DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

Thursday's feedback

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Do businesses EVER say it's easy to do business somewhere? If I owned a company I can't fathom what situation would make me say "yeah the amount of regulation I deal with is just right, and prices for everything are great!"

Well the guys from Calgary would rather be in Denver as Calgary is struggling to the point they're trying to figure out if they can convert (empty) office towers into apartments.

The group from Toronto has heard good things about Denver and of course I told them about Amacon's new condo towers.

The gang from Dallas hit Denver during the cold snap but when they got to Frisco the temperature was 30 degrees so very nice for skiing - but they like living in Dallas.

The threesome from Indonesia know of Denver but much prefer Phoenix.

But when it comes to businesses, costs of doing business are high on the priority list but not the only thing that is considered.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by laniroj

You can put my company in the 'growing out of state' bucket. Not that it's gotten too difficult here, it's just easier elsewhere. All the little things add up - especially in the City of Denver. Hopefully Polis takes note of this through his second term and doesn't do anything else to worsen the situation. In the past 15 years, we've rapidly headed toward an entrenched, overregulated blue state and that pace is accelerating today. We do still have TABOR though, so there is that backstop to government growth.

Curious about what industry you work in and what specific regulations you're trying to escape. I'd imagine if you are in resource extraction or manufacturing the grass may be greener elsewhere. For a lot of other industries you may have negative impacts from moving to a red state as well - like it may be harder to attract talent willing to relocate, especially as GOP governors continue to ramp up culture wars.

I'm mostly asking because Colorado does not have a heavy regulatory regime compared to a lot of red states. I mean you can't just dump your waste in a pit, but it could be much worse. We're still an at-will state.

I would definitely agree with Brainpathology that the wording on these survey questions is key - few people will ever say that they pay too little in taxes, or that they need further regulation, and everyone would like to pay less or deal with less regulation. But they would probably respond differently if you also included the consequences - I wonder how voters in the Springs would have reacted to "would you want to pay less in taxes but not have working streetlights?"

I think this goes for surveys about construction and development too - no one is going to respond positively to "Should we build something that blocks your view of the mountains?", but adding "if it reduces housing costs in the area?" might change that response rate.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

We're still an at-will state.

That's not a good talking point.

All states in the U.S., excluding Montana, are at-will.

The more important issue would be "Right-to-Work" and the map shows that Red states are Right-to-Work while blue states are not.
Note: For the most part Unions have NOT been a problem in Colorado especially with respect to construction.

Forget surveys; except that they do paint a perception picture presumably for reasons.

For companies looking to relocate or expand there's a whole industry of "site-finders" that have crunched tons of data for companies to consider. Denver has often hosted these groups from time to time.

CNBC now rates Colorado 36th in "COST OF DOING BUSINESS" and that is before implementation of the new Family and Medical Leave Insurance program. Colorado does rate high on several other categories including "Workforce" however.

Previously pointed out
with the exception of Delaware, nine of the Top Ten growing states by percentage are Red states. Good guess there's good reasons for this.

Culture Wars
could be a problem for some but if you're in the construction business probably not so much.

I hate them but it is fair to say that Republicans are very good at exploiting these issues, the latest being the threatened ban on gas stoves. It's rarely a good idea to threaten people with taking away something they like. I have to say Environmentalists are lousy politicians.

Props to Trump

for enabling Democrats to sweep the top state offices and Senate race in Arizona so for now culture issues won't be a problem. For example, Flakey Kari Lake for Governor and the other losers, drew fewer votes than normal Republicans running for various other offices including Federal Representatives that weren't 'election deniers' and conspiracy advocates.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

That's not a good talking point.

The more important issue would be "Right-to-Work" and the map shows that Red states are Right-to-Work while blue states are not.
Note: For the most part Unions have NOT been a problem in Colorado especially with respect to construction.

Colorado like to bill itself as a modified right to work state. The bar for unionization is pretty high and requires a double election with 75% majority required for a shop to go union.

As for the CNBC ratings, you could have mentioned that the Cost of Doing Business was Colorado's lowest ranking but in aggregate it was listed as the #4 state for business.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Colorado like to bill itself as a modified right to work state. The bar for unionization is pretty high and requires a double election with 75% majority required for a shop to go union.

As for the CNBC ratings, you could have mentioned that the Cost of Doing Business was Colorado's lowest ranking but in aggregate it was listed as the #4 state for business.

Very Fair

Colorado is benefitting from a nice glow (presently) but there are what I would call lagging and leading indicators. If you were to go outside and stand still you might feel the ground moving underneath your feet.

Colorado/Denver has been enjoying a growing tech presence including bio-tech. While the city is at the center there's no question that the SE Corridor as well as the "Boulder Turnpike" corridor grab a lot of the economic clout as well. It all points to growing 'elitism' if affordability is your bag.

Taking yourself for granted can come at your own peril. Big Tech is no longer printing money at the same rate and I've read that Bio-science has already peaked with respect to venture capital etc. Austin can take itself for granted because it's in Texas.

Denver can probably holds its own along the lines of Seattle where it still has good appeal but continues to become less affordable.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Curious about what industry you work in and what specific regulations you're trying to escape. I'd imagine if you are in resource extraction or manufacturing the grass may be greener elsewhere. For a lot of other industries you may have negative impacts from moving to a red state as well - like it may be harder to attract talent willing to relocate, especially as GOP governors continue to ramp up culture wars.

I'm mostly asking because Colorado does not have a heavy regulatory regime compared to a lot of red states. I mean you can't just dump your waste in a pit, but it could be much worse. We're still an at-will state.

I would definitely agree with Brainpathology that the wording on these survey questions is key - few people will ever say that they pay too little in taxes, or that they need further regulation, and everyone would like to pay less or deal with less regulation. But they would probably respond differently if you also included the consequences - I wonder how voters in the Springs would have reacted to "would you want to pay less in taxes but not have working streetlights?"

I think this goes for surveys about construction and development too - no one is going to respond positively to "Should we build something that blocks your view of the mountains?", but adding "if it reduces housing costs in the area?" might change that response rate.

I do large scale real estate development. Like with many things, the devil is always in the details. I'd rather not bore people with the many ways it's gotten incredibly tough over the years, but it's essentially the culmination of dozens of small changes that add up to a huge issue. Many well intended efforts have made their way through Colorado regulatory bodies in the past decade. The vast majority of those things serve/protect/enhance a tiny miniscule of the overall population. Some of the regulatory issues passed are less well intended and are anti-development in nature. The bottom line for development, much like it is for business in general, is that folks will keep at it until it becomes easier to do the same thing somewhere else.

Most people I interact with and most things I read about capitalism generally scrutinize from the viewpoint that success is a sure thing or at the very least, likely to happen. It feels to me like the majority of people have no idea how risky the various forms of development are or how tough it is to start a successful small business or how much financial/human resource large companies put into staying relevant. IMO folks in our country take capitalism and free trade largely for granted and don't appreciate just how fragile the whole system is. Most companies are not the unicorns we see in headlines.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Colorado like to bill itself as a modified right to work state. The bar for unionization is pretty high and requires a double election with 75% majority required for a shop to go union.

You don't need to be a pro-union state anymore to be bad for business in the traditional sense. You can, you know, just legislate things like higher minimum wages, better working conditions, paid family leave, minimum medical benefits, all of the stuff that in the olden days you needed to union to get. Which single-party blue states are doing all over the place, Colorado included.

[i4isoar]

Originally Posted by rds70

Speaking of Englewood, this 14 story, 240 unit building just broke ground directly east of the Swedish Medical Center on Emerson:

Good job, Englewood! Happy to see the smaller cities of the metro area getting their own share of high-rises.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

You can have a voice for the future of both Parks and Housing Affordability in Denver. I know most EVERYONE - hopefully not including you - hates political outreach, but sometimes it is necessary for our collective future. I hope you decide to keep reading because this is a ballot measure that I think deserves your thoughtful consideration.

As a Denver local myself, I am humbly asking you for a YES vote on April 4th to overturn the Conservation Easement on the Park Hill Golf Course. This Easement states that the land has to remain ONLY a for-profit golf course with 18 holes until 2099, even though it has been closed for 4 years and still uses 106 million gallons of water annually to maintain. It is also only 11 blocks from the publicly-owned City Park Golf Course, which is equally accessible and inclusive to all.

Thanks for bringing this to the attention of this board. I might very well go to the meeting.

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Why this? It seems like you're trading one conservation easement to another, which is conservation of views of people who won't live there.

Denver's mountains aren't so unimpressive that the views have to be protected from every structure in town. If there's actually going to be a park there people could view the mountains from there. OR go only 11 blocks to city park which is equally accessible and inclusive to all, supposedly.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

12 floors, urban development doesn’t always need skyscrapers to be successful or needed. Also, skyscraper units tend to be much pricier and the goal is to add loads of supply.

I am usually opposed to any kind of restriction on building heights (other than height minimums). However, in this particular case, I would imagine that even 5- or 6-floor mid-rise apartment buildings are far more preferable than acres of unused golf course wasting water and space, and better than single-family homes, for that matter. Though I'd have to see what exactly the plans for the area are before I finalize my thoughts on the matter.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by laniroj

I do large scale real estate development. Like with many things, the devil is always in the details. I'd rather not bore people with the many ways it's gotten incredibly tough over the years, but it's essentially the culmination of dozens of small changes that add up to a huge issue. Many well intended efforts have made their way through Colorado regulatory bodies in the past decade. The vast majority of those things serve/protect/enhance a tiny miniscule of the overall population. Some of the regulatory issues passed are less well intended and are anti-development in nature. The bottom line for development, much like it is for business in general, is that folks will keep at it until it becomes easier to do the same thing somewhere else.

Most people I interact with and most things I read about capitalism generally scrutinize from the viewpoint that success is a sure thing or at the very least, likely to happen. It feels to me like the majority of people have no idea how risky the various forms of development are or how tough it is to start a successful small business or how much financial/human resource large companies put into staying relevant. IMO folks in our country take capitalism and free trade largely for granted and don't appreciate just how fragile the whole system is. Most companies are not the unicorns we see in headlines.

The public will never empathize with the plight of developers, but you're right.

One point they don't get is that the cost of new development helps set the floor for the rent/cost of everthing that already exists -- at least in any growing city. Development only happens when the market's rents are high enough to justify the costs, and if those costs are 20% higher than they need to be...

Another is that a ton of projects are attempted but don't happen, whether it's a great economy or a bad one. It's tough to make stuff pencil. And it can be even tougher to get financing. (This is more noticable in my city, where we see glossy design review presentations 12-24 months before groundbreaking for anything major.

A third is that many projects lose money. People act like 2001 and 2008 (as well as some recent years) didn't happen. Choosing to develop is risking your entire investment other than maybe paying yourself a salary along the way.

[mojiferous]

Thanks mhays and laniroj - I would be interested for a deeper dive into the specifics here, just to get a sense of the laws and issues, even if they aren't Denver-specific - like for example if construction limits in Lakewood cause price pressure on Denver. Most of the billion Denver mayoral candidates are now deep in the dog and pony show stage of their campaigns and they're all going to events to talk to the public, so it's a good time to plant earworms and discuss construction, housing and regulation. And even if they end up losing the election most of them are influential within their own communities and industries.




And as a side topic - I know the industry has lobbyists, and your companies probably pay them a decent amount of money, but they aren't doing a great job. You should definitely fire all of them and find new ones, or pressure your industry groups to do so. I am an outsider but follow development issues pretty closely and only had the vaguest of notions that it might be more expensive to build here. I have heard talk about the ease of development in red states, but never specifics. And many of those conversations are tainted with current politics - grumbling about red states vs blue states right now is not going to convince anyone in a blue city that you have legitimate complaints and is more likely to make you seem like a Q-addled election denier making increasingly-crazy claims.

I have said this before and will repeat it again - the real estate development industry needs lobbyists and advocates that are able to communicate with diverse groups of people. Communication, marketing, information warfare - call it what you want, but your industry seems to have zero external capability. In Denver and elsewhere you are losing the information battle to status-quo preserving boomers and progressive activists who see your industry as the #1 cause of high housing prices and "change". They are loud and active and will continue to cause you political and regulatory headaches if you don't change anything. Some of that may be driven by the fact that your industry groups focus is too broad - it would be hard to push for urban densification as an environmentalist issue when you are also lobbying for large-scale greenfield subdivision developers. Or for abolition of parking minimums when you represent strip mall developers. But something needs to change.

I know it seems impossible to convince the public of anything, but I really think part of that is a lack of communication to counter anti-development. Most of the counter arguments for anti-development talking points never make it past development-specific forums and into the wider world. If you can't get solid, well-thought-out information into the hands of the public and politicians nothing will ever change.

[TakeFive]

With respect to the City

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Thanks mhays and laniroj - I would be interested for a deeper dive into the specifics here, just to get a sense of the laws and issues, even if they aren't Denver-specific - like for example if construction limits in Lakewood cause price pressure on Denver. Most of the billion Denver mayoral candidates are now deep in the dog and pony show stage of their campaigns and they're all going to events to talk to the public, so it's a good time to plant earworms and discuss construction, housing and regulation. And even if they end up losing the election most of them are influential within their own communities and industries.

You don't have to go back very far to see Exhibit A

City Council mandates developers help solve Denver’s housing crisis — even if some don’t want to

Late Monday night, City Council voted 10-1 to change the city’s zoning code to force developers to play a larger role in solving the city’s affordable housing crisis.

One of the convincing arguments was the Progressive theme than not enough housing is being built so we need to focus on creating more housing and more affordable housing. This has become a national progressive theme but the argument is often soiled by using owner-occupied data and overlooking the growth in rental housing. We've become more and more a rental nation. How can one argue that the city center isn't building enough density; are these councilors living under a rock?

The arguments against using developers as an easy target

RiNo developer Andy Feinstein has been an outspoken critic of the proposal, arguing it will disincentivize new construction in Denver.

“Anytime the government sticks its nose in the private market of homebuilding, they make the problem worse,” he said. “It always happens. It happens everywhere: Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Los Angeles.”

What's notable here is that Andrew Feinstein is a long-time local entrepreneurial business person. He has deep roots in Denver, the city center and the gay community.

Death by a thousand cuts

laniroj was very clear that it's often the little things that accumulate. Taken individually they may seem to make good sense but the question should be "Were they really necessary?"

Larger, national developers are sophisticated enough to plug in the impact of various regulations. If the economy can support ever increasing rents then builders will build. (So much for making housing more affordable) If new projects won't pencil then they'll move their development capital and projects elsewhere.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

And as a side topic - I know the industry has lobbyists, and your companies probably pay them a decent amount of money, but they aren't doing a great job. You should definitely fire all of them and find new ones, or pressure your industry groups to do so. I am an outsider but follow development issues pretty closely and only had the vaguest of notions that it might be more expensive to build here. I have heard talk about the ease of development in red states, but never specifics. And many of those conversations are tainted with current politics - grumbling about red states vs blue states right now is not going to convince anyone in a blue city that you have legitimate complaints and is more likely to make you seem like a Q-addled election denier making increasingly-crazy claims.

I have said this before and will repeat it again - the real estate development industry needs lobbyists and advocates that are able to communicate with diverse groups of people. Communication, marketing, information warfare - call it what you want, but your industry seems to have zero external capability. In Denver and elsewhere you are losing the information battle to status-quo preserving boomers and progressive activists who see your industry as the #1 cause of high housing prices and "change". They are loud and active and will continue to cause you political and regulatory headaches if you don't change anything. Some of that may be driven by the fact that your industry groups focus is too broad - it would be hard to push for urban densification as an environmentalist issue when you are also lobbying for large-scale greenfield subdivision developers. Or for abolition of parking minimums when you represent strip mall developers. But something needs to change.

I know it seems impossible to convince the public of anything, but I really think part of that is a lack of communication to counter anti-development. Most of the counter arguments for anti-development talking points never make it past development-specific forums and into the wider world. If you can't get solid, well-thought-out information into the hands of the public and politicians nothing will ever change.

All true.

In Washington the industry has been doing better than most. Or more accurately a broad coalition agrees with basic realities. People largely buy into the idea that we need more supply for price, equity, etc. Local governments have to accommodate significant growth by law. Liberalized zoning proposals are winning polls and we're likely to free things up more this year -- quads allowed everywhere? We make our share of bad decisions too of course.

PS, I'm just a one-person writing/research firm at this point! Used to be with a bigger firm though.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

I know it seems impossible to convince the public of anything, but I really think part of that is a lack of communication to counter anti-development. Most of the counter arguments for anti-development talking points never make it past development-specific forums and into the wider world. If you can't get solid, well-thought-out information into the hands of the public and politicians nothing will ever change.

I don't know if this is a Colorado-specific phenomenon, but I doubt it. We are also contending with opposition to development - not just in the "building this building" development sense - but opposition to development and population growth at all. That, at least, I think also distinguishes from some places, certainly the Sun Belt. A sizable proportion of Coloradans aren't seeing it as a debate between responsible growth vs. sprawl; a tall building in my neighborhood vs. unaffordability. The real myth we need to dispel is what a planning professor many many years ago described as "ray gun growth control." People still think you can just ban growth from Colorado. And their line of thinking is not wrong insofar as, if that was possible, the rest of these discussions - affordability, traffic, etc. etc. - go away. Would Colorado's economy collapse? Sure. Would we revert to a latter day version of John Dutton's Montana? Sure. But we're mostly pretty rich - a bunch of folks who already got theirs - and I think if it was remotely possible to just turn off the spigot, a majority would vote for the ray gun. It's not, of course, but that bit of seemingly obvious convincing is difficult. But folks have to accept the bad news that growth is coming before we can take the more nuanced steps. I think that fundamental bit of denialism is an undercurrent that continues to run through so many of our policy decisions, at least (and especially) those decisions being made by folks outside of central Denver.

[TakeFive]

Piper Sandler to the Rescue

Piper Sandler Looks Toward Investment in the Rocky Mountain Region in 2023
January 16, 2023 - Mile High CRE

In 2022, Piper Sandler’s Colorado public finance group moved into its new Denver headquarters in the Class A office tower at 1144 Fifteenth Street. The company’s 39 Denver-based employees now occupy more than 12,000 square feet on the 20th floor of the building which was developed by Hines and opened in 2018.

Despite significant market changes, the company continued its work to support housing affordability and is now looking forward to what the company – and the industry – can expect in 2023.

Me? Totally clueless but I assume somebody has heard of these guys since they grease the wheels for new affordable housing.

Piper Sandler spent much of 2022 focusing on education and the vital role that metropolitan districts play in communities across Colorado. The group is active in setting the legislative agenda through the Metro District Education Coalition, which it helped found. MDEC was successful in passing a significant metro district reform bill (Senate Bill 262) in 2021 and was active in the most recent legislative session advocating for common sense reforms that work towards housing affordability in the region.

Tell me more about new affordable housing?

Piper Sandler continues to be heavily invested in supporting the creation of attainable housing. While affordability has been a problem in the region for years, it is now becoming increasingly so due to the increase in mortgage rates that occurred in 2022.

The environment may be challenging, but we are definitely investing, not retreating.”

“Texas builds four times as many homes each year as Colorado,” said Sam Sharp, managing director and head of the Special District Group at Piper Sandler. “We have had incredible success in Colorado, and we see big opportunities to continue growing...

Is there any doubt that Colorado needs more new affordable housing?

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mhays

...A third is that many projects lose money. People act like 2001 and 2008 (as well as some recent years) didn't happen. Choosing to develop is risking your entire investment other than maybe paying yourself a salary along the way.

Close but not quite. Developing is risking your entire investment and, typically, much more. Non-recourse debt is available, but the vast majority of debt comes with guarantees. Those are provided in many forms (individual, corporate, LOC, balance sheet, etc etc), the point being that much more than the project level investment 'cash' is ultimately at risk. It's the current investment plus some/all of the economics from past successes. So yeah, the returns from a few go to pay the failures of many more and hopefully you come out ahead.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

...And as a side topic - I know the industry has lobbyists, and your companies probably pay them a decent amount of money, but they aren't doing a great job. You should definitely fire all of them and find new ones, or pressure your industry groups to do so. I am an outsider but follow development issues pretty closely and only had the vaguest of notions that it might be more expensive to build here. I have heard talk about the ease of development in red states, but never specifics. And many of those conversations are tainted with current politics - grumbling about red states vs blue states right now is not going to convince anyone in a blue city that you have legitimate complaints and is more likely to make you seem like a Q-addled election denier making increasingly-crazy claims.

I have said this before and will repeat it again - the real estate development industry needs lobbyists and advocates that are able to communicate with diverse groups of people. Communication, marketing, information warfare - call it what you want, but your industry seems to have zero external capability. In Denver and elsewhere you are losing the information battle to status-quo preserving boomers and progressive activists who see your industry as the #1 cause of high housing prices and "change". They are loud and active and will continue to cause you political and regulatory headaches if you don't change anything. Some of that may be driven by the fact that your industry groups focus is too broad - it would be hard to push for urban densification as an environmentalist issue when you are also lobbying for large-scale greenfield subdivision developers. Or for abolition of parking minimums when you represent strip mall developers. But something needs to change...

Having done a bit of this in the past what I will say is this, and it's simply my experience not necessarily fact. I think the general sentiment of the development community regarding lobbyists and active code/process/law changes is that most developers are hesitant to join such efforts because they are afraid to bite the hand that feeds them. Ultimately, projects are complicated and require negotiation and compromise on the part of jurisdictions and private entities, despite Denver and many city's best efforts to make a rule for everything in zoning codes or comprehensive plans or design guidelines. That fear largely means most developers might give some nominal amount of money ($500) to a Mayoral or Council candidate and support a local community cause or two here or there for the district a project of theirs is in, but that's about where it ends (I know, what about the bribes, collusion, and all these other conspiracy theories?!). Especially when it comes to big projects, developers are very cautious with optics, politics, etc.

When politicians get an idea in their head, good luck trying to stop them.

One way to move the needle would be to have more people who actually develop sitting on the boards and committees which shape development policy. All too often, those things are filled with special interest groups and a token 'developer'. As a result, lots of stuff those committees pass which lead to 'reforms' negatively affects the development process, cost, etc. to serve a special interest/need. That's not necessarily bad taken one thing at a time, but over time it becomes a complex beast that nobody can even follow. That said, I agree that the development community doesn't participate nearly enough in those sorts of efforts and that's their own durn fault.

^Case in point, the City passes a transportation demand management plan requirement, so you go through the plan and determine the best fit for your project and submit said plan
Gubment responds: plan isn't adequate you need to provide monthly transportation passes for all units
Developer: Can't do it, that will add 5-7% to the rent we need to achieve to make the project work and those are not achievable rents. How about we provide it to 10% of all units to match up with public transportation participation nationwide?
Gubment: (2 months and 1% cost inflation later) No, it must be all units
Developer: Ok, the project is dead
Gubment (3 months and 3% cost inflation later): Ok, do the 10%
Developer: Great, but the project now has a 3% cost gap so we can only do 5% of units or we can just follow the original transportation demand management plan we submitted
Gubment: (2 months and 1% cost inflation later plus 10% increase in water/tap fees because it's a new year) ok please resubmit the original transportation demand management plan, that will work.

Simple stuff like this routinely progresses in the above fashion and this is but one example of a vast network of regulation all residential development (except single family homes) have to navigate. The process itself is probably close to 10% of total project cost when you factor in delays, administration, inflation, etc.

Ultimately, I've just reduced my thinking to 'this problem will solve itself when less old people vote and attend public meetings'. TakeFive will hate me for that stance, but it really is a thing. I see no way way of moving the public opinion needle short of different age demographics and I'm starting to think this generational shift might not even work (but I still have hope that will happen).

[mhays]

I suspect the bigger shift is having a few sane, reasonable people in key positions including government and media. It doesn't take many to start shifting things, even if it takes years. A few voices in the progressive media in my region have had an enormous effect.

Much of the country is generally good with infill, or at least policy makes it relatively easy. I mean the high-growth South, the low-growth Midwest, and even my corner of the sprawl-restricting West Coast.

The key is framing the discussion in terms people agree with. Cut sprawl to save natural areas and farms. Allow infill and reasonable outward growth because people need housing. Allow missing-middle housing to ensure opportunity at moderate incomes. Allow smaller micros for the same reason. Pass state policies with these principles and include every city over a certain size so places aren't just enclaves of the rich not doing their share.

This is how it works in my area, where every city accepts significant growth, some are going above the requirements and planning for massive gains in their 20-year plans, and the question is how much more the state will liberalize the rules this year.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I don't know if this is a Colorado-specific phenomenon, but I doubt it. We are also contending with opposition to development - not just in the "building this building" development sense - but opposition to development and population growth at all.

The real myth we need to dispel is what a planning professor many many years ago described as "ray gun growth control." People still think you can just ban growth from Colorado.

I think that fundamental bit of denialism is an undercurrent that continues to run through so many of our policy decisions, at least (and especially) those decisions being made by folks outside of central Denver.

I can confirm that this very specific type of insane logic is very, very prevalent in lefty and progressive circles. People who think that by stopping all development and preventing people moving to low income or majority-minority neighborhoods will somehow magically fix housing inequality and stop gentrification. The worst part is that some people are discussing legal approaches to preventing people from developing or buying in neighborhoods with a straight face - not even realizing that laws like that would immediately be used against the people they purport to protect and totally blind to the authoritarian aspects. We call them "little Stalins", partially because I'm pretty sure they would prefer to build Soviet-era concrete blocks for everyone rather than searching for better solutions.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Having done a bit of this in the past what I will say is this, and it's simply my experience not necessarily fact. I think the general sentiment of the development community regarding lobbyists and active code/process/law changes is that most developers are hesitant to join such efforts because they are afraid to bite the hand that feeds them. Ultimately, projects are complicated and require negotiation and compromise on the part of jurisdictions and private entities, despite Denver and many city's best efforts to make a rule for everything in zoning codes or comprehensive plans or design guidelines. That fear largely means most developers might give some nominal amount of money ($500) to a Mayoral or Council candidate and support a local community cause or two here or there for the district a project of theirs is in, but that's about where it ends (I know, what about the bribes, collusion, and all these other conspiracy theories?!). Especially when it comes to big projects, developers are very cautious with optics, politics, etc.

That's actually very interesting, because I kind of assumed the development community had more active lobbying or central marketing groups, but it sounds like the opposite is true and it's company by company, every person for themselves. Which would make sense why some developers have excellent communications and don't seem to have as many issues as others.

I also totally understand the sentiment to avoid any kind of influence campaigns, because so many people assume every politician is in the pocket of the developers and that construction is "too easy".

And maybe that's why this should be a broader community YIMBY effort, led by people aware of the issues for everyone: affordability, inequality, regulation, legislative issues. And represented by people outside of the industry.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I don't know if this is a Colorado-specific phenomenon, but I doubt it. We are also contending with opposition to development - not just in the "building this building" development sense - but opposition to development and population growth at all...

Interestingly, Colorado Springs enacted a natural gas permit connection moratorium in the early 70's. I think it lasted a year or so. The 70's were also the scene for the infamous NATIVE bumper sticker debate. Hell, the true natives used to burn entire forests down to keep the white man from settling. The anti-growth conversation is nothing new, but here's my thought...

Most folks up until the 1940's generally led a tough life. Laboring at work with physically grueling jobs and at home with many not having time/labor saving appliances, struggling to get by much moreso than current standards would dictate. Growth meant many of them tangibly improved their quality of life in ways people today cannot possibly understand. Once life got easy starting in the 1950's for the majority of folks, then started the "I've got mine" mentality and now here we are.