for you and everyone else if the proposal passes. Just another 'unfair' portion of the proposal for thousands of homeowners.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by CONative

As I do, you live in Central Park and your extra mill levies and property taxes (which are considerably higher than a house in Denver that isn't part of a metro district) have been paying for the infrastructure that includes your sidewalk and the sidewalks of Central Park for years (and years to come). You will continue paying for that ON TOP of putting into the general pot for you and everyone else if the proposal passes. Just another 'unfair' portion of the proposal for thousands of homeowners.

Unfair if you don’t think sidewalks are a common good. I think the proposal is fair in the long-term, but there’s certainly a lot neighborhoods, well at least Central Park, that did pay their infrastructure that get screwed.

I have a short sidewalk frontage so if it passes the impact on me is minimal. Ultimately I’m ambivalent.

[bunt_q]

Metro districts and HOAs rarely if ever pay for sidewalk replacements. Central Park is still paying for the original construction - but that's no different from any other new development that has to repay its capital costs while also paying for citywide ongoing maintenance. That's fairly rare in Denver but totally common elsewhere - it's the price of new development. I would be shocked if the metro districts has any intention of doing long term sidewalk maintenance. That would be pretty unique in Colorado.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Unfair if you don’t think sidewalks are a common good. I think the proposal is fair in the long-term.

If its a common good then everyone should pay a (relatively) fair share, no?