DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

There is a 6 year statute of limitations on filing a defects lawsuit in Colorado, and I have yet to hear of an apartment complex younger than that which was converted to condos. Plus unless there has been a case before that has resolved the issue, it could very much be up in the air how the ruling would go.



http://www.hkjp.com/Articles-Table-of-Co...-Litigation-Primer-011508-2-00174608.pdf

There is an open question of whether the conversion to condos itself would constitute enough construction that it'd negate the running of the statute of limitations back to the initial construction. Then you're into a game of whether the defect was tied to original construction - and thus barred by the SOL - or whether it's tied to work during the conversion. I've heard it might be gray enough that developers and insurers will be just as leery with respect to condo conversions.

[EngiNerd]

I just sneakily edited right before you posted which address exactly what you said.

There is also this:
http://www.coloradoconstructionlaw.com/c...oses-of-the-economic-loss-rule.html#more

And yes I completely agree, it would have to be determined then at that point whether it was the original construction or the new construction which caused the defect. And really it could be a moot point in that most defects are foundation or exterior facade related, which in an apartment-to-condo conversion, those elements would most likely not be touched since it would get pricey, and there would be no reason. We would primarily just be talking about, at most, changing interior finishes or floor plans for the conversion.

I would think the main reason that the conversions are not very likely happen except in special cases is that these days, most apartments are designed a certain way which would not lend themselves to converting to a condo very well, unless they were originally designed with larger floor plans, storage, etc. that homeowners would want.

[FrancoRey]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

There is a 6 year statute of limitations on filing a defects lawsuit in Colorado, and I have yet to hear of an apartment complex younger than that which was converted to condos. Plus unless there has been a case before that has resolved the issue, it could very much be up in the air how the ruling would go. Now if say improvements were made to the property to convert to condo, then it could reset the clock so to speak on those new improvements, but everything previous would not apply.



http://www.hkjp.com/Articles-Table-of-Co...-Litigation-Primer-011508-2-00174608.pdf

Nice. Thanks. I figured there was something in the law like that.

Hopefully it all won't matter soon. I long for the day when decent condos start outnumbering the cheaper looking block apts going up on our precious lots. I really am concerned with how they will look in 20+ years.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There is an open question of whether the conversion to condos itself would constitute enough construction that it'd negate the running of the statute of limitations back to the initial construction. Then you're into a game of whether the defect was tied to original construction - and thus barred by the SOL - or whether it's tied to work during the conversion. I've heard it might be gray enough that developers and insurers will be just as leery with respect to condo conversions.

In order to remove the "gray area" would it be possible to sell the units as a conversion utilizing the "as Is' language? The "as is" could be a discount from full retail as a renovated unit. Could they also offer a rebate from retail that buyers could use to contract out for improvements on their own from either a recommended contractor or anyone they wanted?

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

As far as local ordinances go, they may or may not help is my sense. There's clearly uncertainty around whether in fact a home rule city can overrule the legislature on this point. Unfortunately, insurers and developers aren't likely to risk the uncertainty, even if more cities act to try to supersede state law.

Not what I wanted to hear. If there's one thing that markets ie. investors abhor it's uncertainty beyond the normal risks. Bad news they can deal with; they can assess it and make decisions. The unknown is a total wild card for them.

That said, I would like to see Denver (and anyone else) proceed with passing their own construction defects ordinance. It would make a significant statement.

The state has been trending back to the red and if control of both chambers went Republican then things could be resolved quickly.

As for addressing risk and fears of potential buyers beyond what's provided by the new legislation, this should be handled at the municipal level. Cities or an association of cities could set up a risk pool similar to what the Realtor Association has to address people who are harmed. A process could decide each complaint (for the pool purposes) over and above or separate from what builders were willing or able to do under normal warranties as provided for under the new legislative bill. The "pool"would by nature be limited with specific caps but could provide a second layer or backup protection to the new/normal arbitration process. Beyond that it has to be caveat emptor.

[DownhomeDenver]

Originally Posted by FrancoRey

Nice. Thanks. I figured there was something in the law like that.

Hopefully it all won't matter soon. I long for the day when decent condos start outnumbering the cheaper looking block apts going up on our precious lots. I really am concerned with how they will look in 20+ years.

They may not even be there any longer in 20 years. we have plenty of precious-er lots to worry about.

[RyanD]

Downhome - Saw your new signature, looked up Paris, Texas, was not disappointed.


http://www.texasescapes.com/

[bcp]

is the state politician (can't recall her name in boulder...) just getting a total "pass" on this from the locals / press? It was sent to committee to die...even with good support from both sides, developers, and affordable housing advocates.

where's the outrage colorado?

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by bcp

is the state politician (can't recall her name in boulder...) just getting a total "pass" on this from the locals / press? It was sent to committee to die...even with good support from both sides, developers, and affordable housing advocates.

where's the outrage colorado?

Next year is a real opportunity to move votes. With an election year the prospect or threats of developer money flooding to one or more opponents could be enough to make a difference. Also, would like to see the Republicans get creative. Find an appropriate Democratic priority and hold it hostage until the jam breaks.

A little Frank Underwood may be called for.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Next year is a real opportunity to move votes. With an election year the prospect or threats of developer money flooding to one or more opponents could be enough to make a difference. Also, would like to see the Republicans get creative. Find an appropriate Democratic priority and hold it hostage until the jam breaks.

A little Frank Underwood may be called for.

www.clickypix.com


Typically they don't push for a high stakes poker game in an election year at the legislature. But if they want to make the issue a centerpiece of the election... who knows, it might work.

[TakeFive]

Caught Another One

www.tripadvisor.com


"Butler Snow law firm moves into 1801 California"
Apr 30, 2015 by Monica Mendoza, Denver Business Journal

Butler Snow, a Mississippi-based law firm with 300 attorneys across the country and in London, is leasing 22,000 square feet in the downtown tower.

The firm's attorneys had been working in the Denver Tech Center with a focus on public finance, tax incentive and credit markets. But the firm needed a little more elbow room.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Next year is a real opportunity to move votes. With an election year the prospect or threats of developer money flooding to one or more opponents could be enough to make a difference. Also, would like to see the Republicans get creative. Find an appropriate Democratic priority and hold it hostage until the jam breaks.

A little Frank Underwood may be called for.

As I understand it, the defects issue won’t be voted on next year because it’s too controversial for an election year, so we’ll be waiting at least two years. I can’t remember where I read that. It might have been a DB J article. I would like to think I’m wrong.

Your second idea is abhorrent to me. It’s just that kind of politicking that has completely broken Washington. The very tactic you’re suggesting causes jams; it doesn’t relieve them.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

The very tactic you’re suggesting causes jams; it doesn’t relieve them.

We already have a jam. If one side is unwilling to compromise on a middle ground bill, then that's the game, don't be naive. Also, those tactics are not what has broken Washington - the fact that the two sides really are that far apart has broken Washington. There is no middle ground between Alabama and California, so of course we do not see compromise - the deadlock accurately represents the desires of American public, I think. Extremes and deadlock do NOT, however, represent Colorado. Nasty tactics won't cause gridlock here - they'll cause a fight. And a fight raises the profile of important issues and, in Colorado, will lead to an election self-correcting. (Elections don't self-correct in Washington because, as they say, all politics is local.)

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

We already have a jam. If one side is unwilling to compromise on a middle ground bill, then that's the game, don't be naive. Also, those tactics are not what has broken Washington - the fact that the two sides really are that far apart has broken Washington. There is no middle ground between Alabama and California, so of course we do not see compromise - the deadlock accurately represents the desires of American public, I think. Extremes and deadlock do NOT, however, represent Colorado. Nasty tactics won't cause gridlock here - they'll cause a fight. And a fight raises the profile of important issues and, in Colorado, will lead to an election self-correcting. (Elections don't self-correct in Washington because, as they say, all politics is local.)

I agree, Colorado is a REAL purple state. People distrust both parties, and expect compromise and are ready, willing and able to punish either party at the polls who won't work in good faith.

It's all carrots and sticks - thus far, those supporting these measures haven't gotten the right mix of the two to break the damn. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I agree, Colorado is a REAL purple state.

I disagree.

Denver / Boulder are pretty solidly blue & the rest of the state is pretty red. The divide between Weld / Yuma county compared to Denver / Boulder county is not much different than the divide between California and Alabama.

I suppose that makes Colorado purple as a whole, but you get my point hopefully

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Scottk

I disagree.

Denver / Boulder are pretty solidly blue & the rest of the state is pretty red. The divide between Weld / Yuma county compared to Denver / Boulder county is not much different than the divide between California and Alabama.

I suppose that makes Colorado purple as a whole, but you get my point hopefully

But elections aren't decided in those places, they're decided in Arapahoe County, Adams County, etc. There are plenty of people around here who will still vote a split ticket, or switch when times call for it. It's how we get Republican AGs and Democratic Governors voted in the same election somewhat routinely.

[CherryCreek]

A state that can elect a Republican Senator, a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and Democratic governor all in the same election is about as purple as they come.

Originally Posted by Scottk

I disagree.

Denver / Boulder are pretty solidly blue & the rest of the state is pretty red.

Hmm. In addition to Denver, Broomfield, Arapahoe, Boulder, Jeffco and Adams counties, in the last election Hickenlooper won Alamosa, Clear Creek, Conejos, Costilla, Eagle, Gilpin, Gunnison, Huerfno, La Plata, Lake, Larimer, Ouray, Pitkin, Pueblo, Rout, Saguache, San Juan, San Miguel, and Summit counties.

For the 2012 Presidential election, I see deep blue counties, medium blue counties, light blue counties. I see dark red counties, medium red counties and barely red, "pink" counties. If Colorado is not a purple state there is no purple state.


Colorado 2012 Presidential Election

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

But elections aren't decided in those places, they're decided in Arapahoe County, Adams County, etc. There are plenty of people around here who will still vote a split ticket, or switch when times call for it. It's how we get Republican AGs and Democratic Governors voted in the same election somewhat routinely.

I think his point was that this isn't a state-wide election — we're talking about replacing individual representatives in pretty solid blue districts. And I'm sure the reps who killed the bill in committee did their homework and their advisors all gave them the green light based on polls, constituent letters, time to election…

Not that this kind of thing isn't possible, I mean we saw it recently with the 2nd amendment voters — but that was also not during a presidential election and for a cause that has much deeper pockets and better organized lobbyists.

[DownhomeDenver]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Downhome - Saw your new signature, looked up Paris, Texas, was not disappointed.


http://www.texasescapes.com/

Ryan, bless your heart

[Denver]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

I And I'm sure the reps who killed the bill in committee did their homework and their advisors all gave them the green light based on polls, constituent letters, time to election…

I have worked in the State House. None of the legislators, especially the ones in the House, have advisors. They are each given one Aide who is paid $12 an hour and generally know little to nothing about politics beyond how to write a form letter. I hate to say it but the members of the "Kill" committee voted the way they did because Hullinghorst told them to.

[DownhomeDenver]

2300 Welton is getting some good excavation.

And a construction fence is up at 2250 Welton. Not sure if it's going to be used for staging.